House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind colleagues that a deferred Division will take place today. Members should be aware that the timings have reverted to between 11.30 am and 2 pm, though they continue to take place in the Members’ Library. Members will cast their votes by placing the completed Division slip in one of the ballot boxes provided. If a Member has a proxy vote in operation, they must not vote in person in the deferred Division; their nominated proxy should vote on their behalf. I also remind colleagues of the importance of social distancing during the deferred Division and ask them to pick up a Division slip from the Vote Office and fill it in before they reach the Library if possible. The result will be announced in the Chamber at a convenient moment after the Division is over.
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
The UK shared prosperity fund will help to level up and create opportunities for people and places across the United Kingdom. The Government will co-ordinate funding on a UK-wide basis, working with the devolved Administrations and local communities to ensure that it is used most effectively. The Northern Ireland Executive and the other devolved Administrations will be represented in the fund’s governance structures to help target this funding to the people and places that are most in need.
Claire Hanna [V]
The spending of the shared prosperity fund, according to clauses in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, would override devolution, with no duty to consult on spend in devolved areas. We know that the internal market Bill intends to breach international law, and yesterday it was indicated that a further breach of international law was likely to come in the taxation Bill. Far from being limited and specific, it seems that disregard for the Good Friday agreement is unlimited while people desperately want certainty and a deal. Can the Secretary of State give us any assurances that next week’s Bill will not further undermine the Northern Ireland protocol and the chances of a deal and the certainty and the stability that people so desperately want?
Brandon Lewis
If the hon. Lady looks at the clauses in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, she will see that they are about protecting and delivering on the Good Friday agreement to ensure that there are no borders. To deliver that, it is important that we have no border not just north to south, but east to west as well. On the UK shared prosperity fund, if she looks at my answer to the substantive question, she will see that I was very clear that the devolved authorities would be part of that, but of course this is money over and above; this is extra money that we will be looking to spend—in the same way that the EU has always been able to spend— once we have left the EU to ensure that those communities have the support that we have said they would have.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that any spending requirements and demands made by and within Northern Ireland would be enhanced and likely to receive a more welcome ear in the Treasury and elsewhere were the Executive to crack ahead and create the independent fiscal council, which would act as a very convincing mouthpiece for those pleas?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a hugely important and very accurate point. I think we sometimes forget this but the fiscal council was actually first agreed back in the “Fresh Start” agreement of 2015 and recommitted to in the “New Decade, New Approach” deal of January this year. I have been talking to the Executive about this. I had hoped to see it up and running by the autumn. I think it is important that the Executive and the Department of Finance get on with this and deliver on it. It will help them for budgeting purposes and ensure that, in the same way that we have the Office for Budget responsibility and the Irish Government have an independent fiscal council, people can be clear about the transparency and understanding of the money being spent in Northern Ireland. I think it would be the right thing to do, and I am looking forward to seeing the Executive deliver it as quickly as possible.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
We want a relationship with the European Union that is based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals and centred on free trade. We will have a relationship with our European friends—one that is inspired by our shared history and values. The whole of the United Kingdom, including, of course, Northern Ireland, stands to benefit from such a trading relationship with the European Union. In fact, Northern Ireland businesses have a huge potential under the Northern Ireland protocol, and of course Northern Ireland will continue to enjoy tariff-free access to the EU market, alongside unfettered access to the whole of the UK.
John Mc Nally [V]
I hope you are well, Mr Speaker.
Scotland is the largest exporter of seed potatoes in the single market. It is a product on which a great many Northern Irish potato farmers rely. This has been placed under threat by the lack of equivalence between the UK and the EU after the transition period. When will the Minister confirm a date on our attaining equivalence on seed products? If he cannot give us a date, is that not more evidence that the Government do not care about Scotland’s farming communities?
Brandon Lewis
Actually, it is quite the contrary. The hon. Gentleman can look at the delivery of money last week, for farmers particularly. That is evidence of the Government’s determination to deliver on our commitment to, and our understanding of the importance of, the agriculture and farming community across the United Kingdom, with £315 million going to Northern Ireland farmers. Through the Joint Committee, we are working with the European Union on some of these final issues to ensure that we do have that free flow. We have been saying to our partners and colleagues in the EU that they need to play their part in being pragmatic about ensuring that we continue to see that sensible free flow of trade across the United Kingdom, as a sovereign nation.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
You look well, Mr Speaker.
The Secretary of State will recognise the importance to Northern Ireland businesses of getting agreement on the classification of qualifying goods and qualifying businesses as they relate to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland within the UK single market. What progress has been made on securing such agreement and on defining at-risk goods, and what measures will the Government bring forward in legislation to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses really do have unfettered access to the UK internal market?
Brandon Lewis
I should put it on record that I also think you look well, Mr Speaker.
On an equally serious note, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, this Government are committed to ensuring that Northern Ireland businesses have unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why we have taken the steps that we have taken in legislating for the first phase of unfettered access; that is what those clauses in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill are for. We are building on and learning from the discussions that we have had with businesses and the Northern Ireland Executive. We are pushing hard to secure agreement with the EU on a number of outstanding issues that relate to the protocol, including that of at-risk goods. We accept that tariffs should be paid on goods moving from Great Britain into the EU, but there should not be any tariffs on internal UK movements that begin in Great Britain and end in Northern Ireland; they are internal movements. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not able to comment on the progress of the negotiations, although we are keen to move through them as quickly as possible. I reassure him that we are focused on those issues and are determined to deliver in full on our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank the Secretary of State for that helpful response. I am sure that he will agree that those who talk loudly about the Good Friday agreement are the people who are threatening the economic prosperity of Northern Ireland by insisting on measures that are completely unnecessary in terms of protecting the agreement. Will he therefore indicate what progress has been made in securing a commitment from the EU to a significant grace period to allow Northern Ireland businesses sufficient time to adjust to the new arrangements that will be introduced when the transition period ends on 31 December?
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman identifies, quite rightly, the importance of ensuring that there is no border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have accepted the sanitary and phytosanitary checks. We are working with the EU, and both the UK and EU have committed to that intensified process, as colleagues will have seen, and to resolving all outstanding issues with the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol, including securing the flexibilities that we need for trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
As I said, the discussions are ongoing. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to understand that I am limited in what I can say as I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions, but we continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive around the practical implications and operational delivery. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been working with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, and with industry, traders, representative bodies and local authorities to ensure that they are engaged, supported and ready for trading from January 2021. I encourage any business that has not already done so to sign up free with the Trader Support Service.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
The Secretary of State will know of the anger among Northern Irish businesspeople over the accusation by the ironically titled Minister for Efficiency and Transformation that they have their
“head stuck in the sand”
on Brexit. Only 30 days from the hard Brexit cliff edge, does the Secretary of State appreciate that most people will have far more sympathy with Northern Irish businessman, Stephen Kelly, who suggests that it is the Government who have their “head stuck somewhere else”? Is it not the case that Northern Ireland businesses have simply been an afterthought in his Government’s chaotic hard Brexit?
Brandon Lewis
If only the hon. Lady was talking to Northern Ireland businesses directly, as my team and I do regularly, most weeks. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), also engages with businesses in Northern Ireland, as we have been doing consistently throughout this process—including Stephen Kelly, who I do know. It is the information from businesses that fed into the Command Paper that we issued earlier in the year, as well as the guidance that we issued and the work that we are doing to ensure not just that we have unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to mainland Great Britain—I hope that she and other colleagues will support us in ensuring that it is in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to deliver unfettered access, which she claims in her question to support—but also that we get a good free flow of access to ensure that the whole UK internal market can work together, including Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) [V]
Given the fact that the Secretary of State has already admitted that the clauses removed by the Lords from the UK Internal Market Bill will break international law, and that the Irish Government, the new US President-elect and the people of Northern Ireland believe that those clauses breach the Northern Ireland protocol, will he commit today to not reinstating them in the Bill next week?
Brandon Lewis
Actually, what those clauses have been about is ensuring that we have unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to Great Britain. That is something inherent in the protocol. It plays a part in delivering on one of the key sentences in the first few paragraphs in the Northern Ireland protocol that says we will ensure that we do not disrupt the everyday lives of people in their communities. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would support us in ensuring the Northern Ireland businesses can trade in mainland Great Britain as part of the United Kingdom. That is what those clauses are about, as an insurance policy, but obviously our main focus and aim is to secure the right agreement for a wider free trade agreement with the EU, and, indeed, to work with the specialist Joint Committee.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
We have published guidance throughout the year and are providing extensive support to Northern Ireland businesses. For instance, as I mentioned, we have the Trader Support Service, which is backed by £200 million of funding from the UK Government, and has been well received—it has now had over 16,000 registrations. As we approach the end of the year, we will continue to provide detailed sectoral guidance and information on Government support, and we will step that up as we approach the conclusion of the negotiations to ensure that clear, accessible messages and guidance are provided as soon as possible.
Stephen Farry [V]
With barely 700 hours to go until the end of the transition period, it is absurd that so many issues still need to be clarified. Does the Secretary of State recognise that Northern Ireland businesses require a clear legal framework in which to operate, and as such, any changes or mitigations have to be agreed with the EU under the protocol, including potentially any grace period, and that doing the opposite places Northern Ireland businesses in a very uncertain legal position going forward and will create long-term problems for them arising from such unilateral action by the Government?
Brandon Lewis
There is a range of things that businesses can be doing and should be doing now, regardless of what the outcome may be, such as signing up to the Trader Support Service. We are intensifying, and have intensified, our work with the specialist Joint Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in supporting the clauses in the UK Internal Market Bill that will give businesses certainty by delivering unfettered access to the whole of the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have been contacted by a large number of my constituents who are involved in the agrifood sector and other businesses. With special reference to the packaging of products and the new labelling structure, I am ever mindful of the approach of 31 December, which has a cost factor for the labels as well. What information has been released for manufacturing companies to have certainty over their packaging?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that underlines why we are working with him to provide as much certainty as possible. On this particular matter, I am pleased to be able to tell him that we have recently updated our guidance on labelling changes that are required at the end of the transition period. That guidance is now available on gov.uk, and I will make sure that my office sends him the link so that he can send it on to any of those businesses that are inquiring already.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
The Secretary of State and I have regular conversations with ministerial colleagues regarding transport connections, which are particularly important for Northern Ireland, given its unique geography. The recently announced independent Union connectivity review will consider how connectivity across the UK can support economic growth. Both the Secretary of State and I have met Sir Peter Hendy and look forward to hearing his recommendations in the summer.
John Lamont
Does the Minister agree that good transport links between all parts of the United Kingdom are vital, and it is therefore extremely disappointing that the Scottish Government are refusing to engage with the Union connectivity review, thereby depriving my constituents of good transport links in all parts of Scotland and better links with other parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr Walker
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Every part of the United Kingdom can benefit from investment in our shared infrastructure and connectivity. Unwillingness to engage with the review risks Scotland missing out, and I would certainly urge the Scottish Government to rethink. They should follow the example of the Minister for Infrastructure in the Northern Ireland Executive, who has been engaging constructively with the review.
Jane Stevenson
My father left Northern Ireland in the 1950s and settled in Wolverhampton, which has a large Northern Irish community. It is the same for many communities across Great Britain, including in Scotland. Does the Minister agree that excellent transport links to Northern Ireland are absolutely crucial, and will he make that clear to Sir Peter Hendy as part of the Union connectivity review?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I recognise, having many Irish and Northern Irish constituents myself, that it is vital that there are excellent transport links across the Irish Sea for trade, for tourism, for the Union and to bring families together. The review will make recommendations on how best to improve connectivity across the UK, including across the Irish Sea, and in the long term certainly we will be making that case to the review.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The main threat to our connectivity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom over the winter is the unprofitability of airlines due to the covid restrictions. In the medium term, new routes need to be opened to business centres in Europe. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will discuss with the Treasury, first, the reduction or suspension of air passenger duty for a limited period of time and, secondly, what help can be given to opening new routes between Northern Ireland and business centres in Europe?
Mr Walker
The Secretary of State and I work closely with colleagues across Government and in the Executive to support the Northern Ireland economy and make the case on air connectivity. There have been discussions with the Department for Transport and, indeed, the Treasury on those matters. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Treasury is reviewing the air passenger duty issue.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
The Government and the devolved Administrations continue to work closely together to ensure a co-ordinated approach across the United Kingdom. As set out in our joint statement of 25 September, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations hold a
“shared commitment to suppressing the virus to the lowest possible level and keeping it there”.
Today’s news about a vaccine will be welcomed across every part of the United Kingdom. I was pleased we could agree a united approach to Christmas planning last week. Although each devolved Administration control their public health policy, we have been co-ordinating positively on our response to covid throughout the year.
Mr Vara
Coronavirus knows no boundaries, and it is absolutely vital that the UK Government, the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly work together to deal with it. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely crucial that we have effective co-operation—north-south and east-west—and a co-ordinated approach to dealing with this pandemic?
Mr Walker
I strongly endorse the words of my hon. Friend. This Government are determined to work together with the Northern Irish Executive and the Irish Government to ensure that measures safeguard the health and wellbeing of UK and Irish citizens. There is an existing memorandum of understanding between the chief medical officers for Northern Ireland and for Ireland, which formalises co-ordination and co-operation between the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive in relation to covid-19. The Secretary of State continues to hold regular discussions with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as well as the Irish Government, to co-operate on covid issues.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) [V]
With the positive news that the UK will commence covid-19 vaccinations from 14 December, will the Secretary of State commit that if logistical support from Her Majesty’s armed forces is required in Northern Ireland, it will be provided speedily and with the same resources as the rest of our nation?
I would just like to take a little bit of a liberty, Mr Speaker, and take this opportunity to express my deep disappointment that once again the six-time world superbike champion and South Antrim native Jonathan Rea MBE was overlooked for the shortlist of the BBC’s sports personality of the year. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree with me on that.
Mr Walker
I fear to tread in such a contentious area. The hon. Gentleman is right that the news on a vaccine is good news for the whole United Kingdom. We want to ensure that it is rolled out effectively across the whole United Kingdom, and we shall certainly make representations to ensure that that includes Northern Ireland.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
The Government continue to be committed to integrated education in Northern Ireland, which is why we provided £500 million of funding to the Northern Ireland Executive for the development of integrated and shared schools as part of the “Fresh Start” agreement. The Executive have confirmed that they have so far spent £31 million to the end of 2019-20, and the full £500 million of “Fresh Start” capital has been committed to the end of 2025-26. We want to see investment delivered quickly in Northern Ireland, and the establishment of an independent fiscal council would support the Assembly to hold the Executive to account on delivery, as well as on other fiscal and budgetary matters.
Alex Cunningham
Who we learn with and live alongside could scarcely be more fundamental to how we see the world. Integrated education is one of the major unfulfilled legacies of the Good Friday agreement. Is it not time to seize the opportunity presented by the “New Decade, New Approach” deal and together drive real progress on shared education that will build a fairer society?
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Last March, I was pleased to host the Integrated Education Fund here in Westminster. We had a very positive cross-party discussion with the fund about how we all support our shared desire to ensure that every child in Northern Ireland gets a good education in a good school. Despite the pandemic, good progress is being made on the ground with the parties to support children. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister commit to doing all they can to support them in delivering this long overdue legacy work?
Mr Walker
I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of this issue. As she knows, under the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement, the Executive agreed to establish a programme for government, including an
“Enhanced strategic focus and supporting actions on educating our children and young people together in the classroom, in order to build a shared and integrated society.”
I have met some of the Northern Irish parties to discuss progress on delivering shared and integrated education, and I share their ambition to speed up delivery. I believe that the establishment of an independent fiscal council would help to accelerate that delivery.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
Our commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods to the rest of the UK, as outlined in NDNA and the 2019 manifesto, remains unequivocal. We have brought forward draft regulations that establish the definition of qualifying Northern Ireland goods, ensuring no changes in how Northern Ireland businesses move goods directly to the rest of the UK from 1 January 2021. The UKIM Bill will ensure that qualifying Northern Ireland goods will continue to be placed on the whole UK market, even where the protocol applies different rules in Northern Ireland. Our priority for a longer-term qualifying goods regime is to confer the benefits of unfettered access specifically on Northern Ireland businesses. That is being developed in close co-operation with Northern Ireland businesses and the Executive and will come into force in 2021.
Virginia Crosbie
More than 100,000 freight units destined to and from Northern Ireland transit through Holyhead port each year. Unfettered access is key to not only the Northern Ireland economy but the Anglesey and Welsh economy. Can the Minister confirm that at no stage will this Government allow a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and that that is just as important as avoiding a tariffs and customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is right, and I know that her constituency of Ynys Môn plays a vital part in the links between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The protocol was designed to address a particular set of problems in a way that upholds the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is a practical solution to avoid a hard border with Ireland, while ensuring that the UK, including Northern Ireland, leaves the EU as a whole. The protocol is also clear that the UK must function as a single customs territory in practice, and that means fulfilling our commitment to delivering unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the rest of the Great Britain market as well.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
The Government remain steadfast in our commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and we will continue to support the institutions in delivering peace and prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland. A key institution created as a result of the agreement is the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was restored this year following the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement in January. The best way forward for Northern Ireland lies in strong devolved institutions that support the Executive and Assembly to deliver on the issues that matter to the people of Northern Ireland.
Alison McGovern
The Good Friday agreement comes of age today, as it became effective 21 years ago. It provided a platform for the development of excellent economic and social relationships between Northern Ireland and Merseyside. What conversations has the Secretary of State had to ensure that nothing that happens in the next month puts that progress at risk?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. That is exactly what the clauses in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill are about—ensuring that businesses in Northern Ireland continue to trade as part of the United Kingdom with unfettered access, which is of benefit to companies in Liverpool, so I hope she will support the Bill when it comes back to the House.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Last week alone, three journalists were issued with violent threats by loyalist paramilitaries. The BBC has seen evidence that loyalist paramilitary groups have over 12,500 members, and there are more dissident groups than during the troubles. Does the Secretary of State agree that a toxic combination of deprivation and a failure to deal with the legacy of the past has created a fertile breeding ground for paramilitary groups?
Brandon Lewis
I am sure the hon. Lady would agree with me that obviously there is no place for violence or threats of any description to anybody in Northern Ireland, including media and political players in Northern Ireland. It is completely unacceptable. There is no excuse for it, and actually arguing that it is in any way acceptable because of any other particular issue is, I think, a fallacy and the wrong position to take. I have to say that we are making huge investments. There has obviously been about £20 billion for the Northern Ireland Executive this year, between the block grant and the extra support that the UK Government have put in, on top of having what are financially the biggest city and growth deals in the United Kingdom to ensure that we are levelling up. That is something we are determined to do for the people of Northern Ireland, as we are for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Louise Haigh
On Monday, the Secretary of State told the House that he had ceased engaging on legacy issues at the request of victims groups, but he knows that the largest cross-community victims group in Northern Ireland, the WAVE Trauma Centre, has expressed serious concerns at his lack of engagement and, indeed, has described him as “dangerously deluded”. Can he confirm to the House exactly when he will meet those at the WAVE Trauma Centre and when he will present an update on legacy proposals to this House?
Brandon Lewis
I am a little bit surprised by what the hon. Lady just outlined, as it was actually the WAVE group that, back in March, asked us to pause on engagement as it and its members were focused on covid, which I think was a reasonable position. I think it was right, as people were focused on covid. However, as I have said a few times to the hon. Lady and to this House, I think that action on legacy, which is such a sensitive and important issue, to make sure we can help Northern Ireland move forward and put the troubles in the past is an important thing to do. It is also important to get that information for the victims and the families of victims who have been looking for that information now for far too long. We are determined to do that by engaging with the people of Northern Ireland, as well as our partners in the Irish Government and the United States and the political parties in Northern Ireland, and when we have done that, I will come back to this House. However, this has to be something that is done with the support of and engagement with the people of Northern Ireland.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Today, I am proudly wearing purple to celebrate the International Day for Disabled People, which is of course tomorrow. Next year, we will publish our national strategy for disabled people, which will be the most ambitious intervention in this area for a generation, putting fairness at the heart of the Government’s work and levelling up so that everybody has the opportunity fully to participate in the life of this country.
I know that the whole House will want to join me in welcoming the fantastic news that the MHRA—the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency—has formally authorised the Pfizer vaccine for covid-19. The vaccine will begin to be made available across the UK from next week. I would like to pay tribute to and to thank all those who have made this possible. It is the protection of vaccines that will ultimately allow us to reclaim our lives and get our economy moving again.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Chris Green
I would like to share in the congratulations of the Prime Minister on the creation of this new vaccine and the speed with which it has been got out, and to give those congratulations especially to the engineers, technicians and scientists who have delivered it. I believe that we should support the widest distribution and take-up of safe and effective medicines, but does my right hon Friend agree with me that it should always be taken on a wholly voluntary basis by individuals and families?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely. I strongly urge people to take up the vaccine, but it is no part of our culture or our ambition in this country to make vaccines mandatory. That is not how we do things.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in his comments on disabled people?
Like the Prime Minister, can I start with the fantastic news about the licensing of a vaccine? This pandemic has caused so much grief and so much loss, but we are now a big step closer to the end of the tunnel. Like the Prime Minister, can I express my thanks and the thanks of everyone on these Benches and across the House to all the scientists who have worked on this and to everybody who has taken part in the trials. Delivering a vaccine fairly, quickly and safely will now be the next major challenge facing the country, and whatever our differences across this House, we have all a duty to play our part in this national effort and to reassure the public about the safety of the vaccine.
This morning, a priority list has been published for the first phase of the roll-out. We understand that around 800,000 doses will soon be available, and that is good news. Because of the two doses that will be required, that means 400,000 people can be vaccinated in the first batch. So can the Prime Minister tell the House: who does he expect to receive the vaccine next week?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point about the roll-out, and I will perhaps update the House on what the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has concluded so far. The priority list will be: residents in a care home for older adults, and their carers, in order to stop transmission; those of 80 years of age or older; front-line health care and social care workers; all those of 75 years of age and over; all those of 70 years of age and over; and clinically extremely vulnerable individuals. There is then a list that I am sure the House will want to study closely, but that I believe represents common sense.
It is important at this stage for us all to recognise that this is unquestionably good news—it is very, very good news—but it is by no means the end of the story; it is not the end of our national struggle against coronavirus. That is why it is important that the package of moderately tough measures that the House voted for last night—the tiering system—is followed across the country, because that is how we will continue to beat the virus.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister has referenced the priorities for the first phase, and as he said, the top two priority groups are residents in care homes for older adults and their carers, all those of 80 years of age and over, and front-line health and social care workers. I am not criticising that list in the slightest, but it is obvious that that is more than 400,000 people. The Prime Minister will understand how anxious people in those particular groups are, after having sacrificed so much. Will he give the House the answer to the question that they will be asking this morning, which is: by when does he expect that all people in those two top groups can expect to be vaccinated?
The Prime Minister
At this stage it is very important that people do not get their hopes up too soon about the speed with which we will be able to roll out this vaccine. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said, it is beginning from next week, and we are expecting several million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine before the end of the year. We will then be rolling it out as fast as we possibly can. That is why I put so much emphasis on the continuing importance of the tiering system and of mass community testing, at the same time as we go forward through these tough winter months. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to ask about timetables, but at the same time as we roll out the vaccine over the next few weeks, we will need to keep that tough tiering and testing regime in place.
Keir Starmer
May I press the Prime Minister a bit further about the plan for care homes? I do so because we all want this to work. The top category is residents in care homes, and this will obviously be a huge concern for many people. This morning the Welsh Government have already raised some serious practical problems about the delivery of vaccines into care homes, bearing in mind the temperatures at which the vaccines have to be stored. The Prime Minister must know that this is going to be a four-nation problem, and he must be aware that this problem will arise. We all want to overcome that problem, and in that spirit I ask the Prime Minister what plans he has put in place to address the particular problems of getting the vaccine safely and quickly into care homes, given the practical difficulties of doing so, and the anxiety that those in care homes will have about getting it quickly?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right to raise the issue of care homes and our ability to distribute this particular type of vaccine rapidly into care homes, because it does need to be kept at minus 70°, as I think the House understands, so there are logistical challenges to be overcome to get vulnerable people the access to the vaccine that they need. We are working on it with all the devolved Administrations in order to ensure that the NHS across the country—it is the NHS that will be in the lead—is able to distribute it as fast and as sensibly as possible to the most vulnerable groups.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise that particular logistical difficulty. That is why it is also important that we get the AstraZeneca vaccine, which we hope will also come on stream. While he is paying tribute to those who have been involved in the vaccines, perhaps he could also pay tribute to the work of the vaccine taskforce, which secured the deal with Pfizer and which he, I think, criticised only a few weeks ago.
Keir Starmer
I pay tribute to everybody who has got us this far, and we will work with all of them to get us where we need to go next. This has to be something that we all pull together to deliver as quickly and safely as possible over the next few months. I have made that offer to the Prime Minister before, and I do it again.
It is in that vein that I turn to the next question, which is about public confidence in the vaccine. That is a real cause for concern, because it is going to be crucial to the success of getting this rolled out across the country and getting our economy back up and running. As the Prime Minister knows, we have the highest regulatory and medical safety standards in the world, but it is really important that we do everything possible to counter dangerous, frankly life-threatening disinformation about vaccines. The Opposition have called for legislation to be introduced to clamp down on this, with financial penalties for companies that fail to act. Will the Prime Minister work with us on this and bring forward emergency legislation in the coming days, which I think the whole House would support?
The Prime Minister
We are, of course, working to tackle all kinds of disinformation across the internet. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to single out the anti-vaxxers and those who I think are totally wrong in their approach, and he is right to encourage take-up of vaccines across the country. We will be publishing a paper very shortly on online harms designed to tackle the very disinformation that he speaks of.
Keir Starmer
May I also urge the Prime Minister, once the Government have a communications plan for the vaccine, to share it with the House so that we can all say the same thing in the same way to the country and thus encourage as many people as possible to take up the vaccine?
The arrival of the vaccine is obviously wonderful news, but it will come too late for many who have lost their jobs already. I want to turn to the collapse of the Arcadia Group and Debenhams in the last 48 hours. That has put 25,000 jobs at risk and obviously caused huge anxiety to many families at the worst possible time, and it threatens to rip the heart out of many high streets in our towns and cities. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what he is going to do now to protect the jobs and pensions of all those affected by these closures?
The Prime Minister
We are looking at what we can do to protect all the jobs that are being lost currently across the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has written to the Insolvency Service to look at the conduct of the Arcadia directors, and we will be doing everything we can to restore the high streets of this country with our £1 billion high streets fund and the levelling-up fund. But I must say that I think it is a bit much that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should attack the economic consequences of the fight against coronavirus when last night neither he nor his troops could be bothered to vote for measures—sensible, balanced measures—that would open up the economy and allow businesses to trade. How can he attack the economic consequences of our battle against coronavirus when he will not even support measures to open up the economy?
Keir Starmer
When I abstain, I come to the House and explain. When the Prime Minister abstains, he runs away to Afghanistan and gives the taxpayer a £20,000 bill.
On the question of jobs, there are serious questions that need to be answered about the collapse of these businesses. I do not want the Prime Minister to deflect from that and what it means for these many families. This is not an isolated incident; over 200,000 retail jobs have been lost this year—that is 200,000 individuals and their families—and 20,000 stores have been closed on our high street, and that is before the latest restrictions. I suspect that if we had seen that scale of job losses in any other sector, there would have been much greater action already.
I urge the Prime Minister to take this seriously; do not deflect. As well as providing emergency support, will he work with us, the trade unions and the sector to finally bring forward a comprehensive plan to save retail jobs and to provide the sector with the much greater support it needs through this crisis? These are real people, Prime Minister, with real jobs and families, who are facing the sack. They really need to hear from you.
The Prime Minister
We are, of course, supporting every job we possibly can, as well as supporting every life and every livelihood, with a £200 billion programme. I would take the right hon. and learned Gentleman more seriously, frankly, if he actually could be bothered to vote for a moderate programme to keep the virus down and open up the economy. We are getting on with our programme of rolling out the vaccine and sensible tiering measures, in addition to which we are delivering 40 more hospitals and 20,000 more police officers. He talks about abstention. When it came to protecting our veterans from unfair prosecution, he chose to abstain. When it came to protecting the people of this country from coronavirus at this critical moment, he told his troops to abstain. Captain Hindsight is rising rapidly up the ranks and has become General Indecision. That is what is happening, I am afraid, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He dithers; we get on with the job.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a magnificent and doughty campaigner for Wakefield. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will listen very closely to his call for the national infrastructure bank to be established in Wakefield. My hon. Friend should wait on events.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
This morning, for the first time in months, people have woken up with a genuine sense of hope. The news on the vaccine approval is the news we have all been waiting for. For many, however, that hope on the horizon remains far too distant. There are millions who still have not had a single penny of support from this UK Government. As others rightly received help, they received none. Prime Minister, yesterday I met ExcludedUK, which represents many of those 3 million citizens. For the past nine months, the excluded have been living without any help and without any hope. It is now, tragically, costing lives. Prime Minister, they told me something genuinely shocking. They are aware of eight people who have taken their lives in the past 10 days—eight people in 10 days. Prime Minister, we are now a little over three weeks from Christmas. These people need help. Will the Prime Minister commit to looking again at the support package for the excluded, to ensure that no one, but no one, is left behind?
The Prime Minister
I obviously sympathise very much with those who have taken their lives and their families. This has been a very tough time for the country. We are investing massively in mental health support across the country, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, which flows through, in Barnett consequentials, to Scotland. We have put in a huge package of support. He knows this, but I must repeat this for self-employed people across the country. I know there are hard-to-reach people, but they are also supported with the increases in universal credit and the many other means of support that are currently on offer. When we look at the overall level of support this Government have given the people across the country, it compares favourably with any other Government around the world.
Ian Blackford
I have to say, and I do this with regret, that that simply is not good enough. These people need help, and I am asking the Prime Minister to think very carefully about this. This has been an abject failure by this UK Government, and the Prime Minister has been missing in action. The Government have U-turned on almost everything else, so why cannot the Prime Minister and the Chancellor change their minds on their support for these 3 million people? These are people working in construction, creative industries, events, education, hospitality, retail and healthcare. They have not just been left behind; they have been ignored for nine months. The Chancellor has repeatedly dodged this issue. ExcludedUK has not been offered one formal meeting with a Government Minister. Will the Prime Minister commit today to a meeting and working with ExcludedUK on a meaningful package of support, or is he simply going to abandon these people three weeks from Christmas?
The Prime Minister
We have abandoned nobody and we are continuing to support people. In addition to the support I have already mentioned, we have announced nearly £400 million to support vulnerable children and their families through the winter. We have increased universal credit, as I just mentioned to the House, increased the local housing allowance and provided billions more to local authorities to help those who are hardest to reach. I may say to the right hon. Gentleman that the best way to help the self-employed, and to help the economy of this whole country, is to get us moving again with the package of measures that the House voted for last night to allow retail to start up again and to allow business to start up again—
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman says it is shameful. We on the Government side of the House do not think retail is shameful. We want businesses to open up again, and that is the nature of the package that was voted for last night, which I think was quite right. It is a great, great shame that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) could not bring himself to support it.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign. Any decision to allow for the sale of the hospital is, of course, a matter for the local clinical commissioning group, but I know that he fully supports the £12 million that we put in for the development of a new health and wellbeing centre for Edenbridge.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Llefarydd. I would like to add my voice to those welcoming the licensing of the vaccine; this really is a ray of light in dark times.
Last week, the Prime Minister’s Government published their statement of funding, showing a reduction in the amount that Wales receives from transport spend in England, from 80.9% to 36.6%. This reveals in black and white the iniquity of the rail betrayal being inflicted on Wales. Welsh taxpayers are paying for English transport and HS2, but we do not get a fair return. Will he inform the House how much investment he is funnelling away from Wales due to his Government’s decision to label this white elephant an England and Wales scheme, despite not a single inch of the railway being in Wales?
The Prime Minister
I simply fail to recognise the characterisation that the right hon. Lady makes of investment across the whole of the UK. The Welsh Government will receive an additional £1.3 billion next year. We are providing £240 million more to support Welsh farmers and £2.1 million to support fisheries in Wales. The last time I looked at transport in Wales, the Welsh Labour Government spent £144 million on plans for an M4 bypass, which they then junked.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I congratulate the three female entrepreneurs whom my hon. Friend mentioned. They will be helped by the vaccine, they will be allowed to do business again, and what a shame it is that our programme, which was sensibly and safely to open up the economy, was not supported by the Leader of the Opposition.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Gentleman wants to keep this country in the EU, which I think was the gist of what he was saying, he will be sorely disappointed and so will the Labour party.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend reminds me that it is Small Business Saturday this Saturday. Everybody should be shopping local. I can also tell him that the Treasury is considering the responses to the call for evidence on business rates ahead of the review’s conclusion in the spring.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are doing a huge amount to support our aviation industry, but I appreciate the stress and difficulties that many families are in at the moment because of the threats to that sector, which are global, alas, because people are just not flying in the way that they were before the pandemic. I have every hope that it will bounce back very strongly, particularly in this country, which is a world leader in aviation, once we get the economy moving again, as I hope we can.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent suggestion. He is a great champion of small business. Every measure that the Government produce is judged by the effect or impact it will have on businesses large and small. As he knows, we are also providing for these particularly difficult circumstances about £100 billion in business support—the bounce back loans and many other forms of support—but the best thing for businesses large and small is for us to shop local, as I said earlier, and to allow the economy cautiously and prudently to reopen.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I would take the hon. Lady’s point more seriously if she and her party could be bothered to vote for measures—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
I am sorry—she defied the Labour Whip. Forgive me, Mr Speaker. She defied the injunction to dither from the ditherer-in-chief. She did not obey his instruction to dither. I would take her more seriously if her party leader would vote for measures that would open up the economy while protecting lives across the UK.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I repeat what I said to the House several times yesterday afternoon. Of course we want to reflect local conditions as closely and accurately as we can in taking our decisions about tiering, but we must look at the entire national picture. On his point about internal combustion engines, I would just remind him that a hydrogen engine can also be an internal combustion engine.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. She is raising an important issue. I know that many people suffer from the syndrome that she describes, and I will ensure that she gets a proper meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss her objectives.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is completely right about the importance of the new UK shared prosperity fund. It will be different from the levelling-up fund and we are going to work closely with him and with people in Cornwall to ensure that we use the additional funding best for the needs of people and communities in Cornwall.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
On the last point, that is a matter for the Scottish Government, who have the fiscal freedom to do that. I thank health and social care workers in Scotland and across the whole country, and I am proud of the increases we have been able to put in—12.8% over the past three years, and a pay rise for 1 million people in the NHS, as part of the biggest ever investment in the NHS, even before covid began. This investment will continue under this Government.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am proud that the UK led the way in instituting a target of net zero by 2050; of all the developed nations, we were the first. We are looking at our nationally determined contribution, which will be extremely ambitious and will be published around the time of the climate summit on 12 December this year.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I just repeat the point I made earlier about the huge sums the Government have invested in looking after families’ lives and livelihoods across the whole of the UK—this is well north of £200 billion now. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there has been a UC uplift of £1,000. We will continue to support families across this country throughout the pandemic, but the objective must be, as I hope he would agree, to get the economy moving again and get people back into work in the way that everybody would want. It is a fact that under this Government, despite all the difficulties we have faced, the unemployment rate is lower than that in France, Spain, Italy, Canada and the United States. We will continue to work to look after every job that we can.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Binley Woods local pharmacy
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents in my constituency of Rugby regarding the decision by NHS England to remove the local pharmaceutical services contract from MW Phillips Chemist in the village of Binley Woods, which is where I grew up. The petition has run alongside an online petition on the same issue. Together, the two petitions have been signed by 849 people.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Rugby,
Declares that the local pharmacy in Binley Woods is a lifeline and hub to more than 3,000 residents; and further that it is deplorable that NHS England and NHS Improvement, Midlands Region, have decided to remove the Local Pharmaceutical Services (LPS) Contract from the Pharmacy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with NHS England and reverse this decision, and to ensure that the pharmacy can continue to provide medical, wellbeing and social care for both the young and elderly population within Binley Woods and the adjacent villages.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002631]
Independent Review of Dyfed-Powys Police
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
My constituents and their daughter Carina were put through months and years of anguish on the basis of evidence collected against National Policing Improvement Agency guidance for which the police have never apologised, so I rise to present to the House the petition of Julia and Robin Burn.
The petition states:
The petition of Julia and Robin Burn,
Declares that, in 2010, in conducting their investigations into allegations made against the petitioners, Dyfed-Powys Police did not proceed in accordance with the appropriate National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) guidance; further declares that these allegations were later found to be groundless and without merit; further that this resulted in the petitioners’ mute autistic daughter being taken into local authority care for six months; and further that, after no further action was taken, no attempt was made to return her.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to instigate an independent review of Dyfed-Powys Police’s handling of this case.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002633]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now suspend the House for three minutes in order to allow the safe exit of Members participating in the previous item of business and the safe arrival of those who anticipate with great delight the next item of business.
Sitting suspended.
Arcadia and Debenhams: Business Support and Job Retention
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement on support for business and the retention of jobs on the high street in light of the announcement of Arcadia entering administration and Debenhams going into liquidation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
Speaking as the retail Minister, let me say that I hope the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) realises that although the Secretary of State is not here, we take this incredibly seriously. That is why I want to focus on the detail, because it is a worrying time for the retail sector, particularly for those affected by the announcements this week.
On Monday, Arcadia Group Ltd, which employs approximately 13,000 people, appointed administrators, who are assessing all options available to the group. They will honour orders made over the black Friday weekend. No redundancies have yet been announced and existing sales channels will continue to operate while administrators evaluate options. The Secretary of State has written to the Insolvency Service asking that it expedites consideration of the administrators’ report. Yesterday, Debenhams, which employs approximately 12,000 people, announced the decision of administrators to wind down the company. No redundancies have been announced and existing sales channels will continue to operate while administrators evaluate options. We know that this will be a worrying time for employees and their families, and we stand ready to support them. I pay a particular tribute to the hard-working staff, who have kept these well recognised businesses going in difficult times for so long.
Although the Government have no role in the strategic direction or management of private retail companies, we are in regular contact with both companies and the administrators in order to understand fully the situation they are facing. The coronavirus crisis has made life difficult for retailers such as Arcadia and Debenhams, particularly those that were already facing challenging trading conditions before the pandemic. We acted quickly at the start of the pandemic to deliver one of the most generous and comprehensive economic packages in the world. It included: the coronavirus job retention scheme, which up to 30 September had provided £7.7 billion-worth of support to companies in the retail and wholesale sector; removing all eligible properties in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors from business rates for 12 months—that is worth more than £10 billion; cash grants of up to £25,000 for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses with a rateable value of between £15,000 and £51,000; more than £50 billion in business loans, which supported 9.6 million jobs and provided flexibility; and legislation to protect commercial tenants from eviction.
Through the plan for jobs, we have also announced a series of measures to protect, support and create jobs, including our £2 billion kickstart scheme and a doubling of the number of frontline work coaches, which will be important in this situation in particular. The Government have committed to supporting the retail sector, and we are working closely with industry through these unprecedented times, particularly to ensure the safe reopening of non-essential retail today. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary encouraged local authorities to allow shops to open for extended hours, to accommodate more shoppers safely in the lead-up to Christmas. I will continue to work with the sector to meet future challenges. Indeed, I will co-chair the next meeting of the Retail Sector Council tomorrow to discuss our strategic approach to the sector. I have regular retail calls, including one last week, with representatives from Arcadia among the retailers on that call. We are confident that the sector has the skills, knowledge and drive to bounce back.
Edward Miliband
Let me join the Minister in expressing deep sympathy for those who are at risk of losing their jobs. The test of Government, and indeed the House, is whether that sympathy translates into action, so I have four specific questions for him.
First, Philip Green owes workers at Arcadia a moral duty. His family took from the company a dividend worth £1.2 billion, the largest in UK history, more than three times the size of the pension deficit. Workers at Arcadia should not pay the price of Philip Green’s greed, so will the Minister now publicly call for Philip Green to make good any shortfall in the pension scheme, and will he ensure that the Pensions Regulator takes all possible steps to make sure that that happens?
Secondly, we need to learn lessons. In the summer, Labour tabled amendments to the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Bill to make pension fund holders priority creditors when businesses went bust. The Minister said it was not necessary. Does he now agree that that was a mistake, that that change would have better protected the pensions at Arcadia and that this should be put right through legislation in the future?
Thirdly, on the workers at Debenhams and Arcadia facing redundancy, given the scale of redundancies and the grim economic backdrop, will the Minister look at providing specific and targeted help for them to get back into work? Fourthly, we have an emergency on our high streets, with an estimated 20,000 shops closing and 200,000 workers losing their jobs since the economic crisis began. While we welcome the support that has been provided, will he recognise that the Government must do more: extend the rent evictions moratorium beyond December, when it is due to expire; increase support for hospitality businesses, which was called for across the House yesterday; and address the massive disadvantage that high street businesses face around business rates compared with online retailers?
Today is a day of great news on the vaccine, but the Government have a massive responsibility to preserve the businesses and jobs we will need on the other side of this crisis. They are still not acting on a scale that meets the economic emergency our country faces. They need to do so.
Paul Scully
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising some really important points. On pension schemes and support for those facing redundancy, the majority of defined pension schemes are run effectively. We are fortunate to have a robust and flexible system of pension protection in the UK. The independent Pensions Regulator has a range of powers to protect pension schemes, and it works closely with those involved. For schemes where the employer goes insolvent, the Pension Protection Fund is there to help protect the members. Anybody already in receipt of a pension will continue to be paid, and other members will receive at least Pension Protection Fund compensation levels. The Pension Protection Fund is confident that its funding plan investment approach positions it well to weather the current market volatility and future challenges.
It would not be appropriate at this stage for Ministers to comment on individual cases, which are a matter for the regulator. However, in respect of staff facing possible redundancy, the Department for Work and Pensions’ rapid response service has been in ongoing conversations with Debenhams and has now been in contact with Arcadia. Both have been offered support by the rapid response service, including connecting people to jobs in the labour market, helping with job search—including CV writing, interview skills, where to find jobs and how to apply for them—helping to identify transferable skills and skills gaps linked to the local labour market and what benefits they may get and how to claim. I talked about the fact that we have doubled the number of workplace support staff in Jobcentre Plus. Clearly, knowing where the big stores are, for Debenhams in particular, we will be able to offer that sort of targeted support.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about his proposed changes to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill. This was a matter of balance, because elevating pension debts, which can often be quite large, will by its very nature dilute the amount available to trade and credit suppliers, but also to other suppliers, including people with unpaid wages. It is trying to get that complexity and balance right.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talks about hospitality and support for other sectors. Clearly, the high street is an ecosystem—it is not only about shops and retail. We need to make sure that we do as much as we can to continue to wrap our arms around the economy at this particularly challenging time. As he acknowledges, there is light at the end of the tunnel, but we must not take our foot off the gas. We must remain alert, in terms of our own behaviours, as community members going up and down the high street, shopping local where we can to support retailers as they remain open, but also as a Government, making sure that we support the retail and hospitality sectors through both the support that I mentioned but also through encouraging them to be able to trade and remain open in all three tiers as best we can.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
I am sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with employees of Debenhams and Arcadia, who face huge uncertainty this week, particularly in the run-up to Christmas. These are long-standing bastions of the high street. However, both organisations have been struggling for quite some time; indeed, Debenhams has been in administration since January. While no redundancies have yet been announced, many of my constituents will be affected. Can my hon. Friend assure me that, if the worst were to happen, the Government are ready to support anyone affected, whether through jobcentres or universal credit?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know her constituents will be concerned about this. We are prepared to step up concentration within Jobcentre Plus. We will make sure there is support for people in finding jobs and for retaining as many jobs as possible on our high streets.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]
I am sure the Minister agrees that there is a great deal of public affection for the Arcadia brands and in particular for Debenhams. While we must hope that redundancies can be avoided wherever possible, this is a sad day for our embattled high streets. All our thoughts are with the thousands of workers, including those in my constituency, many of whom have given years, or even decades, of service in retail, who will be devastated by this news. They must be given all the help they can get to ensure that all their pension rights are retained. Will the Minister ensure that Sir Philip Green’s obligations to pensions are met, and will his Department work with trade unions to make sure that the workers are treated fairly and adequately supported through the process?
Like others, many of the workers will face difficulty in putting food on the table and finding a new job or retraining in a crowded market. They will need the safety net of universal credit to make ends meet. I urge the Minister to use his best efforts and to work with colleagues to retain the £20 a week uplift and to scrap the planned benefit cap that will cost an average of £250 a month. Universal credit is already not enough; taking away the uplift is taking food from people’s tables.
We need to remember that many small businesses in local supply chains will be affected by the news. Some of them will not survive without support, while the owners of others will be joining the 3 million people who have been excluded from support. The Government cannot continue to ignore them. I urge the Minister again to finally get support to this group, who are becoming increasingly desperate.
Paul Scully
The existing commitments made to the Pensions Regulator do indeed need to be kept—it is important to say that.
The hon. Gentleman talks about support for employees. If people need financial support quickly, they may be able to claim universal credit and/or employment and support allowance. Our plan for jobs includes a series of measures to protect, support and create jobs, because it is important to get the people affected back into work as soon as possible. We have our £238 million job entry targeted support programme to support that.
The hon. Gentleman also talks about the possibility of suppliers losing out. Administrators will take over the company and seek to establish the position regarding suppliers. The trade credit reinsurance scheme is designed to support businesses coping with the economic impacts of covid-19 and to ensure that there is adequate confidence and credit in supply chains.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) [V]
As my hon. Friend is aware, the Arcadia Group is headquartered in my constituency and its brands, including Debenhams and Topshop, have their flagship stores on Oxford Street. Covid has the potential to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for bricks-and-mortar retailers. The New West End Company and I welcome the continuing support of my hon. Friend and his Department for the retail sector. I note the Government’s announcement this week on extending shopping trading hours for Monday to Saturday until January but, particularly in the short term, an extension of Sunday trading hours would be of huge benefit to retailers. Will my hon. Friend support me, The Sun on Sunday newspaper, retailers such as Marks & Spencer and others who are campaigning to extend Sunday trading?
Paul Scully
I look forward to joining the New West End Company and, I assume, my hon. Friend on Saturday to celebrate not only Small Business Saturday but traffic-free shopping in the west end. The west end accounts for 3% of the entire UK economy and many, many jobs. We do not propose to extend Sunday trading at this stage, but we are extending shopping hours throughout the weekdays. We want to work with local authorities to make sure that they can support the safe return of shoppers to high streets up and down the country, including in the west end.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
The collapse of Arcadia and Debenhams are two big examples of the broader challenge of survival in the high street-based retail sector. Every job lost and every store closed is devastating for families and communities across the entire country. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee has today written to the Secretary of State, and I know we will have full answers in due course, but may I ask the Minister one specific question about support for small businesses in the retail supply chain? I wish to push him a bit further on whether there will be specific support—perhaps a taskforce—for small retail businesses, to help with the hundreds of millions of pounds of orders that could go unpaid.
Paul Scully
I cannot give specifics on a taskforce or any other group, but we will look acutely at what we can do for supply chains and the future of the high street. When flagship stores like the 200-odd-year-old Debenhams leave our high streets, it is so important to make sure that we have a co-ordinated response. I will happily work with the hon. Gentleman on that.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
My hon. Friend, and the whole House, is concerned about the numbers of jobs potentially lost in the Arcadia Group, but we also have to be concerned about those employed by microbusinesses, perhaps without premises, who have so far not benefited from Government schemes to support them. Will he think again about those who so far have not had Government support and may well be adversely impacted by the news we have heard about Arcadia if they work in the retail supply chain?
Paul Scully
My right hon. Friend raises a really important point. We have wrapped our arms around the economy, but clearly it is very difficult to do things at pace to cover everybody. We will always make sure that we reflect on what happens, to help as many people as we can and try to fill the cracks as best we can.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I, too, express my sympathies to all those employees of Debenhams and the Arcadia Group who find themselves out of work so close to Christmas and in such an uncertain time. Will the Minister’s Department work with local authorities to support them to offer more flexible rates terms to new businesses that want to come in and set up in the large voids that a lot of town centres will be experiencing in their retail spaces? Those voids affect town centres and communities. What can the Department do to work with local authorities to lower the barriers to new entrants into the retail sector?
Paul Scully
There are plenty of things on which we can work together with the sector and, indeed, the whole gamut of British high street businesses, including by talking about getting the rent balance right between landlords and tenants, as well as rates, as the hon. Lady says. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury is joining me on tomorrow’s Retail Sector Council call that I mentioned, to talk about the fundamental business rates review. I hope we will be able to work with local authorities to get that flexibility.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Dudley Council and other local leaders in my constituency will play an instrumental role in rebuilding and revitalising the high street? Will he confirm that the high streets taskforce will stand ready to provide whatever advice may be needed in this endeavour?
Paul Scully
I know that my hon. Friend works tirelessly for his constituency and local economy. It is so important that we get together to look at the high street, because many of these conversations were about what the high street will look like in 10 or 15 years’ time, but now they are about what the high street will look like next year and maybe only the year after. We have to get a speedy but holistic response.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
The business rate relief for retailers this year has been welcome, but it was obviously not sufficient for Debenhams and Arcadia and all their employees, who will tragically lose their jobs just before Christmas. There is a fundamental unfairness in the fact that Amazon pays only 0.7% of its turnover in business rates and high street retailers pay 2% or more. Last year, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee suggested that the Government look at bringing in a digital sales tax and use the money to provide long-term business rate relief for retailers on the high street. Given that the Government promised to look at business rate reform in 2015, will they now get on with it and give that certainty of reduced business rates to the high street as a matter of urgency?
Paul Scully
That is an important question, and it is exactly why we are doing fundamental business rates reform. The first stage of the consultation has ended, and we will respond in the new year, but we need to have a comprehensive approach to tackle this both online and offline.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Risborough basket is an innovative scheme founded by Princes Risborough Town Council in my constituency, with a mission to keep the pound in the town, enabling local shoppers to buy from small independent retailers and have their purchases personally delivered. It is a real boost to those high street businesses, but in setting up the scheme, they have come across a number of regulatory burdens. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating everyone who set up the Risborough basket and commit to working with them, so that we can get rid of those regulatory burdens and ensure that such schemes can help high streets up and down the land?
Paul Scully
The Risborough basket is one of those brutally simple schemes that are from the grassroots up. It is fantastic to hear about that innovation, and I would love to see what we can do to spread it across the country, never mind working with the council to get rid of some of the burdens in bureaucracy and regulation to help it prosper.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Mr Speaker, thank you so much for the opportunity to ask this young Minister to take a message back to No. 10 and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As someone who worked in retail as a young man, and as a Co-op Member of Parliament, I know about retail. We have a workforce facing redundancy and hardship at Christmas. What we want from this Government is a strategy and leadership, not crocodile tears. A fifth of young people have lost their jobs. With 20,000 jobs, the kickstart programme has hardly touched young people’s lives. Will he get on with it and take that message back to No. 10?
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman talks about me being young, which he can do many times over, but as he says, retail is largely staffed by young people and those on comparatively low pay, so there is so much we can do. The strategy comes not just from Government but from working with the sector. The Retail Sector Council can take a long-term view, but we can also work with retailers on the short-term covid response. This is something for all of us to tackle.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
Not many of my constituents will shed a tear for Philip Green, but we should be profoundly concerned about the 25,000 jobs at risk of redundancy. The high street has been under unprecedented pressure. I welcome the remarks that my hon. Friend made about the business rates review, but will he commit this afternoon to an extension of another six to 12 months in which rates are either reduced or reprieved, to give the high street the best chance of recovery?
Paul Scully
I know that those in the Treasury will have listened to that, and they are very aware, particularly in relation to retail and hospitality, of the cliff edge that comes when business rates are due to return at the end of April. We will certainly look at that, and an announcement will be forthcoming.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
In 1791, Susannah Towsey, a draper and haberdasher, moved to more commodious premises on Eastgate Street in Chester. She became Susannah Brown, and Browns of Chester still trades today at the retail heart of Chester, as part of Debenhams. As with other retail premises, it has been undermined by dodgy sale and leaseback property deals led by private equity firms, which has not helped the situation. Browns is one of Debenhams’s stores that trades well, at a profit. Will the Minister speak to administrators and support them, so that where there is potential for shops to continue as a going concern, that is explored and supported?
Paul Scully
I agree that it is so important that we continue a viable business where it is possible, and I know that the administrators will have that at heart.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The news about Debenhams and Arcadia will cause many concerns as we head into Christmas. Can my hon. Friend reiterate the support that the Government will make available to the employees who face an uncertain future? Further to that, this year alone in Barrow, we have lost M&S and Topshop, so Debenhams will be another heavy blow. What support will the Government provide to offer hope to the high street in future?
Paul Scully
In terms of employees, as well as universal credit and access to other support through Jobcentre Plus, we will connect people to jobs in the labour market, help with their employment skills, such as CV writing, interview skills and so on, and identify transferable skills. It is, though, so important that we do more than that for our high streets to create the opportunities for those people to take up, through the future high streets fund and the work that we are doing with the Retail Sector Council and others at every level of government.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that a third of all retail jobs are held by people under the age of 25, and that a huge number of retail workers are women, because it allows flexible working and part-time hours. He will also be aware that many jobs in retail are highly skilled. It is a complete misconception that working in retail is not skilled and that, in years gone by, it was not a job or a profession for life. What specific support will the Minister put in place to offer to young people and to women, who will be more disproportionately affected by this and who have also been more disproportionately affected by the covid pandemic, to ensure that we do not have a lost generation of young people when it comes to finding their first job?
Paul Scully
Essentially, it is about creating those jobs and opportunities on the high street to ensure that we can keep retail and expand the offering on our high streets. Clearly, though, we need to ensure that we have that skills transfer work at jobcentre level and elsewhere to encourage our young people to take up those opportunities.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before we go to Bob Blackman, let me try to help, because I know how important it is to everybody to get on with the Order Paper, by saying that we need to speed up the answers and speed up the questions. I do not want to miss out people, but we may have to if we do not speed up. I am sure that Bob Blackman will provide us with a good example of speed.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Debenhams in Harrow town centre is an anchor store to the town centre. When Debenhams went into administration, 20 stores across its network were due to close. Fortunately, Harrow was not one of them. However, this has a long-term effect on the entirety of Harrow town centre, so will my hon. Friend—[Inaudible.]
Paul Scully
I think my hon. Friend was talking about anchor stores and the effect on the high street. I know him very well, so I can predict his question. Yes, if we take out an anchor store, we hollow out a high street, so it is so important that we look at this holistically, work together with local government, national Government and with retailers themselves to build up our high streets and shape them anew.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Ellesmere Port, like many places, has seen an exodus from the high street over the past decade, which has been accelerated in the past year. Of course, it is no coincidence that, at the same time, online retail is booming, but my constituents do not judge the vibrancy of an area by the number of delivery drivers up their street; they judge it by the number of boarded-up shops in their town centres. Therefore, we need a consistent funded plan for the high street, but, just as importantly, we need a level playing field so that high street shops have a chance of competing. Can the Minister assure us that we will get that?
Paul Scully
Indeed, high streets will certainly change, but we need to get the balance right between online and bricks and mortar as well, because both have a really important position to play in our retail offering.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
In just three towns in my constituency, 27 shops have either closed or are about to close because of the pandemic. Will my hon. Friend commit today to use the Government’s very generous package of measures to retail businesses at all levels of Government—from central Government to local government to local enterprise partnerships—to follow the Prime Minister’s lead to encourage a massive return to the high streets now that we are allowed to do so under the guidance?
Paul Scully
It is really important that, as we extend hours for retailers to be able to open up for Christmas, we rip up and peel back on our bureaucracy as well. We must also encourage local authorities to do more such as offering free parking and other such things.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The high street is facing utter devastation in the next few months, unless drastic action is taken. Will the Minister undertake, in conjunction with the Treasury, to discuss a proposal that I put to the Chancellor three months ago? The banks and building societies are currently sitting on almost £200 billion in current accounts and deposit accounts, paying 0% interest. A 1% voucher would release £2 billion to be spent on the high street only, at no cost to the taxpayer, and would bring a benefit equivalent to that which was seen in Jersey in the summer and which hopefully will be seen in Northern Ireland next month, as a similar voucher scheme is going to be discussed and released there.
Paul Scully
It is certainly something that I will ask the Treasury to look at and discuss with me.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
As my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend will be aware that many Carshalton and Wallington residents work in Debenhams and Arcadia stores, particularly the flagship store at the St Nicholas Centre in Sutton. Will he join me in meeting the affected workers should the worst happen at that flagship store in Sutton, and reassure them that the Government are doing all they can to support them?
Paul Scully
Indeed. As well as being a Minister, I am clearly a constituency MP, and Debenhams is also at the heart of my high street. I will certainly continue to meet constituents affected by this and other issues around the high street.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
The Government’s support for business has been unprecedented and unparalleled, particularly in the retail sector. The Minister is right to call it an ecosystem, because it does have a far-reaching effect on the economy. Does he agree that we have seen incredible creativity and resilience in our local communities and on our high streets, including from residents and retailers in Hertford, who have formed the Hertford hub and the Bishop’s Stortford business improvement district; and that, while we should look at business rates and so on, it is working with and supporting those communities that will let the sector create, thrive and survive?
Paul Scully
It is so much about a “grassroots up” approach. It is great to hear about the Hertford hub and the Bishop’s Stortford BID. There are some brilliant examples of BIDs and initiatives; I would like to hear more.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
Retail trade union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, has said that it is seeking urgent meetings with Arcadia’s administrators in a bid to preserve jobs. It is crucial that the voice of staff is heard over the future of business in all circumstances. What reassurance can the Minister give that this request will be met?
Paul Scully
Clearly, the administrators will do their work under their own purview, but I encourage them to ensure that they look at the whole issue to keep as many viable jobs going and as many viable parts of the business going as possible, so as not to hollow out our high streets.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) [V]
This is an awful situation for every high street and retail park across the country, and even more so for the 25,000 people at Arcadia and Debenhams who are at risk of losing their jobs just before Christmas. In outlining what action the Government are taking to support the people affected, will the Minister specifically highlight any discussions that the Government are having with the Welsh Government, so that any support packages from both Governments can be co-ordinated?
Paul Scully
Given that these businesses are big brand names, this is clearly an issue for the whole UK. We will continue to work with and listen to the devolved Administrations, and to speak to them about what support we can look at across the UK as a whole.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Hospitality businesses are a vital part of our high streets. Winter is the time that these businesses, like many others, make their plans for the next season. They are currently planning in the dark, having been singled out for restrictions and excluded from the Christmas bubble proposals. Therefore, many will have no option but to make some very difficult decisions this Christmas. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to consider a longer-term recovery for this vital component of the high street, and that there is a case to make the 5% VAT rate more permanent—extending it to the end of the financial year—which might help to address the issues of rent, debt and an uncertain cash flow going into 2021?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is working hard for his hospitality sector offering in Broxtowe. I will be leaving this place to speak to hospitality sector representatives immediately after this urgent question, and they will have a number of those asks. I look at this sympathetically because, as I have said, the high street is an ecosystem; we must all work together to support the business community as a whole.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
It is a very worrying time for those employed by Debenhams and Arcadia stores in Denton, Stockport and Manchester, and indeed right across the country. Greater Manchester’s independent prosperity review identified structural changes in the retail sector due to the rise of e-commerce, and sadly we are seeing a rapid acceleration in these changes due to the pandemic. What are the Government doing to put in place a strategic plan for the sector, including retraining and reskilling into digital roles in the sector and in adjacent industries?
Paul Scully
We are working with the retail sector itself, including online businesses like Amazon and Asos, and bricks and mortar businesses providing the retail brands that we all know and love, to make sure that we can get the whole gamut of retail together as one and look at the long-term prospects, including digitisation and increasing the skills of retailers and those wanting to go into the sector.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Workers at Debenhams, Dorothy Perkins, Evans, Miss Selfridge, Burton, Top Man and Top Shop in Dudley South face a really worrying time, but the challenges facing retail go much wider. Can my hon. Friend therefore confirm that the £1 billion future high streets fund will be accelerated, and will he join me on a visit to Brierley Hill so that he can see for himself how much our bid will transform the town centre and help to support retail jobs in my constituency?
Paul Scully
Owing to the restrictions it is nice to be offered a trip anywhere, so I will be more than happy to take that up. Yes indeed—the future high streets fund is a really important initiative along the way of tackling the issues in retail and our high streets as a whole. I wish my hon. Friend well in his bid. The results will be announced shortly.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) [V]
There is a Debenhams in my constituency and my thoughts are with the staff at this time, but sadly it is not the only business going to the wall. Yesterday I spoke to Barry, who runs the Bee Hive pub in Blackburn, and he described the Prime Minister’s announcement of £1,000 for pubs as a slap in the face. Barry has spent thousands on making sure that his pub was covid-secure, and with no evidence of spread of the virus in the pub sector, he will now have to throw away thousands more in stock. He is now wondering whether he can survive. So I ask the Minister: did he pluck the figure out of the air, and does his Department think that £1,000 will really be able to save our pubs and, in turn, our high streets?
Paul Scully
Wet-led pubs have a particular issue where they are not offering food, and £1,000 does not go far enough in itself, but it does go alongside the other payments such as the forbearance on rent, the moratorium that is still in place until the end of the year, business rates relief, and VAT relief on certain areas of food—although not necessarily in that pub. I will continue to work with the hospitality sector. It is important to say, as the hon. Lady said, that those in hospitality should not be scapegoated, because they have done so much work to make sure that they can offer a covid 19-secure and warm welcome to their customers.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Guildford High Street is not only picturesque but is home to one of the finest retail offerings in the south-east, including Debenhams and Arcadia brands. We acknowledge not only the difficult uncertainty for employees today but the significant square footage that these businesses occupy and the gaps that they will leave behind. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must actively work to help the high street to recover from coronavirus and also adapt to the long-term changes that will make our town centres sustainable for the future?
Paul Scully
I know Guildford very well. It is a destination for residents around Surrey and further afield. Yes, we must all work together to get the balance right so that we do not hollow out our town centres, including Guildford.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Debenhams liquidation is a tragedy not only for the thousands of Debenhams employees but for all retailers in shopping centres like Warrington’s Golden Square, where Debenhams is the anchor department store driving footfall for the whole centre. With Arcadia brand stores in Golden Square also at risk, and confidence in the wider retail sector waning, what specific support will shopping centres like Golden Square get to protect all its retailers, their employees, and the vibrancy of our town centres?
Paul Scully
In terms of shopping centres it is really important that we get the balance right between landlords and tenants. The moratorium helps tenants but clearly does not help landlords, so we have to get the balance right. We will work with the retail sector to try to achieve that balance in the weeks and months to come.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Dorothy Perkins in Newcastle-under-Lyme was already closed earlier during the pandemic, and we have also lost major tenants such as Laura Ashley and Edinburgh Woollen Mill during this pandemic, so I welcome what we are doing with the future high streets fund. We have a bid in with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Can the Minister confirm that it will be accelerated? We need to hear about that bid as soon as we can so we can get our towns fund bid in as well.
Paul Scully
I wish my hon. Friend every success in that bid—the announcement will be forthcoming. It is important that we have small business Saturday coming up this Saturday, and we must make sure independent stores thrive. However, the brands he talks about that are going do drag footfall towards those smaller businesses, which is why we need to look at the high street as a whole.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
Debenhams is a cornerstone employer in Bangor city centre. Its closure will be a severe blow to the staff who have worked there loyally for many years, and even more so now, I am afraid, because North Wales Mersey Dee Business Council reports that, across the region, 17% of businesses in retail and hospitality have already made redundancies. Thinking creatively, what consideration has the Minister given to material Government support specifically for repurposing large retail spaces into smaller, short-term, start-up units?
Paul Scully
We always work with local authorities to see what initiatives can come up. We work closely with them because it is typically the local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and other business groupings in each local area that know their local economy, and we are always happy to look at any initiatives.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
As a student, I worked for the then Burton Group, and I know how vital retail jobs are, especially for students and young people. Can my hon. Friend confirm for my constituents in Darlington who worked at Topshop, Burton and Dorothy Perkins the steps he is taking to provide support, advice and assistance to them?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend, and I commend his work in retail before; many others around the House have done such work. Yes, as well as offering them support through universal credit and other benefits, we will work with them through the Jobcentre Plus and its frontline workers to help them with CV writing, creating opportunities for and sharing opportunities with them, and ensuring that transferable skills have a massive role to play in that.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Up and down high streets in Nottingham, businesses big and small are really worried about their viability in the early parts of next year. They look at us talking about Debenhams and Arcadia today, and they think we will be back in January, February and March talking about them unless something changes. I ask the Minister the same question they are asking me: beyond reviews and promises of reform in the future, what support is coming now to keep our high streets viable?
Paul Scully
We are keeping our high streets viable by giving people business rates relief and giving businesses a moratorium to make sure they cannot be evicted and cannot be chased for rent debts, but, most importantly, by keeping retail open in all three tiers so that they can actually trade their way out of this. What they want is not handouts, ideally, although they do need the support; they want customers. They want customers for long- term support.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
But our high streets need all the help that they can get, and the towns of Crewe and Nantwich are facing the highest parking charges in the region, while other towns in the area face none. Would the Minister agree that the local authority should at least ensure there is a level playing field, and perhaps reconsider its decision to reject some initiatives for December to introduce free parking to encourage people back on to the high street?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. When people are bringing back their heavy bags—after a long evening’s shopping, hopefully, in the lead-up to Christmas—just a simple token like free parking or cheaper parking can really help drive footfall and support our local high streets.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]
Debenhams workers have expressed concern about the performance of the administrators. There has been a lack of communication and delays in registering redundancies with the redundancy payments service, which in turn has led to delayed payments to the workers themselves. What can the Minister do to ensure that the rights of workers are protected in these situations?
Paul Scully
Clearly, as I have said, there are measures in place that govern the administrators, but we will keep on top of this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already written to the administrators to expedite the report. We will also follow up to make sure we keep an eye on them to support workers not only through the administrators and redundancy phase, but back into good work.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
As my hon. Friend will know, I was a furniture retailer for many years prior to arriving in this place. This year has been hugely challenging for our high streets, and my thoughts are first and foremost with the employees of Arcadia and Debenhams. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the Government must continue to actively work to help high streets both recover from coronavirus and, more importantly, adapt to the more long-term challenges that our town centres are facing at the moment?
Paul Scully
I know that my hon. Friend’s experience as a retailer, and his other work, will be massive in the months to come. Yes, we must ensure that we shape the change of high streets. We must allow businesses to pivot to allow for that change, so that our high streets can survive and thrive.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Like many others, I am concerned about the many workers across Edinburgh and in my constituency who will today be worried about their jobs with Arcadia. My constituency also contains a number of independent shops that are struggling and need a level playing field with the online behemoths of this world, such as Amazon. I have a suggestion and plan to offer postage support for those independent businesses, in the same way as the Government helped the hospitality sector. Would the Minister be prepared to meet me to discuss that?
Paul Scully
I will happily meet the hon. Lady. She mentioned independent retailers, and it is important to realise that big anchor stores have a massive effect on smaller businesses if they hollow out the high streets. It is important to look at both sectors alike.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I too earned my spurs in retail at Woolworths and Home Bargains. This year has been incredibly challenging for high street retailers, and my thoughts are with the employees of Arcadia and Debenhams. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must not only work actively to help high streets recover from the pandemic, but also consider all the other long-term issues they face, from car parking charges to businesses rates? I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail, and we would very much like to see the Minister at its next meeting to discuss those issues.
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend—his experience will be valuable, and I would be happy to join him at the APPG. It is important not just to consider the immediacy of this, but the fact that with the new normal there is a new reality—a behaviour change that is baked into people’s approach to the high street. It is important to get right that long-term strategic view.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am deeply concerned by the situation facing Debenhams, which is a key part of Glasgow city centre, as well as the stores operated by Arcadia. My thoughts are with the staff, and I know that the Scottish Government stand ready with a pay scheme if it is required. Has the Minister established whether HMRC’s Crown preference rules, which came into force yesterday, had any bearing on the decision by Arcadia to go into administration on Monday? Has he calculated how much HMRC stands to lose as a result?
Paul Scully
I have not had any information or consideration of that issue as yet.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Does the Minster agree that the best way to save these businesses is for people to keep shopping at them? Can he assure people that their rights are protected if they buy vouchers, shop online, or want to return items after Christmas?
Paul Scully
That is a really important issue, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that these businesses want people to trade. At the moment, both Arcadia and Debenhams have said that they will accept vouchers, and I encourage anybody who is shopping at either store to use their credit card if they are spending more than £100, because then the Consumer Credit Act 1974 kicks in. At this moment, vouchers are accepted.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Will the Minister accept that although Putney high street is very much loved and the centre of our local community, people are concerned about the fact that covid is accelerating the number of shops that are going? Will he consider a reform of the business rates, and of the meanwhile use rules, so that we can have more community activities in our shops on the high street?
Paul Scully
There is a really good community in Putney—I was there a few months ago at the business improvement district—and the more we can strip away through encouraging innovation through meanwhile use provisions, the better. I have spoken about the fundamental review of business rates, and it is important that we look at the whole thing.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
In Harlow, we have an excellent Topshop that has done very well, and clearly the staff are worried about their pensions and their jobs. Surely, the time has come for legislation to stop these robber barons who own these big companies, who plunder the assets, with the taxpayer left to foot the bill and anxious employees losing their jobs and pensions. We should make sure that we seize the assets of those big vulture capitalists and get the money that the hard-working employees deserve.
Paul Scully
My right hon. Friend raises some important points. There is already legislation and regulation in place to look at this. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the administrators to make sure that they can expedite the report looking at directors’ behaviour, not just in the immediate weeks but looking back to see if anything untoward has happened.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]
The job losses resulting from what is happening at Arcadia and Debenhams are on top of a series of devastating job losses across the north-west. Vacancies are scarce and people have few places left to turn. In Liverpool, West Derby, we have had increases of over 100% in both youth unemployment and universal credit claimants since March. Will the Government now commit to cancelling their heartless plan to cut universal credit, which will take £20 a week from struggling families in my constituency?
Paul Scully
To flip the question slightly, I know that a number of people up and down the country have been appreciative of the Government’s increase in universal credit to make sure that we can help them through this particularly acute time. Clearly, as I say, we will continue to work not only to support people who are out of a job but to make sure that we can create jobs and opportunities for them to get back into good work.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Retail is at the heart of our local high streets, and the Government’s huge programme of support has been vital in keeping it going. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging my constituents to back Barnet and to come out and shop local on small business Saturday?
Paul Scully
My right hon. Friend absolutely nails it, as usual, in supporting her independent retailers—her small businesses. They are the backbone; 99.7% of businesses in this country are small and medium-sized enterprises. She is absolutely right, and I encourage everybody, both in Barnet and across the country, to shop local and get out there and spend money where possible to make sure that there is a high street to enjoy for years to come.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Arcadia entering administration and Debenhams going into liquidation is devastating news, with thousands facing the risk of losing their jobs, but this is also an issue of greed, with Philip Green having paid his family a tax-free dividend almost three and a half times more than Arcadia’s current pension pot deficit. Does the Minister agree that while Philip Green retains his fortune, employees should not end up paying the price with their pensions?
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Clearly, as I say, the Pensions Regulator has significant powers here, and we will make sure that it has the space and ability to do its job.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
My heart goes out to all those affected by the collapse of Arcadia and Debenhams, both of which affect my Workington constituency—particularly Workington town centre, which has a Debenhams anchor. Alongside the stronger towns fund, the Government’s future high streets fund will be crucial to helping town centres not only recover but adapt in the future. In the light of unprecedented challenges this year, can my hon. Friend confirm that future high streets fund decisions are imminent and that the Government will get the cash out of the door quickly so that it can have a positive impact as soon as possible?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for his work to support Workington. The stronger towns fund and the future high streets fund are two really important instruments in making sure that we have high streets up and down the country that can survive and thrive and that we can be proud of, and we will make sure that those announcements are forthcoming as soon as possible.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
As Arcadia collapses and jobs are put on the line in Aberdeen and across the country, Amazon pays less than £300 million of tax on almost £14 billion of revenue. Does the Minister therefore agree that, in order to protect our city centres, we need a level playing field and the Government must toughen up their digital services tax?
Paul Scully
This is an important situation. Our hearts must all go out, as they have done today, to the employees of both Arcadia and Debenhams. In terms of an online sales tax, that is something we will look at in the fundamental business rates review. It is important that our high streets survive. There is an understanding that online businesses have an important role to play, but they must pay their fair share of taxes.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The challenges that Arcadia and Debenhams face existed before covid, but they have been accelerated by it as people move online. The Minister outlined the very substantial support the Government are providing to retailers, but, to follow the question from the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), should the Government go further and consider levelling the playing field between bricks and mortar and online retailers through an online sales tax?
Paul Scully
An online sales tax is one consideration that the Treasury will look at, but it is more than that. We need to ensure, in the fundamental business rates review, that there is a connection between businesses, bricks and mortar retailers, and their place, rather than just the customers themselves. There is an important body of work to be done and I know the Treasury will have heard the comments and views today.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Coronavirus Vaccine
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
With permission, I would like to make a statement about the coronavirus vaccine.
Today marks a new chapter in our fight against this virus. Ever since the pandemic hit our shores almost a year ago, we have known that a vaccine would be critical to set us free. So all through this arduous year—it has been an arduous year—while we have been working night and day to fight the virus and keep it under control, we have been striving, too, to develop the vaccines that can give us hope and let us eventually release the curbs on our freedoms that have bound us for so long.
Thanks to the incredible work of the Vaccine Taskforce, the Business Secretary and Kate Bingham, we have already amassed a huge portfolio of different vaccine candidates. We have backed seven vaccines and ordered 357 million doses on behalf of the whole UK, one of the biggest portfolios per capita in the world. We have said from the start that a vaccine must be safe and effective before we would even consider deploying it. Any vaccine must go through a rigorous process of clinical trials, involving thousands of people and extensive independent scrutiny from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, one of the world’s most respected medical regulators.
Today, I am delighted to inform the House that the MHRA has issued the clinical authorisation of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. This is a monumental step forward. It is no longer “if” there is going to be a vaccine, but “when”. In our battle against the virus, help is on its way. Today is a triumph for all those who believe in science, a triumph for ingenuity and a triumph for humanity, and I thank everyone who has played their part in this achievement. I thank the team at Pfizer, the team of scientists at BioNTech, the volunteers who stepped up and took part in clinical trials, and the MHRA itself, which made sure that this is a vaccine we can all have faith in. Thanks to their efforts, I can confirm that the UK is the first country in the world to have a clinically approved coronavirus vaccine for supply, and now our task is to make use of the fruits of that scientific endeavour to save lives.
We have spent months preparing for this day, so that as soon as we got the green light, we would be ready to go. We were the first country in the world to pre-order supplies of this successful vaccine, and we have 40 million doses pre-ordered for delivery over the coming months—enough for 20 million people, because two jabs are required for each person. Following authorisation, the next stage is to test each batch of the vaccine for safety. I can confirm that batch testing has been completed this morning for the first deployment of 800,000 doses of vaccine. Those doses are for the whole United Kingdom. This morning, I chaired a meeting of Health Ministers from the devolved Administrations to ensure the roll-out is co-ordinated nationwide.
This will be one of the biggest civilian logistical efforts that we have faced as a nation. It will be difficult. There will be challenges and complications, but I know that the NHS is equal to the task. Rolling out the vaccine, free at the point of delivery and according to clinical need, not ability to pay, is in the finest tradition of our national health service, and I am delighted to confirm that the NHS will be able to start vaccinating from early next week.
The whole purpose of the vaccine is to protect people from covid, so that we can get lives back to normal. We will prioritise the groups who are at greatest risk. This morning, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has published its advice, setting out the order of priority according to clinical need, and that includes care home residents and their carers, the over-80s and frontline health and social care workers. We will deliver according to clinical prioritisation and operational necessity. The need to hold the vaccine at -70˚C makes it particularly challenging to deploy.
While we begin vaccination next week, the bulk of the vaccinations will be in the new year. I urge anyone called forward for vaccination by the NHS to respond quickly to protect themselves, their loved ones and their community.
Over the next few months, we will see vaccines delivered in three different ways. First, we will begin vaccinations in hospital hubs. Secondly, we will deploy through local community services, including GPs and in due course pharmacies, too. Thirdly, we will stand up vaccination centres in conference centres and sports venues, for example, to vaccinate large numbers of people as more vaccines come on stream. This is an important step, but we are not there yet, so I stress that we must all keep playing our part, keep following the new rules that the House approved overwhelmingly yesterday and remember the basics, such as “Hands, face space”, and, “Get a test”, which we know from experience are so important in keeping the virus under control.
Before I finish, may I also update the House on another bit of good news? From today, I am absolutely thrilled to say that we can safely allow visits in care homes for those who test negative for covid-19. Coronavirus has denied so many people the simple pleasure of seeing a loved one, which is so precious to so many, especially in our care homes. This is possible only because of the success we have had in building one of the biggest testing capacities in Europe, with local and national teams working together, side by side—something we have often discussed right across this House. We have worked hard on testing. We have worked hard on the vaccine. Our strategy is suppressing the virus until a vaccine can make us safe. That strategy is working, and I am delighted that we will be able to see families and friends come together ahead of Christmas, thanks to this improvement.
This is a day to remember, frankly in a year to forget. We can see the way out of this but we are not there yet, so let us keep our resolve and keep doing our bit to keep people safe until science can make us free.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
As always, I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This is indeed fantastic news about the Pfizer vaccine, and I join him in congratulating all who have been involved in making this happen. We have rightly clapped carers throughout this crisis. I wonder if we should as a nation come together and applaud our scientists as well one evening. It is also incumbent on all of us across the House to reinforce the case that vaccination saves lives, and if it helps, I will stand alongside the Secretary State, socially distanced of course, on any platform or in any TV studio to show that we are united cross-party in promoting vaccination.
Our constituents will have legitimate questions and they should not be ridiculed for asking them, so will the Secretary of State launch a large-scale public information campaign to answer questions and encourage uptake? Will he consider sending a pamphlet, perhaps, to every household? We know that dangerous myths circulate on social media, and we repeat our offer to work with Ministers to curb online harms. I hope we can work together and take something forward on that front.
Hospital trust staff will start receiving this vaccine first. I understand that it is a massive logistical exercise, given the temperatures and the need for two doses, but could the Secretary of State tell us how many NHS staff he expects to be vaccinated by January, which is of course the time when we expect the NHS to be under the most pressure?
Where does this leave social care and care home residents and staff? There are concerns that this particular vaccine cannot be moved multiple times to care homes, so can he set out exactly how and when care home residents will receive a vaccine? Our constituents will want to know: when will primary care networks start rolling out vaccination, and when will the mass vaccination centres he has reported to the House start opening in our communities?
We have historic strengths as a country with vaccination, but in recent years we have lost our measles-free status. We know that vaccination rates can be lower in poorer and vulnerable communities and that covid has often had a disproportionate impact in these communities, so will he ensure that there is a health inequalities strategy as well in his vaccination campaign, so that black and minority ethnic groups, and the poorest and the vulnerable, do not miss out on this vaccine?
I think we all understand that restrictions will have to remain in place for some time, but can the Secretary of State offer us a timeframe or a target for when we should expect to achieve herd immunity and life gets back to normal? Will he consider publishing a route map of what restrictions could be released as vaccination rates increase? In the meantime, if someone is vaccinated, will they still have to isolate if contacted by Test and Trace, or are they now released from that obligation?
On mass testing, some directors of public health have told me that the lateral flow tests are not licensed for door-to-door testing in hotspots and therefore can only be administered at sites. If that is correct, can the Secretary of State resolve it? If is not correct, can he issue urgent clarity to directors of public health? The Government’s document published on Monday suggests that local areas could use mass testing as a freedom pass. Will he outline to the House what that means in practice? Will local areas enforce rules? What happens if some people have had the test but some have not had the test in a particular area that is supposed to be under tier 3? In the House yesterday, the Prime Minister suggested that people may want to take advantage of mass testing ahead of visiting their families this Christmas. Will the Secretary of State update the House on whether that is the plan and how that will be implemented?
We of course welcome the Secretary of State’s news on care homes, but many care homes report that they will need resources to support the testing exercise. Will those resources be in place?
Finally, if mass testing is to work in communities, people will need support to isolate, if it is found that they have covid when they are not feeling unwell. Will the Secretary of State now expand the eligibility criteria for the £500 grant?
This is a good news day, and we should all pay tribute to everyone who was involved—we should pay tribute to the scientists. I will say again, we will work together to make the case that vaccinations save lives.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman has worked supportively and constructively with the Government throughout this pandemic. I pay tribute to the approach that he has taken, and that he took again today.
I stand with the hon. Gentleman in saying that vaccinations save lives. If we can encourage anybody who might be hesitant to take a vaccine by appearing together to be vaccinated together, of course I would be happy to do that. I recommend that we have a professional vaccinate us, of course—I do not think that he would trust me to do it.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a public information campaign, and there will of course be one. He asked about health inequalities, which are a very important consideration. The best thing to support tackling health inequalities is the fact that we have a vaccine, but we absolutely need to reach all parts and all communities across the whole country.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many will be vaccinated by January. While today brings more certainty, it does not end all uncertainties. We have 800,000 doses that have now passed the batch testing, but the total number to be manufactured over this timeframe is not yet known, because it is all dependent on the manufacturing process, which is itself complicated. After all, this is not a chemical but a biological product, so I cannot answer that question—that is as yet unknowable.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the PCNs and the centres will open. The answer is very soon. We have 50 hospital hubs ready to go from next week. The PCNs are also being stood up, and the centres outside hospitals. They are all coming very soon.
The hon. Gentleman then asked when we will get to lift restrictions. Of course, I understand why not only he but almost everybody in the country wants to know the answer to this question: how many people do we have to vaccinate before we can start lifting the restrictions? The answer to that is that, while we know that the vaccine protects an individual with a 95% efficacy, we do not know the impact of the vaccine on reducing transmission, because of the problem of asymptomatic transmission, which has so bedevilled our response to this virus and made it so hard to tackle.
We do not know the answer to that question, but what we will do is to follow the same five indicators that we were discussing at length yesterday, which are the indicators of the spread of the disease. We will look at the cases, the hospitalisations and of course the number of people who die with covid, and we will hope very much that, as we vaccinate more and more vulnerable people, we will see those rates come down and therefore be able to lift the restrictions. We will have to see how the vaccination programme impacts directly on the epidemic, and then move as swiftly as we safely can to lift the restrictions, which we all want to see gone.
The hon. Gentleman asked about community testing being licensed from door to door. I have not heard about that problem—I will ensure that I get back not only to him, but to those who raised it with him, if he will work with me. I am a bit surprised to hear that. Administering the lateral flow test currently requires a professional, although we hope to move on from that, but as far as I know it can take place in any setting, hence my surprise. However, as the comment was made by a public health professional, I shall dig into it further.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about the testing prospectus we launched on Monday. We hope to be able to use testing to do more things that we would not be able to do without testing. In a way, visits to care homes are an example of that, as something we can now safely recommend that we could not recommend before; so too is testing to release from quarantine people coming into this country. If there are further examples of that sort of enablement of normal life through the use of testing that can be safely done and can be approved by a director of public health and by the chief medical officer and his team, we are enthusiastic about working with local areas to deliver it on the ground.
There are lots of ideas out there, and I urge people to be creative about how we can we can use testing to enable some of the things we love to get going again in a way that keeps people safe. That is what that part of the testing prospectus was about. I am very enthusiastic about it and look forward to working with directors of public health and with colleagues in this House. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that with the roll-out of mass testing and the availability of these tests, we all, as leaders in our local communities, have a role in promoting mass testing. I am sure that there are communities across the country represented in this House that can benefit from the roll-out.
Looking around the Chamber right now, I see many people who have already approached me—not just from Lancashire. I look forward to working with colleagues in all parts of the House to promote this public health message, along with all the other important public health messages we have to promote, not least that if the NHS phones you up or sends you a letter saying that there is a vaccination slot open to you, just say yes.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this moment and the Government on the news about the Pfizer vaccine, but please can we continue to have increased honesty about what we still do not know? We do not know how long the immunity will last, we do not even know whether people who have been vaccinated can still transmit the disease, and of course we do not know whether tier 2 restrictions will succeed in bringing the R rate down. Until we can answer those questions, we will continue to need maximum effort behind contact tracing and isolation of virus spreaders.
Councils including Essex County Council need daily access to all the positive cases recorded by NHS Test and Trace immediately and without delay, so that they can make their own operations effective, so why are they having to wait 48 to 72 hours before they get the data? Also, what are the Government going to do to engage districts and their community volunteer hubs to help to persuade people to support those who must still isolate even if they have been vaccinated?
Matt Hancock
Dealing with the pandemic has been a case of dealing with uncertainty in large degree. Today we have more certainty because we know this vaccine is safe and effective, but just as I said to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) that we do not know the effect of the vaccine on transmission, so, as my hon. Friend says, we do not know the longevity of its effectiveness.
My hon. Friend is right about another part of public health advice that all of us as local representatives can play a part in promoting: that is, engagement with contact tracing. I will write to him about access to daily data in Essex. Of course we have to wait until the test result comes in, which can sometimes lead to delay, even though the results of the majority of tests done in person now come back within 24 hours, but I agree with him in principle, so let us make it a reality in practice.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vaccinations for all, I welcome the authorisation of the Pfizer vaccine and echo the shadow Secretary of State’s call for a public health campaign to encourage uptake. It will naturally take some time before the vaccine is widely available, so we all still need to stick to the rules and ensure that we can test, trace, isolate and support all those carrying the virus.
Last week, the Secretary of State claimed that the pilot project of mass testing in Liverpool was responsible for driving down cases, despite the city having been under lockdown for much of the time. Lateral flow tests miss up to 40% of cases, so the Government’s plan to use them to free people from isolation are causing concern among many public health and screening experts. When will the formal assessment of the pilot be published, and how can he justify already putting out tenders for £40 billion-worth of contracts to extend that approach without scientific evaluation? Would it not be better to invest some of that money in getting the traditional test, trace and isolate system working properly? Six months on, the Serco and Sitel system has still not improved, and over 40% of contacts in England are still not being informed that they should be isolating.
The Secretary of State does not often talk about it, but he knows that it is not testing but isolation that stops the spread of the virus, so if people who are carrying the virus are not isolating, no amount of mass testing will stop the spread. When I raised the King’s College London report last week which found that less than 20% of cases and only 10% of contacts were isolating, the Secretary of State claimed that the Government have data showing much higher compliance. Can he tell us the figures for isolation rates for those with covid and their contacts? People will not stay off work if it means that they cannot feed their family, so is he concerned at reports that many requests for the isolation payment are being refused? How will he ensure that those carrying the virus are financially supported to isolate and reduce its spread?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady says that I do not talk about contact tracing very much. I was literally answering a question on contact tracing just before her question— I talk of little else. We are publishing further data tomorrow on contact tracing, precisely in response to the question that she asks. She will see that the continued improvement of our contact tracing across the country is advancing further. I cannot say any more than that, because the figures are not being released until tomorrow.
The hon. Lady asked about scientific evaluation. We are constantly scientifically evaluating the work that is going on, especially in Liverpool. That is one of the things that the scientists who work as part of my team, in NHS Test and Trace and in Public Health England do. It is a matter of constant scientific evaluation, but we will not wait until ages after something has finished to do an overly long evaluation. We have to evaluate as we go along, because we are constantly trying to improve the response to this pandemic, and we are constantly trying to learn. I urge her to support the approach of constant learning and constant improvement. We will have to do that through the roll-out of the vaccine too.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady shakes her head, but that is how we have to deal with a pandemic in practice.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
This is a huge personal triumph for the Health Secretary, who has always backed the science. In choosing and backing on behalf of the country the first vaccine to prove efficacious, he has scored a massive goal for the country; he deserves great credit for that. It will also have global significance. I was in a meeting with the World Health Organisation this morning, which congratulated the UK on being the first country to approve a vaccine, because it will encourage other countries around the world to approve vaccines faster.
I want to ask the Health Secretary about something different, which is the plight of people with learning disabilities. He will know that Public Health England says that they are two to four times more likely to die from covid. The news he has given this morning about people in care homes is tremendously welcome, but people with learning disabilities often feel that they are forgotten, particularly those in supported accommodation. Will he redouble his efforts to ensure that they, too, are able to be reunited with their families ahead of Christmas?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend is gracious and kind in what he says, and I welcome the WHO’s comments this morning. It has supported the UK approach and rightly commended the MHRA, our independent regulator. It has followed all the same steps that any high-quality regulator would, should and will, but it has followed them rapidly and sometimes in parallel, instead of one after the other. That is how we have got to the position of being the first country in the world to have a vaccine that is clinically authorised; it is because the MHRA has done a brilliant job, working with Pfizer and BioNTech, to make sure that the same safety considerations are looked at but in a way that made the process as fast as is feasibly and safely possible. The WHO has backed that approach. Regulators around the world could take a look at the MHRA, and we should all congratulate it.
My right hon. Friend rightly asks about making sure we vaccinate those with learning disabilities and offer them vaccination at the right point in the prioritisation. I have discussed that important consideration directly with the JCVI, which takes into account the higher mortality of those with any given condition and has done so in the prioritisation that it set out this morning. Age is the single biggest determinant of mortality from coronavirus, which is why age is the predominant factor in the prioritisation, but it is not the only one. That matter has been considered by the JCVI and it is important that we accept and follow the JCVI advice as much as is practicable in the delivery and deployment of this vaccine.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is, indeed, a fantastic day. I add my thanks and congratulations to everybody who has been involved in getting us to this point, not just in the UK, but worldwide, because this is a great example of global scientific collaboration. May I also pick up on the point about batch testing, which the Secretary of State mentioned on the radio this morning and in his statement? Will he clarify that if we signed up to a mutual recognition agreement with the EU, we would not need to batch test the vaccine again once it arrives in the UK, which could slow down the process, not least because having enough qualified persons to do the batch release testing could be a real challenge? Is he working on a mutual recognition agreement?
Matt Hancock
We have that mutual recognition agreement in place now. The hon. Lady is right to point to the global scientific work—work between UK scientists and scientists based in the UK, German scientists at BioNTech, the American scientists and the Belgians, who are producing and manufacturing this vaccine. The approach has been about people coming together right around the world, and the UK has put more into the global search for a vaccine in cash terms than any other country; despite our medium size as a nation, we have been the most generous, and I am really proud of that.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
It is great news about the vaccine, and, on behalf of the residents of Ashfield and Eastwood, let me say a big thanks to the Health Secretary, the scientists and the pharmaceutical companies.
The small businesses in Ashfield and Eastwood have taken a massive financial hit during lockdown, despite doing their very best to be covid-secure, while supermarkets have recorded record profits. I have received lots of complaints this week from customers and staff at local supermarkets who say that the stores are overcrowded and not covid-safe; this is happening all over the country and is unfair to the small businesses, which have been hit the hardest. While the UK is being vaccinated, in the run-up to Christmas traders in my constituency will do their very best to beat the virus. Will my right hon. Friend therefore please remind the supermarket executives that they have a duty to protect their staff, customers, our NHS and the whole of the UK in order to beat the virus and get our lives back?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I am very happy from this Dispatch Box to remind the supermarkets of their responsibilities to follow covid-secure guidelines and ensure that they are in place for their customers and staff. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for standing up for the small businesses of Ashfield. It is tough in Ashfield at the moment—I get that. We have the restrictions in place only because they are absolutely necessary. I know that he understands that. He is a strong voice in this Chamber for all the small businesses and residents of Ashfield.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What a joy it was at 7 o’clock this morning to see this news being broken, and to see the Secretary of State as well. I put on the record my thanks to the Secretary of State and all his team for making this happen.
Is the Secretary of State aware that there are still those who are unable to access their flu vaccine? What steps have been taken to ensure that the flu vaccine roll-out is completed before the corona programme begins? What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Northern Ireland Assembly on providing vaccines and, more importantly, on the roll-out for our vulnerable and our frontline key workers?
Matt Hancock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. It has been a big team effort. I echo his thanks to the whole team.
We have a further tranche of flu vaccines ready to go; that is just about to be rolled out. Making sure that flu vaccines are available right across the UK is very important. It is an issue that Robin Swann—my opposite number in the Northern Ireland Administration—and I have worked on extensively. He is incredibly diligent in ensuring that we get the flu vaccines rolled out to Northern Ireland. There is an interaction between the massive flu vaccine roll-out programme, which the NHS does every year but which this year is bigger than ever, and at the same time having to do a covid vaccine roll-out. We have taken that into account in the plans. In fact, before the announcement at 6.30 this morning, I was talking to Robin Swann on the phone, which shows how hard-working he is.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for all his hard work and congratulate him, the Government and all the scientists on the approval of the vaccine. The Secretary of State will know that Medway and neighbouring Swale, both of which are served by Medway Maritime Hospital in my constituency, are currently recording the first and the second highest covid rates in the country. Parts of Gillingham are recording rates as high as 753 per 100,000 people. I thank the Secretary of State for listening to representations from my local authority, myself and other local MPs on providing military assistance with rapid testing in Medway. The Secretary of State also knows that Medway has some of the highest health inequalities in the country, and that health inequalities are linked to high covid rates. Will he join me in paying tribute to the fantastic work of the hospital and its staff in helping local residents?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I will. There is a significant problem with the epidemic in Medway and north Kent, which I know my hon. Friend is concerned about. I pay tribute to those working on the frontline at Medway Maritime Hospital, which is one of the most pressured hospitals in the country at the moment, and also thank other parts of Kent and other trusts across Kent for providing mutual aid. We have to get this virus under control in Medway and across north Kent. The way to do that is for everybody to abide by the tier 3 restrictions and to do everything they can to ensure that they do not pass on the disease, and then we can get these cases coming down. At the same time, we are going to inject a huge number of tests into Medway. We are working closely with Medway Council on this, and we will be using the armed forces to help make it happen, because we have to get this virus under control in Medway.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
I add my thanks to the scientists and to the volunteers who put their own health at risk so that we could beat this pandemic. My constituency has been under enhanced restrictions for many months now. The community has worked with the councils and others, and we have finally had a 41% drop in infections in the past week, but we need to go further to get out of the restrictions. Part of that is mass testing. Can the Minister clarify my understanding that councils get £14 per head for mass testing but do not get those boots on the ground from the Army—they get logistical advice and support, not physical help? We cannot do mass testing on the cheap, so will the Minister confirm that he will give the resources to councils? Will mass testing roll out before February 2021?
Matt Hancock
Oh yes—mass testing is rolling out as we speak. My team have been working with Kirklees Council to make sure that the council’s enthusiasm for mass testing is matched by the resources that come its way in terms of the tests themselves, the financial support—£14 per test, as the hon. Lady says—and the logistical support from the armed forces. Kirklees’s plans are very advanced, I pay tribute to its local leadership and look forward to working with them to make it happen.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I want to get everybody in but we are getting a little behind schedule, so I ask for succinct questions.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and our Government on their brilliant work to make sure that we were the first country in the world to have a vaccine approved.
It would be worth the Secretary of State’s repeating the criteria and pecking order for the 800,000 doses. A colleague of mine, Councillor Bentley, always says that people need to hear something at least eight times before they embed it, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to repeat it?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. We will follow a clinical prioritisation according to need. That starts with those who are resident in care homes and their carers, the over-80s and NHS staff, and then essentially comes down the age range, including those who are clinically extremely vulnerable. Through the experience of the past 10 months, we know, sadly, who is most likely to die of covid, and they are the people we will try to get to first.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
This is hugely welcome news. As well as paying tribute to the scientists, I pay tribute to all the teams in our local health boards who are preparing to deliver the vaccine—particularly Fiona Kinghorn and her team at Cardiff and Vale University Health Board—and the armed forces who have been involved in the process. They have done an absolutely incredible job over the past few weeks to be ready for delivery.
The Secretary of State said, crucially, that this is a UK-wide effort; will he give a cast-iron guarantee that not only this tranche of vaccines but future tranches will be available on a completely equitable basis throughout the United Kingdom, so that we can bear down on this virus in every part of our country?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I can give that assurance. I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the volunteers, whom I should have thanked in response to an earlier question, and also thank in advance everybody in the NHS who is going to be involved in this roll-out. It is going to be a mammoth effort—people are going to be working really hard this winter, when people already work hard during winter in the NHS—and I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to them.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I join the Secretary of State in thanking the scientists who were involved in this major breakthrough for their brilliance and hard work, and I join my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) in paying a personal tribute to the Secretary of State, who has been tenacious, positive and energetic right throughout this. We are the first in the world and a lot of that is down to him.
We need to keep the virus suppressed during the months ahead. One of the problems with test and trace is that quite often people do not disclose all their contacts because they do not want them to have to isolate for two weeks. Sir John Bell, whom I know the Secretary of State admires as much as I do, suggests that if we subject people who are isolated to two tests and they are both negative, they should be released. He thinks that will safely encourage people to share their contacts and suppress the spread of the virus. The Secretary of State has moved heaven and earth on vaccination; will he do this for test and release?
Matt Hancock
It is a great day for science and a great day to be Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, I would have thought. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said, which was very generous.
On the point about repeat testing instead of isolation for contacts, that is something we are trialling right now, and I hope we can make significant progress on it in the weeks ahead.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Last Tuesday, the Prime Minister reassured me that Government guidance would stop non-essential travel out of areas in tiers 2 or 3 into less-infected areas. However, in fact the guidance says that
“if you live in a tier 2 area, you must continue to follow tier 2 rules when you travel to a tier 1 area.”
That means that someone can travel from higher-infection areas to lower-infection areas, including to Wales. Will the Secretary of State update the guidance to comply with the Prime Minister’s advice and stop non-essential travel from higher-infected to lower-infected areas ahead of the vaccine?
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
May I place on record my thanks to Kate Bingham and the vaccines taskforce, as well as all the Government Departments that have played their part in this welcome announcement, particularly the part played by my right hon. Friend? Does he agree that as community testing and vaccines are rolled out throughout the winter and into the spring, the need even for localised restrictions will gradually be reduced and that life can begin to return to something closer to normality for my constituents?
Matt Hancock
Yes. I have good news for the people of Workington and the whole country, which is that suppressing the virus using these restrictions until a vaccine came along has been the strategy all along, and we can just start to see the light at the end of the tunnel getting much brighter because we know we now have a vaccine.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I also welcome this news and thank all the scientists involved in this great breakthrough. When it is my turn to have the vaccine, I will have absolutely no hesitation in doing so. When it comes to turns, can the Secretary of State confirm that community workers—care workers who work in the community going from home to home—will be part of the first assessment of clinical need? Then, after clinical need, will educational need be a factor in keeping our schools open? A school in Southfields has been closed for the last two weeks for lack of teachers being able to teach, so as a next phase, will educational need be a consideration for the roll-out of the vaccine?
Matt Hancock
Once we have got through the clinical priority, of course there is a debate to be had about the order of priority after that. Between now and then, if we can get the repeat testing of contacts up and running and working across the board, I hope that that will be effective in ensuring that fewer teachers have to isolate because they are contacts as opposed to positive cases.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this vaccine and on his amazing success in preparing us for its speedy roll-out. This is indeed a good news day. The news that hospital staff, care workers and patients will be among the first to receive it will be welcomed in my local hospital and across our care sector. We are keen to make a start. Meanwhile, as the vaccine rolls out to other groups, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing rapid targeted testing at scale in Stockport and across Greater Manchester as we continue to drive down our covid rates and work together to beat the virus?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I will. Let us work together and make that happen, with Stockport Council as well, and try to get those rates right down even further than they already are.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
I echo the congratulations to all involved with the good news about this vaccination. Last week, I asked the Secretary of State to
“publish the modelling his Department holds on the effect of the relaxation of covid-19 restrictions over Christmas on covid-19 transmission rates”.
Yesterday I was told that it was “not possible to answer” that question yet. That seems quite extraordinary. Has the Secretary of State been given an estimate of how many additional deaths are likely to be caused by the loosening of restrictions over Christmas? If he knows the answer, I ask him to tell us now. If he does not know the answer, why would he make such a major decision without any idea of the number of deaths that could result?
Matt Hancock
We have to make judgments based on what is right, balancing the different considerations we have to take into account, including the yearning that many people have to come together at Christmas, and trying to find a balanced way through. We did that by working with the devolved authorities, and I am glad that we came to a UK-wide approach to Christmas, taking into account all the considerations that were necessary.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
May I add my voice of congratulation to my right hon. Friend and to the scientists, the pharmaceutical companies and everybody involved in today’s good news on securing that vaccine? However, he will know of my deep reservations on the severity of the restrictions being placed on my constituents through the new tier system. I am grateful for the time he took to discuss this with me yesterday. A big part of my reluctant decision to vote with the Government last night was the promise of more granularity when it comes to the review on 16 December. Can he therefore confirm that, if the numbers continue to come down, the Buckingham constituency can be considered for tier 1 before Christmas?
Matt Hancock
I enjoyed the conversations that I had with my hon. Friend on the approach to the Division Lobby. I can confirm that the answer to his question is yes.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I also congratulate the scientific community on their achievements today. But will the Secretary of State look with precision at the York model of delivering contact tracing? It has been a phenomenal story. Precision of contact tracing interviews has reduced the rate right down. They need the information on day one, not after 48 hours, which is being held back, but they also need to ensure that they get payment and support for people isolating. It works, so will the Secretary of State now follow that model?
Matt Hancock
We will not only follow the model; we will promote it. The link between the local authority and the national system in York has indeed had the effect that the hon. Member rightly describes, and the teamwork between the two has meant that the figures in York—I was looking at them this morning—are coming right down. I pay tribute to everybody in York. It is an example of the national and local systems working together. We have to get the case rates right down all the way across North Yorkshire—indeed, everywhere in Yorkshire—and I am sure that we can.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Barnsley has fewer GPs than areas down south, so will the Secretary of State explain his plan to ensure that places such as my constituency are not left behind in the roll-out of the vaccine?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. GPs, pharmacists, and hospital hubs and vaccination centres are the three routes to getting a vaccine. We will do it through the primary care networks, which are groups of GPs, and we will ensure that it is equitable right across the country. It is so important—not only between England and the devolved nations, but within England—to make the roll-out fair right across the land.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Today’s vaccination announcement certainly is extremely good news. My right hon. Friend has already outlined that there will be equitable provision of the vaccine across the United Kingdom. Will he do the same for community mass testing, and will he outline the logistics involved in getting the vaccines and the community mass testing kits to Wales?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend, as a GP, understands this subject more than most. We are working with the Welsh Administration to try to get community testing throughout Wales. We are working in Merthyr Tydfil right now to get the case rates down there. I am very happy to work with him, the Welsh Administration and local councils to ensure that we get the case rates down wherever we can.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
As we await the welcome roll-out of a vaccine, test and trace remains vital. In Scotland, over 90% of cases and contacts have been reached, whereas England, with its reliance on Serco, has seen barely 60% of contacts reached—far lower than is needed to meaningfully limit the spread of covid. Will the Secretary of State advise us what clauses are in the contracts regarding this failure to deliver, and what is he going to do about it?
Matt Hancock
I gently advise the hon. Member and other Scottish National party Members not to try to make this comparison. I looked into this matter in some detail when somebody else raised it. It turns out that the figures are only comparable if one strips out finding contacts in places where it is easy to get the contacts, such as care homes, because everybody who lives in them can easily be accounted for. Comparing apples and pears like this is not sensible and it is not right. Trying to drive a wedge between the public and private element of the system’s provision—which, by the way, Scotland also has—is a mistake.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I, too, thank everyone involved in today’s good news from North Devon. My right hon. Friend will know that the Nightingale in Exeter has now opened, but he will also know that we are seeing a large number of NHS staff absences across Devon. Can he assure me that the Government are doing everything they can to keep staff safe, and to ensure that we have enough staff to keep all hospitals in Devon running as they should?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is right to raise this important issue. I am glad to say that we have more staff working in the NHS in Devon over the last year and we have increased the number of nurses nationally by over 14,000, but there are also those absent because of covid. I hope that regular testing will help to bring that number down; and then, of course, there is the vaccine, which I hope will solve this problem once and for all.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that there was much disappointment in Devon that we were put in tier 2, although our rates are only 80 per 100,000 and coming down. Can he spell out exactly what has to happen in Devon over the next two weeks for us to move into tier 1? If the phenomenal success of the York modelling, which virtually eradicated covid in York, is for the reasons that he suggests, why is that not being done elsewhere?
Matt Hancock
We are very happy to work with Devon County Council if it wants to come forward for that sort of model. We are constantly learning from around the country. The local-national partnerships often bring lessons, because people have chosen to do things slightly differently in a local area, and we can all learn from that. As for Devon coming into tier 1, Devon does have lower rates than many places, but it is not the lowest area in tier 2, as that honour belongs to my own county of Suffolk. There are elevated numbers of cases in some parts of Devon. What I urge everyone in Devon to do to get into tier 1 is to abide by the tier 2 rules and, more than that, to take personal responsibility to do all they can to reduce the spread of the virus.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I say a big well done to everybody involved with this triumph. I share the Secretary of State’s concern over vaccine hesitancy, and he is right to say that everyone in this House has a duty to try to dispel it. Does he agree that, had this House not taken the decision on 16 October to empower the nimble MHRA and leave regulation instead to the European Medicines Agency until 31 December, he would not be in this happy position today?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I am very glad that we changed the law to allow the MHRA to make this authorisation on UK terms. This House voted unanimously to do that—well, we did not even have a vote as it went through without one. I am really glad that we were able to do that. I want to thank my right hon. Friend for his support and encouragement throughout this period. It has been a very, very long year as Health Secretary and I really appreciate his support.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Health Secretary spoke about learning lessons and continuing to improve the system. My partner’s daughter is currently self-isolating because someone in her class at school has got coronavirus. She comes home and lives with her sister who is still expected to go to school. Surely a world-class testing system would be testing everyone in the bubble of those who had been sent home so that immediate family could be identified as having the virus or not, and could take appropriate action. Is there any more that can be done to improve this so that people such as my partner and many other parents at Holymoorside school will be able to take the necessary steps?
Matt Hancock
Yes, we are piloting exactly that idea in, I think, eight schools right now and I hope to be able to roll it out once we have learned from those pilots.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend will be aware that Lincoln has a high student population, something of which I am very proud, and that our two universities are highly regarded. Quite a number of constituents have contacted me regarding the potential increase in cases when students return in January. What steps is he taking to support universities with this and what further steps can we take to support students who have to isolate as, often, they are far away from loved ones who can support them with shopping and so on and, as a Government we must do all we can to ensure that education continues as normal?
Matt Hancock
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Just as when students go home for Christmas, we are able to use the massive testing capacity that we have built up to ensure that they do so safely, so we propose to use testing to allow students to return safely. It is rather like the previous answer I just gave about being able to use testing instead of isolation in schools. I say gently to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) who, as he sat down, muttered about this: it is far better to work together, and it is only because of the massive testing capacity that has been built up through the actions of this Government that this is possible. We have the biggest testing capacity in Europe and we can use it for keeping people safe in schools and for allowing people to go safely to and from universities. This is exactly the sort of empowerment that we now have as a result of the huge testing programme that we have built.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Last week we celebrated Carers Rights Day, and today they are not included on the priority list issued by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. They do a huge job in looking after some of our most vulnerable people. Will the Health Secretary look again at that decision?
Matt Hancock
I am very happy to ensure that the JCVI takes all the appropriate considerations into account. However, it is not my decision to look at again. My decision is that we should follow the clinical advice. I think we should respect the JCVI, which is hugely expert in the clinical advice it gives.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
It is fantastic news about the vaccine, but we cannot be complacent. The Kirklees director of public health briefed me and other local MPs last night that Kirklees needs to be in tier 3 right now. We were in the top five councils for covid cases, but good local action, combined with the national lockdown, has helped to reduce cases by 41%. Can the Health Secretary confirm that he will use localised data at the first review of the tiers on 16 December so that, if we continue that progress, we might be able to come out of tier 3? In the meantime, will he speak again to the Chancellor to see what extra financial support we can give to our pubs, restaurants and cafés at this challenging time?
Matt Hancock
Yes. Of course, the Prime Minister announced extra funding for wet pubs yesterday. I am very happy to have a further discussion on that matter, but I also pay tribute to Kirklees, the people who live in Kirklees and my hon. Friend’s constituents, because it has been tough and it has been a long time. These measures have been in place for longer than almost anywhere else in the country, and the rates are now really coming down. Everybody should be very grateful for that.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks a lot about partnership at local level. Two weeks ago, his Department contacted the local public health directors and asked them to draw up plans for care home testing. Last week, his Department sent out a letter directly to care homes, bypassing those local directors of public health, to introduce testing in those care homes. Why was the approach changed? How will the data from that testing in local care homes be fed through to local directors of public health to do local tracing?
Matt Hancock
It is very important that tracing happens, and the data, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is fed through to councils where that data agreement has been put in place. The best approach is for councils and the national system to work well together.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Will the Health Secretary and his colleagues accept my congratulations on making sure the UK is one of the first countries in the world to have a deployable vaccine? Does he agree that businesses and their employees in the UK pharmaceutical sector, which invests over £4 billion a year of private risk capital, are heroes every bit as much as our wonderful NHS employees on the frontline?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely, and my hon. Friend gives the lie to this idea that we should somehow split public and private. I want to pay tribute, on behalf of all those in the House who believe in private enterprise, to everybody: the major global pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and AstraZeneca, the small entrepreneurial start-ups such as BioNTech and all those who have come to the aid of the nation. If they do it and make a profit, if they do that to save lives, that is fine by me.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Advent always starts with the prospect of good news, so this is a really good Advent. [Interruption.] Says the former vicar. Yes, quite.
Can I add one element to this issue of the prioritisation of vaccination? Covid has savagely exposed the health inequalities across the whole country. The poorest communities have suffered most, and the poorest communities often have the fewest health services and the least additional capacity to be able to deliver vaccination. As part of the mix, can we make sure that equality, real equity, across the whole country means that the poorest communities may need additional support?
Matt Hancock
Yes. The hon. Gentleman raises a point that is important for the vaccination programme but also important thereafter, because if levelling up means anything, it means trying to level up health and make sure that the health inequalities of which he speaks are addressed.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
Everyone involved in delivering this great news is to be congratulated, including the Secretary of State. The First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has said that provided that we receive the first doses of the vaccine as soon as we are expecting them in Scotland, we can start vaccinating people on Tuesday next week. Will the Secretary of State join me in applauding all at NHS Scotland who are going to make this possible?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I absolutely will. Our goal and our aim, and the commitment and agreement between all four nations of the United Kingdom, is that we will all start vaccination at the same time, fairly, across the four nations. That will happen early next week. When the announcement was made at 7 am, the one remaining regulatory hurdle was the batch testing, and that has now been completed, so we are on track to deliver on that commitment, which will be delivered through the NHS in all four corners of our land. We are working closely together. I spoke to my opposite number in Scotland early this morning to make sure that we are as co-ordinated as possible. This UK-purchased vaccine being delivered by NHS Scotland is a really good example of the power of this country when we all work together.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
The first country in the world to have a vaccine, and a world-class testing programme—what a phenomenal achievement. I thank my right hon. Friend and all the scientists and clinicians who have made today a reality. I am pleased that before Christmas we should have vaccine centres established in Oakham and in Melton Mowbray in my constituency. Will he please join me in extending his thanks to my local councils, our clinicians and residents for their enormously hard work to get ready to bring this vaccine to my communities?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I absolutely will. I pay tribute to their work on preparing for the vaccine roll-out, and also their work in keeping the virus under control, which is such an important task, is so difficult, and has consumed so much effort this year, yet there is still more work to be done over this winter to get the vaccine rolled out.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Two injections per person for everyone in the country is going to take an awful long time. The Prime Minister was hoping that it would be done by Easter. Does the Health Secretary share that timetable or will he publish another one? Is he planning on making this vaccine available again next year, since we do not know how long immunity lasts, and covid is likely to be endemic and with us for some time to come?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady asks two incredibly important questions, the first of which the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) asked and I did not answer, for which I apologise. The speed at which we can continue this roll-out will be determined by the speed at which Pfizer can manufacture and whether the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, of which we have 100 million doses on order, is approved by the MHRA. I am afraid that I cannot answer the hon. Lady’s question on the timetable, or indeed the hon. Gentleman’s, because it is dependent on the approval of AstraZeneca and the manufacturing process of the Pfizer vaccine.
On the hon. Lady’s second question, I have completely forgotten what it was. [Hon. Members: “Next year.”] Next year, yes, and whether this vaccine is only short-term. One of the reasons we have 357 million doses from seven different vaccines is to be able to vaccinate with further doses if that is needed in due course, whether that is through re-procurement of one of the existing vaccines or by switching to a different vaccine if that is clinically appropriate. That is absolutely part of the potential future plans that we have under consideration, but it is too early to know the answer to that question as well.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is wonderful news on the vaccine—many congratulations to all involved, including the Secretary of State. He will concede that it will be some months before restrictions can be lifted. North Yorkshire is the largest county in England by miles—it takes three hours to drive from one side of it to the other—and the variation in infection rates is considerable across the region. Will he consider, when he moves tiers around in two weeks’ time, moving one of the seven districts of North Yorkshire with low infection rates into tier 1?
Matt Hancock
As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we do look at the human geography and how the epidemiology shows the spread of the virus is occurring across the country, especially, but not limited to, the big rural counties. We have to be slightly careful in North Yorkshire. One of the challenged areas is Scarborough, where the case rates are elevated. I appreciate that that is a long way from my hon. Friend’s patch. We do look at it at that granular level and make decisions on that basis, but the decision to put the whole of North Yorkshire into tier 2 was taken looking at each part of North Yorkshire on its merits.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
Dr de Gruchy, the president of the Association of Directors of Public Health, has said:
“it is completely incomprehensible that the Government is not increasing the public health grant”
to local authorities next year. She spoke of the importance of
“learning the lessons of how existing health inequalities have driven and exacerbated the impact of COVID-19”,
as well as addressing
“the socio-economic determinants of health”
and giving public health teams the resources they need both to continue the fight against covid-19 and for the longer term. Will the Secretary of State pay heed to that message, and will he call on the Chancellor to give local public health teams the funding they need?
Matt Hancock
We are increasing the public health grant next year. Also, the public health grant is but one part of the massive overall investment in public health that we have made this year and will, of course, have to continue to make next year as we get the virus under control.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
The news this morning about the vaccines gives my constituents in Hyndburn and Haslingden light at the end of a very dark tunnel. The announcement on care homes is genuinely brilliant news and something I have pushed for, as the Secretary of State will know, both in and out of this Chamber. As has been mentioned, mass testing is also a vital part in our fight against coronavirus. Will the Secretary of State confirm when it will be rolled out in tier 3 areas such as Hyndburn and Haslingden, so we can continue to get our rate down and get our brilliant hospitality sector up again?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is right. The candle of hope is burning brighter today. On the mass testing she is so enthusiastic about, I can tell her that this morning when I asked my officials to ensure that the community testing programme that is being developed for Hyndburn is advanced as quickly as possible, they told me that they had been told of the need for it by so many people and that so many people had been lobbied by her, that it was already in hand. I suppose that that goes to show just how vociferous my hon. Friend is in fighting for the people of Hyndburn.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We will have a three-minute suspension.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).
Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access)
Wednesday 2nd December 2020
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Bill 2019-21 View all Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the installation of automated external defibrillators in public buildings, sporting facilities, schools, higher education and other education and skills facilities, and facilities that provide care to vulnerable people; and to make associated provision about training and signage.
This is the third attempt to bring in a Bill of this nature, following two previous efforts by the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield). May I put on the record my thanks to her for her efforts and commitment? I was happy to co-sponsor her Bill in 2018, which fell due to Parliament being dissolved. I stand today once more to inform the House that the push for mandatory installation of these life-saving devices in our public buildings must be welcomed.
As the Member for Strangford in Northern Ireland, I felt that it was right that I took this opportunity to present this Bill because the defibrillator, of course, was invented by Professor Frank Pantridge, who was born in Hillsborough in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). Professor Pantridge pioneered the automated external defibrillator, or the portable defibrillator, at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast, in collaboration with the British Heart Foundation.
Behind this Bill lie stories of tragedy and triumph. Those stories must be shared, because they have happened across the whole community. In December 2019, I met Mark King, whose son Oliver died in March 2011 from a cardiac arrest when taking part in a swimming race. Oliver was 12 years old. He was an outstanding young athlete and a much-loved little boy, who unfortunately had a hidden heart condition. Had a defibrillator been quickly available, his chances of survival would have been so much greater, and it is possible that he would have been here to celebrate his 21st birthday back in January this year.
It is because a defibrillator was not available, because it is still not mandatory for any building to have one, that Oliver’s death inspired his daddy, Mark King, to set up the Oliver King Foundation, which has worked since 2012 to save as many lives as possible by raising awareness of the importance of public access defibrillators. To date, the foundation has placed 4,500 AEDs in schools and organisations across the United Kingdom and trained 70,000 staff in AED awareness, and more than 47 lives have been saved by the defibrillators that the foundation has placed. That has been achieved through effort born from heartbreak. I say to the Government that it is time we removed that burden from the foundation’s shoulders and required mandatory installation of AEDs as Oliver King’s legacy.
Members may not be aware that 270 children die across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland each year from hidden heart conditions. Many have died in school settings and sports fields. Those places are where defibrillators need to be, and they need to be there not simply because someone has fundraised in their community, but because they are required to be there. That is the reason for this Bill.
When a defibrillator is available, it can mean the difference between life and death. A member of my office staff is a volunteer with St John Ambulance and assisted at an incident where a young boy had collapsed outside a school. He had no heartbeat. The school had a defibrillator on site, and she assisted a trained staff member as this child, lying on the cold ground in his school uniform, was revived on the third cycle by a combination of a defibrillator and CPR, so that when paramedics arrived they were met with a living child instead of a scene of unspeakable heartbreak. I am happy to say that that child recovered and eventually returned to school, but we can imagine how it must have been for his daddy, who was there, trying to reassure his wife over the phone. The heart must be restarted within three minutes, and how different it could have been if no defibrillator had been available.
I remember well when a man collapsed in my constituency while watching a game of football in the grounds of Portavogie football club. He had gone into cardiac arrest when a defibrillator was brought from the club house, just a few metres away, and applied to him. On the fourth cycle he began to breathe. That man is alive today because a defibrillator was at his side in seconds, and that is so important. That small machine can restore life, and its benefit is that anyone can use one, because once they have opened it, audio instructions tell them exactly what to do. The Bill’s purpose is to increase rates of survival from cardiac arrest by making public access to a defibrillator as quick as possible. Seconds count when the heart stops beating.
There are many reasons why a heart suddenly stops working, and it could happen to anyone, even the very young. Sudden cardiac death kills 12 people aged 35 and under each week across Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. Many of the young people who die are involved in physical activities when it happens. Although such incidents are indiscriminate, the availability of defibrillators should not be. Of the 30,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests across Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom each year, the overall survival rate is a shocking one in 10. It is estimated that public access to defibrillators is used in fewer than 5% of those incidents.
We should all agree that those are sad statistics, but one even sadder statistic also need mentioning. The British Heart Foundation has reported—I say this gently—that women are less likely to be given CPR or defibrillation by bystanders than men, if they suffer an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in a public place. Some 68% of women will receive assistance compared with 77% of men, which means that women are less likely to survive, even if a defibrillator is readily available. Bystanders are afraid that they might be inappropriately touching a lady, and one aim of the Bill is to educate and remind us all that education and awareness across our communities is urgently needed. Nobody should die for lack of CPR or defibrillation because people are afraid to touch them.
The timing of this Bill coincides with the intention to include first aid and CPR in the national school curriculum in England this year, 2020. Norway has been teaching CPR in schools for many years, and bystander CPR has caused its survival rates to be as high as 25%, compared with less than 10% in the United Kingdom. St John Ambulance runs Badgers and Cadets schemes for those aged seven to 19. Those schemes teach CPR and the use of defibrillators, so that children and young people learn how to save lives. It makes perfect sense for that training also to take place in our schools. We in the devolved nations should get involved with that idea, and call on our education Ministers seriously to consider making those life-saving skills part of our children’s everyday learning in school.
This Bill needs to be robust and to include a requirement on councils to comply. If we can afford to build new buildings and facilities, we can afford a few extra hundred pounds on installing automated external defibrillators. That should be guided by having an AED per building on a facility of 7,500 square metres of floor space, and a register must be established to record the location of an AED, with a programme of maintenance and annual testing. I understand that there are now more AEDs installed in public places today than there were when young Oliver King lost his life. That is to be acknowledged and welcomed, but we must go a lot further. We cannot leave the availability of such a life-saving device to the result of a random decision or a mayoral recommendation.
AEDs are almost always obtained through the efforts of community fundraising. Indeed, one was recently installed near my office in Newtownards by the staff of Wardens, who raised the money themselves. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), who is unable to be here today, told me about the incredible commitment by one of his constituents, Mr David Sutton-Lloyd, who made it his mission to see publicly accessible AEDs installed across the length and breadth of Newton Aycliffe. Those efforts are to be praised, but why must it remain incumbent on shop staff and dedicated individuals such as Mr Sutton-Lloyd to purchase AEDs for the safety of others? They do not have to purchase fire extinguishers or smoke alarms that public buildings are required by law to have in place. Why should we, as legislators in this House, continue to leave the availability of defibrillators as arbitrary when we have the figures for how many people die from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest each week and when, tragically, many of them are children?
It is easy to listen to the statistics being read out and, sometimes, we can become cold to them, but then be shocked and moved by them, but nothing drives home the message more effectively than seeing with one’s own eyes the miraculous revival of a human life by a defibrillator. I would ask how many hon. Members have witnessed a person collapse suddenly and stop breathing. Some have, and many of us probably have not, but that does not matter.
Most of us will remember the footage of former Bolton Wanderers player Fabrice Muamba, who collapsed from cardiac arrest on the pitch, during a live broadcast of the match. His heart stopped beating for 78 minutes, but his chances of survival were increased from the start because CPR and a defibrillator were applied during those crucial first few minutes. Such a scene is deeply distressing to witness, but nothing is more distressing than the needless loss of life.
I call on Members to think about that wee boy Oliver King. He was known as “Mr Special” by his parents and all who knew him. He should have turned 21 this year. Also think about my constituent who will celebrate another Christmas this month with his loved ones. The difference in those stories is one thing: a defibrillator—the absence of one and the availability of one.
We can no longer leave it to the public to hold raffles or coffee mornings. We must consider it our duty as legislators to require AEDs to be present in public buildings, sporting facilities, places of education and wherever someone, be they young or elderly, might fall down and never get up again. The Bill will ensure that if they do, they will have every chance of getting up again. I urge Members to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Jim Shannon, John Howell, Paul Girvan, David Linden, Carla Lockhart, Maria Eagle, Caroline Nokes, Chris Green, Mrs Pauline Latham, Alison Thewliss, Mr Peter Bone and Sir Jeffrey Donaldson present the Bill.
Jim Shannon accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2021, and to be printed (Bill 222).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The Ayes were 362 and the Noes were 202, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Agriculture
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 12 November, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this we will take the following motions:
That the draft Direct Payments to Farmers (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 12 November, be approved.
That the draft World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 12 November, be approved.
Victoria Prentis
These are the first regulations produced using the powers under the new Agriculture Act 2020. They lay the groundwork for our new agricultural policy.
Turning to the first of the statutory instruments, the draft regulations will assign additional functions to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. They will enable the AHDB to collect, manage and make available information regarding the identification, movement and health of animals, and to allocate unique identification codes as a means of identifying animals. That information will feed into a new livestock information service.
Of the 165,000 livestock farmers today, nearly 60,000 keep more than one species. Therefore, those farmers need to engage with different services and systems. The livestock information service replaces separate species-specific systems with a single portal for keepers to meet their reporting responsibilities. It should be more cost-effective and easier to use, and it will allow faster and more accurate livestock traceability.
The AHDB will also run a unique number identification service on behalf of England and Wales controlling the issuing of official individual identification numbers to animals. The new system will allow for value-added services where submitted data can be used to generate information in wider areas such as livestock productivity and disease management.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Since the Minister mentioned Wales, may I raise the issue of Welsh lamb? Sheep are already pregnant with next year’s flock, and we hope that lambs will be frolicking all over the hills in the springtime, but the real worry for many Welsh farmers is that they will not be able to sell their product in the rest of the European Union. What plans have the Government put in place to deal with the eventuality that 50% of the product that presently goes to the European Union cannot be sold?
Victoria Prentis
It is a delight to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. It is not absolutely on point with this statutory instrument, but it is always a delight to talk about Welsh lamb. I am still very hopeful that we will get a zero-tariff deal with the European Union, which would be a good outcome for Welsh lamb. In the event that we do not get such a deal, as I hope he knows, we worked up various schemes in our previous planning for a no-deal exit, and I am sure that, if needed, those can be got out and worked up once again.
To return to the regulations, this new traceability system, which will be available for sheep in the future, will allow us better to manage disease, which is what we are talking about. We are not talking about deal or no deal at the moment; we are talking about management of disease in lambs, Welsh or otherwise. The system should also enable us to protect human health, giving confidence to trading partners—with whom we hope we will be able to trade—and enable better use of data to manage on-farm productivity and efficiency.
I turn to the Direct Payments to Farmers (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. The legislation governing direct payment schemes contains financial ceilings that are used to calculate direct payments to farmers. However, the legislation only includes financial ceilings up to and including the 2020 claim year. These regulations specify how the Secretary of State will set financial ceilings for England beyond the end of this year. These regulations also make minor changes to ensure that the schemes continue to work effectively in England beyond 2020. That includes replacing dates specific to the 2020 scheme year with equivalent dates that are not year-specific. The regulations also remove rules that are not relevant to England, such as those relating to voluntary coupled support.
No substantive policy changes are made by these regulations. They ensure the continuity of direct payments in England beyond the end of this year and are largely technical. Farmers will see no change on the ground as a result of them. The Government remain committed to beginning to phase out direct payments from 2021 as part of their ambitious agricultural reforms in England. We will bring forward separate legislation to make those changes. Direct payment schemes fall within devolved competence. The devolved Administrations plan to make their own legislation in relation to direct payment schemes in their own territories.
I turn to the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020. The World Trade Organisation’s agreement on agriculture divides domestic support into green, blue or amber depending on the support’s potential to distort trade. Under the agreement, each country must limit the amount of trade-distorting amber box domestic support given to agricultural producers. The UK’s overall amber box spend limit remains unchanged after EU exit. These regulations specify the amount of amber box payments that may be given in each country of the UK. Those limits have been set at a level that will not constrain policy choices, meaning that there should be no impact on farmers. The regulations also outline the procedure for classifying such schemes and permit the Secretary of State to request information from the DAs where that is needed to enable the UK to satisfy its obligations under the agreement on agriculture.
These statutory instruments implement provisions provided for by the Agriculture Act. In the case of direct payments, they provide important and necessary continuity for farmers. I urge Members to agree to these regulations, which I commend to the House.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here and to speak to these statutory instruments, Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed, they are an eclectic mix of instruments, and I say at the outset that we will not be opposing them. May I say something positive about the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board? I know it is not always supported throughout the sector, but my experience has been very positive, and it does very valuable work.
On livestock movement, we know how critical a tracing system is. We need only look back to some of the awful experiences with foot and mouth back in 1967 and 2001 and, indeed, to the lessons learned by 2007, and we have only to think about bovine TB and, I fear, African swine fever, which is currently moving across Europe. There are worrying developments around avian flu, which is a different issue, and the Opposition will do everything we can to work with the Government to tackle that.
May I also make reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is sitting patiently? There was a suggestion from the Secretary of State as to what should be done in these circumstances, which I think rather unhelpfully was a suggestion to switch to beef. I suspect that will not satisfy my hon. Friend. He may wish to intervene.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to be enticed. Yes, the Secretary of State suggested to me that those affected should all move over to beef. The truth, as far as I can see, is that first, that is difficult to achieve on most Welsh mountains and, secondly, it is not exactly an environmentally friendly direction of travel. More importantly, did my hon. Friend catch the intimation from the Minister that if this produce is not going to be able to be sold, because of tariffs within the European Union, basically all that additional produce will just be burnt?
Daniel Zeichner
This is possibly not the place to have this debate, but my hon. Friend is right to raise it and the Minister will have the opportunity to respond later. Of course, we are seeing problems with wool, as well, so it is a troubled time for people. Obviously we hope that we end up without tariffs, because that will be a much better outcome.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Clearly the rules, as the Minister set out, are specific to England, but the shadow Minister referred to the movement of cattle and sheep in the United Kingdom mainland. He will know, as we do, that that movement of traffic is to and fro from Northern Ireland to the mainland. When it comes to the movement of any animals, does he think we need continuity with the payment scheme and the flexibility to be able to move cattle and sheep not only north and south from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, but from Northern Ireland to Scotland and to England and Wales?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Member tempts me further and further away from the instrument. I can assure him I will be coming to some of those points, because it is obviously key that we resolve these issues of movement within the island of Ireland. They are complicated and pressing for many, many people.
We are told that this instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union, which is a welcome relief, I suspect, given the number of instruments we have been discussing in recent weeks. Indeed, it comes from the newly passed Agriculture Act 2020. It makes provisions for better traceability. It was noted as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and the Minister has outlined many of the proposals, so I will not repeat all of that.
The proposals set out by the AHDB for a new livestock information service system are important. It will provide a multi-species traceability system, and DEFRA tells us that it will enable the Department and the Animal and Plant Health Agency to trace all livestock movements through a single, more efficient system, which would be welcome, because livestock are currently identified through three separate livestock traceability systems: one for cattle, one covering sheep and goats and one for pigs. The service was introduced over the past two decades as various pieces of EU legislation came into force. As the Minister said, the existing systems are species-specific, so keepers with more than one species of livestock need to switch between databases. The existing systems are also designed to collect, rather than share data and, extraordinarily, are paper-based.
I am told that the AHDB will also run a unique number identification service on behalf of England and Wales, which will control the issuing of official individual identification numbers to animals. The Scottish Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland have noted that they will pursue their own systems for issuing identification numbers to animals. The service will operate in England but because, as has been said, animals can and do move across borders, the instrument applies across the UK so that AHDB may handle data on animal movements and traceability systems outside England where necessary to allow a complete picture of animal traceability. Further collective work involving all four Administrations is aimed at agreeing a UK view of key data to support traceability.
As I said, AHDB has established a subsidiary company, Livestock Information Ltd, to carry out the services on behalf of AHDB and DEFRA. We are told that the estimated cost is £32 million over three years, and the projected monetised net benefit using a 10-year appraisal method is conservatively placed at £30 million. AHDB says that improved traceability data will enable a range of other benefits, including reducing the impact of endemic diseases, increasing our ability to act quickly and proportionately in the event of an exotic disease outbreak, and improving livestock business productivity.
Some questions follow from that, however. Under the provisions of the instrument, each devolved Administration will have their own database. How will we be able to trace animals as they move across borders? On the implementation of the system, will there be an instant switchover, or a transition period in which both old and new systems operate alongside one another? What is the timeframe for getting the new traceability system up and running?
Farmers currently pay a levy for the use of AHDB services. In bringing the new traceability system under the remit of AHDB, DEFRA says there are no plans for a new levy to fund any of the services the regulations bring in. “No plans” is a term that is regularly used, often euphemistically. Can the Minister give a guarantee that there will not be a levy? It appears that Livestock Information Ltd will cost £32 million of taxpayer money that is immediately handed to a subsidiary in which DEFRA has a minority stake. Will the Minister explain why that is?
Looking at the direct payments instrument, we have been here before. The draft regulations are laid under the new Agriculture Act 2020 and need to come into force on 1 January 2021 to ensure that direct payment support will be available for farmers in England for the 2021 claim year. The Government have confirmed the continuation of direct payments for 2020 in the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, which we discussed back in January, but as we heard earlier this week, some of the payments will be phased out in England under the new Agriculture Act from next year over the following seven years, beginning with a 5% to 25% cut in farmers’ income next year.
This statutory instrument has been noted as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. According to DEFRA, the instrument aims to maintain the status quo as far as possible for farmers next year. The instrument sets rules about the financial ceilings used to calculate farmers’ direct payments, giving the Secretary of State time to determine the ceilings for the 2021 claim year before the start of that year, as the current financial ceilings extend only to the 2020 claim year. It also removes from 2021 elements of direct payments that have not previously been implemented in England, some of which have been used in the rest of the UK. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee notes that separate legislation will be required for the Government’s planned reforms to phase out direct payments from 2021.
Back in January, when we discussed the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act, Labour pressed the Government on the need for a legislative mechanism for direct payments to farmers to be continued beyond 2020. We predicted that we would be back later in the year—and here we are, with the Government using the Agriculture Act as that mechanism to use this SI for 2021.
We welcome the shift from supporting land ownership to helping farmers restore land and improve our natural environment, but farmers are rightly concerned about how they are going to survive during the transition the Government propose. On Monday, it was revealed that direct payments will start to be cut next year, and will be cut by 50% by 2024, yet the new environmental land management schemes will not fully up and running until 2024. What was once envisaged as a bridging sustainable farming incentive payment will not be available for farmers until 2022, and in the view of many, including Labour Members, there is still too little detail of the schemes to help farmers to plan for uncertain times ahead. Based on DEFRA’s own statistics, 75% of farming enterprises are currently unprofitable without direct payments. We fear that many farms will be left financially unviable under the Government’s proposals.
A recent survey of landowners and farmers by the Country Landowners Association found high levels of concern about the implementation of the new ELM schemes, with 76% of respondents fearing that the payments would not be sufficient and 57% thinking that administration would be poor. The Rural Payments Agency will be administering new payment schemes—we all know that it has had a troubled history, although it has improved in recent times—and there remain real doubts about the capacity to deliver new systems alongside administering legacy payments.
The high-risk approach to our farmers’ future security is, I am sorry to say, of a piece with the highly ideological approach that the Government have taken to farming post Brexit. The Government still refuse to back British farmers with a legal guarantee that they will not be undercut by cheaper, lower-standard food allowed in through trade deals that, despite the claims, will still lack proper parliamentary scrutiny.
I will not go over familiar ground again, the Minister will be glad to hear, but let me put some specific questions on this instrument. The draft regulations that she has come forward with today provide farmers with direct payments for just 2021. Will regulations need to be laid every year for the seven years of the agricultural transition period to continue direct payments in their current form prior to phasing out? When are the Government going to come forward with regulations for phasing out direct payments?
These provisions remove a number of elements of direct payments that have not been applied in England but have been elsewhere in the UK. These include the redistributive payment and voluntary coupled support schemes that have been used in Wales and Scotland. They also take out the active farmer provision and basic payment scheme agri-environment transfer. Will the Minister confirm that there is nothing here that will restrict devolved Administrations from making their own choices? While we understand the concerns about the active farmer provision, we still believe that measures are needed to ensure that money goes to farmers, not just landholders.
This is a continuation of direct payments to farmers for next year, which is welcome, but we know that the Government are planning to cut direct payments for next year. What support are they going to give farmers facing a 5% cut in their income next year? Has DEFRA undertaken an impact assessment on what direct payment cuts would look like to farmers in different sectors and farm sizes, and will they release that impact assessment?
We know that different parts of the UK will now be pursuing different payment support schemes for farmers, as agriculture is a devolved area. How will the Government ensure that we do not see market distortions emerging across the UK? Given its past performance failures, can the Minister guarantee that the Rural Payments Agency is competent to administer the many changes and parallel systems emerging over the next few years?
In conclusion, let me turn to perhaps the most complicated of the three SIs before us, on WTO compliance. This instrument has been made under the Agriculture Act but relates to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. It introduces a legal framework to ensure UK-wide compliance with WTO commitments on the use of domestic support for agriculture. I understand that this is a largely technical change following our withdrawal, so this SI was not reported on by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
While a member of the EU, UK interests at the WTO were represented by the European Commission, which was responsible for ensuring that the UK complied with WTO agreements. That included the WTO agreement on agriculture, which sets out a number of general rules and commitments that signatory nations must follow on agricultural trade practices, including disciplines on domestic support, market access and export subsidies. Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the UK will now represent its own interests at the WTO, and the UK Government will be responsible for ensuring that the UK complies with its obligations and commitments as an independent WTO member. These include obligations relating to the classification and notification of domestic support and the UK’s commitment to reduce its aggregate measurement of support.
As the Minister said, this instrument specifies the amount of amber box payments that may be given in each country of the United Kingdom—amber box payments being those that have trade-distorting effects, which are limited under the WTO agreement on agriculture. This instrument also outlines the procedure for classifying such schemes and permits the Secretary of State to request information where this is needed to enable the United Kingdom to satisfy its obligations. The explanatory memorandum says that it
“allows for each UK administration to design and implement their own agricultural support schemes within an amber box spending envelope.”
These provisions stem from part 6 of the Agriculture Act, and they were criticised at the Committee stage by the devolved Administrations. There were concerns that, despite agriculture being a devolved area, the Act gave the Secretary of State the centralised power to decide how farm support payments everywhere in the UK will be classified in relation to international trade rules, and to set limits on how much can be paid out by each Administration. At the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill, Labour sought to amend the Bill by requiring Ministers to consult with each devolved authority on a draft of the relevant regulations. This was rejected by the Government, but the Minister committed to consult with the devolved Administrations on the making of regulations under part 6.
The Government have outlined in their explanatory memorandum for this SI:
“These regulations were drafted in consultation with policy officials from the devolved administrations, who were given the opportunity to comment at each drafting stage. It was possible to accommodate the majority of their comments and suggested changes whilst recognising that UK Government’s position is that ensuring compliance with international obligations remains a reserved issue.”
I have to say that, from speaking to some of my Scottish colleagues, I am not entirely convinced they completely agree with that characterisation of the discussion. So can the Minister explain what consultations have been had with the devolved authorities on the content of these regulations, how the majority of their comments and suggested changes were accommodated, and what suggestions, if any, were not accommodated?
In conclusion, these are indeed an eclectic group of instruments, but they are all important to make sure our farmers are paid, to ensure that we use the latest technology to best effect to maintain the health of our livestock and to ensure that agricultural support systems are WTO-compliant. We are not opposing them, but there are questions I have posed, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to discuss the second instrument about direct payments, and I beg your forbearance and that of the Front Benchers, who I expect thought they would get away with being the only speakers this afternoon. I am sorry about that, but I put in because I did not get the chance to speak in the debates on the Agriculture Bill earlier this year. I hope the House and you will indulge me for a few minutes while I speak about Wiltshire farmers and the role I think farming could play in the UK after Brexit.
I much enjoyed the Bill Committee, and especially the erudition and good humour of the two Front Benchers. My hon. Friend the Minister and I have something in common, which is a parent in the public eye—both with some strong farming and food credentials, and both with some suspicions about what the Government are up to it when it comes to agriculture—
Danny Kruger
The Minister denies it. It is true to say that I do not think she had the pleasure of the experience of a convoy of tractors driving through Banbury in protest at the Agriculture Bill, with a huge placard on the front tractor saying, “Daddy knows best”, which is what I had in Marlborough, with a placard saying, “Mummy knows best”. Of course, Mummy does know best; she just did not understand the question in that instance. I did of course disagree with those farmers on the detail of the Agriculture Bill, but I did and do share their concerns, and I want to try to summarise those today. There are basically two: there is a practical concern about farm incomes, and there is a strategic or philosophical concern about the place of farming in this country’s future.
Let me summarise the practical concern first. We are basically moving the subsidy—some billions of pounds—from farming as it is traditionally understood, as the management of land for the production of food, to environmental stewardship. The overall budget might be the same and individual farm incomes may be guaranteed for a few years, but this is a profound change in the business model of farming. I was very pleased to get assurances on Monday from the Secretary of State in his statement that the switch is not intended to reduce food production or to take land out of cultivation and put it to other uses. I believe him, and I am sure that is the intention. I fully support the overall mission of the reforms, which is to enable sustainable food production in this country, but the design and details of the system are essential to make sure that we do not inadvertently make people, against their best instincts and against the traditions of their own land, become unwilling environmental stewards rather than food producers.
We all know the jokes about farmers being asked, “What do you farm?” and answering, “Subsidies, mostly.” I am all for subsidies, and I am all for stewardship and for paying farmers to maintain the forests, the streams and the soil, but let us make sure they farm animals and crops. The details of the scheme are what matters here, and we need to get on with it. The time is tight for phasing out basic payments, and we still do not know the full details of what will replace them. I appreciate and applaud the reason for this—the Government want to consult with farmers on the best system for them—but I hope this can happen soon and finish quickly.
Let me finish with the strategic question, which, in a sense, underpins all the technical debate that we are having about subsidies. The Opposition spent much of the debate on the Agriculture Bill talking about trade deals. Although, in a sense, trade deals had nothing to do with that Bill, which was about support for and regulation of British farms, I appreciate why they discussed them. The fact is that a bad trade deal could undermine a good Agriculture Bill—and it was a good Agriculture Bill, especially once food production was recognised as something worth including.
I applaud the Government for the deal they did to keep the National Farmers Union and the Department for International Trade happy by ensuring proper statutory oversight of the trade deals to make sure that food standards and farming interests are protected. We are now in the process of negotiating those trade deals, and here is where the philosophical difference arises; I fear that there may be a philosophical difference between DEFRA and DIT.
It is right that the Departments have slightly different approaches. DIT is there to maximise trade for British companies so that they benefit from lucrative exports and British consumers benefit from cheap imports. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate my old friends Douglas Carswell and Dominic Johnson on their appointments as non-executive directors of DIT this week. They are great patriots with all the right instincts—so much so that I see that DIT has been dubbed by some Conservatives “the Ministry of Sound”. I am pleased about their appointments, but I am not sure that Douglas Carswell or Dominic Johnson has ever so much as grown a tray of cress, let alone planted a carrot or had anything to do with actual farming. I wish all power to the Minister’s elbow in the ongoing oversight that she will exercise over her colleagues in the trade deals that are being negotiated.
We must not offshore our carbon emissions or animal cruelty to other countries. We must not sell out our farmers. We must make a moral and political decision to rely more on British food. Partly this is about food security—as this year shows, it would be unwise to take land out of production that we might need in future crises—but it is also about a way of life. In a mysterious sense, landscape is a human construct bounded by walls and ditches, marked by copses and fields that have been maintained by people who owned or rented the land for generations. Land is made beautiful and meaningful because it is used, not just for the public good of environmental wellbeing, but for the private good of the people who live on it. That is why there is a special place for farmers as stewards of a landscape in use.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your patience; I thank the House too. Let me also express my appreciation of the Minister for her work and my support for these statutory instruments. We must maintain direct payments for our farmers. We must introduce variable tariffs to make it pointless for foreign countries to export to this country food made to lower standards than ours. We must protect our farmers, because their private good is the public good.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
There are three instruments before us today. I will not touch on the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2020, which affects England and Wales, but I will discuss the provisions relating to the World Trade Organisation and direct payments to farmers.
Before I do that, I predict that the Minister, as she often does, will cite the consent that she enjoys from colleagues in the Scottish Government on these matters. I will expand a little on what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), has said —that there is sometimes a huge difference between consent and delight, or even between consent and something remotely similar to what we would do if we had the legislative authority to do it. That is sometimes the space in which our Ministers in the devolved Administrations find themselves.
The World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020 set a limit of 12.67% of total UK amber box support for Scotland. This reliance on a percentage of the total UK quantum means that while Scotland remains within the UK, we must remain subject to the vagaries of the total UK figure. It is not inconceivable that in a mixture of ill winds and fair, high yields and low, we could see the figure to which that 12.67% relates reduce at a UK level—at a time when Scotland may need to increase the support to its growers and producers that is satisfactory even at a conceptual level. In addition, the Secretary of State holds the final say and authority to determine the classification of support as blue, green or amber box support. I am interested in better understanding the principles of consent and safeguards for fairness that will uphold that authority justly.
It is fortuitous that the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) is here. During the agricultural transition plan statement on 30 November, many Scottish MPs pressed the Secretary of State for assurances that state aid principles in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill would not be used to prevent the Scottish Government from providing agricultural support in the way that they choose. No such assurances were provided, yet in answering a subsequent question during the same debate from the hon. Gentleman, who was concerned that Scottish farmers may be able to undercut Wiltshire farmers because of a difference in devolved Government support, the Secretary of State was quick to make an assurance and a commitment to the hon. Gentleman that that would not be possible—I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving him prior notice that I would mention him in this debate —so perhaps the Minister could address some of these points.
As regards direct payments to farmers, the comprehensive spending review made clear that Scotland will be short-changed, especially rural Scotland. Support for rural Scotland will be £117 million short of what was promised by 2025, despite the fact that the Government made a manifesto commitment to match EU support. The Secretary of State announced that, by 2028, support for farmers in England will move away from the direct payment scheme based on the amount of land farmed, with the initial budget of £1.8 billion dropping to half that by 2024. To be clear, we fully support the move away from rewarding land ownership to rewarding output, productivity and land stewardship. Nevertheless, that leaves several years in which farmers will face a shortfall in payments. That will not happen in Scotland, because the Scottish Government have committed independently to continuing payments at the same level as currently. The National Farmers Union president, Minette Batters, said:
“Expecting farmers to run viable, high-cost farm businesses, continue to produce food and increase their environmental delivery, while phasing out existing support and without a complete replacement scheme for almost three years is high risk and a very big ask.”
The wisdom of pursuing such changes at a time of such broad upheaval is a challenge for the industry and perhaps deeply questionable.
It is also necessary that the UK Government clarify that there will be no undermining of the Scottish Government’s ability to set and administer support for agriculture in whatever way they see fit. The statutory instrument makes changes concerning the new system of direct payments for farmers in England, including setting a ceiling on payments in England. Can the Minister assure me that that will result solely in positive consequences for Scotland through Barnett consequentials?
Victoria Prentis
It is lovely to have you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. A large number of questions have been asked. I will endeavour to answer them as best I can, but if I miss any, hon. Members should not hesitate to catch up with me afterwards.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) mentioned avian flu and his constructive approach, which we have discussed outside the Chamber. As is clear, poultry will not initially be part of this new scheme, but I have asked and have been assured that the scheme and the new framework is sufficiently flexible possibly to include poultry one day if that were considered sensible. The service will be delivered by Livestock Information Ltd, which will be a public company jointly owned by DEFRA and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, and its constitution will ensure that both Government and the farming industry are involved in key decisions.
The projected monetised net benefit over a 10-year appraisal period is, conservatively, £30 million. We might well hope for better. The new system is not yet live, but the existing sheep service is due to transition to the new arrangements in the spring of 2021. Cattle and pig services—pigs, in particular, are dealt with quite differently at the moment—are due to transition to the new service in 2022. The new service does not replace the individual traceability services run by the devolved Administrations. All data provided by the DAs and DEFRA to enable the AHDB to run the UK view will be handled in accordance with the data-sharing agreement that will be agreed by all Administrations. The AHDB will not be able to use data outside the terms of that agreement.
An important part of the traceability aspect of the programme is the work with the DAs to share data to ensure seamless traceability throughout the UK, which is important. DEFRA and the DAs will enter into an agreement to control and share data jointly—that is the UK view—and each territory’s traceability systems will be able to communicate with each other to support day-to-day business operations. That is clearly important for all parts of the UK.
Let me turn to the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, which was focused, as we said at the time, on maintaining the status quo as the UK left the EU. It was not there to extend the scope of the regulations beyond 2020. The Agriculture Act is, in my view, the proper place for our post-2020 changes, which is why we have introduced this SI. The changes in the SI are not specific to 2021, so we will not need to bring forward SIs to deal with direct payments in future years of the transition.
I reassure the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) that Scotland has not been short-changed. Our manifesto committed to guaranteeing the current annual budget to farmers in every year of this Parliament, and we are delivering on that manifesto. The Secretary of State mentioned this several times when asked about it when he gave his statement to the House on the agricultural transition plan—was that only on Monday, Madam Deputy Speaker? I repeat what he said: EU funding currently still flows to the various nations and we will top that up to the agreed level, which is £595 million for Scotland annually. We used 2019 exchange rates, which were very favourable—a good thing—and that means that our commitment is greater than that which was spent under the common agricultural policy.
The Rural Payments Agency was mentioned, and I thank it enormously for its work to pay farmers over the past two or three days. The figures this year have been superb. A number of Members of this House who are in receipt of direct payments have been at pains to come up to me to thank me for their speedy payment this year, and I know that many farmers are impressed with the current service. I have a great deal of confidence in the RPA and I am very grateful to it for its hard work in these difficult times.
Although they were broadly out of the scope of this debate, I wish to take a few moments to respond to some of the substantive points made by the hon. Member for Cambridge about “The Path to Sustainable Farming”, which we published on Monday. This document is an important publication that sets out detail on the early years of the agricultural transition, including, of course, the reductions that we are going to make to direct payments. In 2021, we intend to apply a reduction of 5% to the first £30,000 that a farmer might receive. Higher reductions will be applied to amounts in higher payment bands. We intend to legislate for those reductions in an affirmative statutory instrument early next year. We will then reduce direct payments by around 15% in both 2022 and 2023.
The money each year will still go to farmers. We will ensure that they can access new schemes as receipts from direct payments fall. In 2022, we will start to roll out some core elements of the new schemes, and our sustainable farming incentive will support new approaches to farm husbandry. We are also offering a range of interventions to help farmers to get their businesses ready for transition, including a slurry scheme and a research and development scheme, and from 2022 we plan to offer an exit-support scheme.
We have confirmed our intention to make further simplifications to direct payments schemes from the 2021 scheme year. These simplifications will be made through a separate statutory instrument, which we intend to lay shortly. Changes will include removing the so-called “greening rules”—if ever anything were misnamed. it is those; they are in fact complicated red tape and have delivered very little for the environment—removing the requirement for farmers to use all direct payment entitlements at least once every two years; improving the arrangements for farmers whose land crosses borders between our nations; and extending the application period for farmers to make force majeure applications.
2021 is going to be a crucial year for agriculture and we will continue to work with farmers to get the start of the transition right, including consulting on delinking of direct payments and exit schemes and starting the national pilot for the new schemes. We are keen to continue working with Members on both sides of the House as we progress our reforms.
Turning to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), let me say that of course his mummy knows best. I learnt to cook at her school, so I have always been a big fan of his mummy. I went on a catering course there. It was a very long time ago, I am ashamed to say, but I use what I was taught almost every day of my life and I think of her often. As he mentions my dad, I also ought to mention that it is his 78th birthday today—so he is only slightly older than the average basic payment scheme recipient. It is right that in a debate about farming he is congratulated on his birthday. My hon. Friend made a thoughtful speech, and his local farmers should be grateful for not only his mother’s support, but his. I welcomed his input into the Agriculture Bill Committee. He is right to mention the more philosophical aspects. It is right that we discuss those as we make the most important changes in British farming for 50 years. I reassure him that I very much feel it is my job to stand up for British farming, and I believe that this Government, who have committed to total spend on agriculture for each year of this Parliament that is generous and right, will do that.
A few other points were made on the WTO statutory instrument. The powers given to the Secretary of State by part 6 could not allow the Government to deviate from the standards on animal welfare or animal food labelling. We discussed that in Committee at length. The issues are not within the scope of the agreement on agriculture, so the Agriculture Act simply could not apply in that way. The instrument is reserved to the UK Government because the functions within it simply cannot be exercised by the devolved Administrations—they do not have the legislative competence to act in these matters for other parts of the UK. However, I would like to say, as I have said before, that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland officials have worked closely throughout the process of drafting these regulations and the final version takes into account the views of all four Administrations.
I am sorry that I have taken rather longer than anticipated, Madam Deputy Speaker, but a number of important questions were raised. I hope I have been able to answer them. What I hope will be clear to Members is how important these instruments are in implementing the intentions of the Agriculture Act. They provide continuity and certainty for stakeholders and beneficiaries in continuing direct payments beyond 2020. They enable us to fulfil our international obligations on agriculture and they provide the basis for the beginning of the agricultural transition. I urge the House to accept them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 12 November, be approved.
AGRICULTURE
Resolved,
That the draft Direct Payments to Farmers (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 12 November, be approved.—(Victoria Prentis.)
AGRICULTURE
Resolved,
That the draft World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 12 November, be approved.—(Victoria Prentis.)
Exiting the European Union (Plant Health)
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the draft Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 10 November, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this we will take the following motion:
That the draft Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 10 November, be approved.
Victoria Prentis
These statutory instruments will establish the future plant health regime for Great Britain by ensuring that EU legislation relating to phytosanitary controls, which is retained under the EU withdrawal Act, is operable after the end of the transition period. Devolved Administrations have given their consent to these SIs.
It is our responsibility to protect biosecurity across plant and animal health and the wider ecosystem. It is important that our biosecurity protections are aligned to address the specific and often unique risks that relate to Great Britain. These regulations are specifically about protecting plant biosecurity.
On the plant health SI, this makes operability amendments to the retained EU plant health regulation to reflect the risks to Great Britain, rather than the risks to the wider EU, and to reflect the EU’s status as a third country after the end of the transition period. There are amendments to implement a new UK plant passport in place of the current EU one, with the format of the new document set out within the SI.
From the end of the transition period, Great Britain will also no longer use the EU protected zone arrangements and will instead move to using pest-free areas, an internationally recognised classification that allows countries to take additional protective measures against incursions from pests which are established elsewhere.
The SI also makes transitional provisions to allow the continued flow of trade and to reflect the phased import requirements detailed in the published border operating model. Phytosanitary certificates will be required for those plants and plant products from the EU that pose the highest biosecurity risk to Great Britain from 1 January, where import controls for lower-risk plant material will be phased in gradually from April.
This SI makes operability amendments to the Official Controls (Plant Health and Genetically Modified Organisms) (England) Regulations 2019 to correct references to EU legislation. It also makes consequential amendments to fees legislation, including amendments to allow charging for services relating to exports to the EU.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
It is very important that we have very high standards and I am glad that we are doing that, but will my hon. Friend also ensure that they are high standards that help domestic growers, because we need to have more home-grown food on British plates and more jobs in agriculture in Britain?
Victoria Prentis
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. This is a matter that he and I have discussed before and I know that he is every bit as ambitious for the future of British horticulture as I am. I really do think that there is more that we could be growing here and I very much hope that, in the next few years, that comes to pass.
This SI also contains amendments to primary legislation to remove references to EU obligations. These changes have no operational impact, but simply remove redundant and inoperable references to EU obligations.
I turn to the phytosanitary conditions SI. This sets out the lists for Great Britain of quarantine pests, provisional quarantine pests, pest-free area quarantine pests and regulated non-quarantine pests. It also sets out measures in relation to the introduction of plants, plant products and other relevant objects into Great Britain and the movement of these within Great Britain.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for giving way and for outlining the regulations. In relation to Northern Ireland, which has built a fantastic reputation on a top-quality product, and most of the agri-food sector we have export, what discussions has she had with the Minister in Northern Ireland and would those discussions ensure that our high-quality standards would be maintained as well, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman is a great champion for his farmers. This SI is related to GB only, but I assure him that I speak very frequently to the Minister in Northern Ireland. I have not done so this week, but I do generally often and I probably will in the course of the next few days. I know that he and I are both committed to very high standards in British agriculture.
In making these operability changes, we are focused on ensuring that the phytosanitary controls reflect actual risks to Great Britain. The risk assessment process follows the UK’s well established risk management methodology using our UK plant health risk register as our principal screening tool. Applying this evidence-based process to determine our lists of regulated plants, products and pests for the future has resulted in increased focus on the threats about which we really need to be concerned. For example, some pests that pose a risk only to citrus, rice and other tropical crops, which we do not grow, have been deregulated. This has positive impacts, as it allows our inspectors to focus their efforts on the higher-risk commodities about which we are concerned, such as Xylella hosts, and tree species such as plane, which we are really worried about. This approach means that items that have previously been subject to restrictions or prohibitions even though the risk is in fact negligible, such as mangos, curry leaves and so on, are now able to be imported into Great Britain free of restriction.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
It will not have escaped the Minister’s notice that we are actually in a pandemic, and protection and prevention for our environment before getting to that stage are really important. How robust does she believe the implementation of this legislation will be in ensuring that we are indeed as protected as we can be?
Victoria Prentis
My hon. Friend makes an important point. These statutory instruments are broadly transferring rules into GB law, but we are able to use this moment in our history to ensure that they are better suited to us and the biosecurity risks that concern us. As he says, in the midst of a pandemic that takes on a special and added significance.
Protecting biosecurity is of enormous importance for any Government. It is important that we facilitate the import and movement of plant material, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said earlier, but this must be done in a biosecure manner. That is why these operability amendments, with their focus on risks to GB, are so important. They establish our future plant health regime and ensure that the current phytosanitary protections, which are vital to protect our biosecurity, are maintained at the end of the transition period. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I echo the Minister’s points about just how important these measures are. At first sight, they perhaps seem slightly impenetrable and very lengthy. The two instruments run to some 272 pages and 76 pages, and I doubt whether any of us has the energy or the expertise to be absolutely certain that everything is correct. As we have said in many other statutory instrument debates, it is probably only the people who are drafting them who really know that for sure. So there is always some cause for concern. On a personal level, I remember visiting the fantastic Sainsbury laboratory in the University of Cambridge a few years ago to be briefed on ash dieback. It is striking to see not only the excellent work that is being done to tackle these issues but the constant threats that we are facing. That is why it is so important that these controls are in place and that they are transposed in the correct way.
We are told that these two SIs have been laid using powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and that their stated aim is to protect biosecurity and support trade by ensuring that effective phytosanitary controls continue to operate within GB and between GB and the EU at the end the transition period. We are also told that they establish the future plant health regime for Great Britain by ensuring that EU legislation related to phytosanitary controls is retained—and corrected as necessary, as the Minister has explained—to maintain the existing risk-based approach. The Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Forestry Commission will be delivering the measures in these regulations, and we are told that they are developing an implementation plan and that associated guidance will be published on gov.uk. We are also told that separate legislative arrangements will be needed for Northern Ireland in order to maintain alignment with sanitary and phytosanitary-related EU regulations and to specify requirements for GB goods entering Northern Ireland. Well, that is probably an understatement. I would echo some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I will return to that later.
The Government say that the amendments introduced are technical operability amendments and do not include any policy changes. That is what is said, of course, of many statutory instruments and we may beg to differ at some point. It appears that no impact assessments have been carried out, and that the regulations were not reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and had not been raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As we have heard, the draft Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 make operability amendments to the retained EU plant health regulations, as well as consequential amendments to domestic law. The draft Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 defines at some length, as I have said, the list of regulated products and pests, and prescribes the requirements for entry and movement of regulated items into GB and within GB to reduce the risks in connection with those pests to an acceptable level.
Since the result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is that the UK leaves the EU single market, the operability amendments contained in this instrument create a single market covering GB and the crown dependencies. The EU will thus become a third country and, as a result, will be subject to third country import controls. The Government tell us that the current policy of risk-based plant health controls applied under EU legislation will continue, and that the GB risk assessment process will follow the same internationally accepted principles and approach used in previous pest risk analysis under the EU regime. Internal controls will also continue to apply to the movement of goods within the GB internal market.
We are also told that the revised approach for EU imports will be phased in over six months from 1 January next year, in the Government’s words, to
“stagger the operational implementation of controls on EU products to allow trade to continue to flow whilst businesses adapt to the application of third country import controls. This will be a temporary and risk-based transitional arrangement, with the aim of ensuring consistent and technically justified import controls which apply to all countries exporting to GB.”
The instruments also include a requirement to use UK rather than EU plant passports for intra-GB movements of plant-passported commodities. This will require businesses that move plant-passported commodities within GB to modify the reference code they use when issuing plant passports, replacing EU with UK. The process for authorising businesses with plant passporting, we are told, will not change. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs tells us that
“businesses who will need to use the system from 1 January 2021 are likely to already be registered. Therefore, we expect no extra impact on business from this change.”
Some questions follow from all of that. In 7.2 of the explanatory notes for the draft Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, it says that under these regulations our risk-based plant health controls will now
“focus on risks to GB, rather than risks to the EU”.
I was going to ask the Minister to explain what that means in practice. I think she has made reference to that already, but to repeat my question from previous debates around report and review, can she tell us when these policies will be reviewed and where that sits in relation to reviews already promised to be undertaken by the EU? Should the EU tighten their standards, would we be doing likewise and vice versa?
As I have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, these are very, very lengthy, detailed instruments. I am eternally grateful to Greener UK, which has found the time to look at them in some detail. It raises some points, as it often does, that I suspect the Minister may wish to write to me on, because they are detailed and I would not expect her necessarily to have an answer to hand. She may do—she may surprise me. Greener UK tells me that regulation 28(24)(c) changes the requirement in article 25(4) of EU regulation 2016/2031. This is in the draft Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020—the first one, I think. Deep in that regulation there is a change for the UK to establish priority pest plans for all listed pests within four years of the 2019 EU regulation, to instead set a deadline of 1 January 2023. This is in line with the previous timescale. However, the clause also adds a line, 4A, disapplying that requirement to any priority pest removed from that list before the same date. While the intent behind that may be simply to clarify, it would be superfluous to create a plan for a pest that is no longer considered a threat. In the view of Greener UK, this explicit reference appears to potentially incentivise the late development contingency plans. It may well be that that is covered by some of the points that the Minister has already made about the differing threats that we face. However, will she outline the UK’s progress in developing such plans to date, clarify whether the Government still intend to produce such plans for further priority pests currently listed in the EU level, and provide any details on intended timescales? Will she also tell us whether the Government have any plans to change the current list after the end of the transition period and whether any changes will be subject to the same risk assessment process used currently by the EU?
On equivalence investigations, regulation 30(7) amends paragraph 2 of article 44 of regulation 2016/2031, and removes a reference to the Commission’s ability to carry out investigations in third countries to determine whether equivalence is being properly achieved. It does this without replacing it with a reference to an appropriate UK body. Determinations of equivalence in biosecurity and control measures will be vital to protect the UK’s natural ecosystems in future. This reference therefore appears unhelpful, and the reason for deletion is unclear. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could explain the reasoning and outline how the Government propose to ensure the legitimacy of claims of equivalence from third countries, and whether investigations will form a part of this approach. That seems to me to be a rather important point. As I say, I do not necessarily expect an answer today, but it would be helpful to have one at some point.
The third point raised by Greener UK is on amending regulations. In a number of places, references in EU regulation 2016/2031 via article 107(2) to a specific examination procedure for scrutinising and adopting amendments to regulations, as contained in article 5 of reg 182/2011, are removed. The examination procedure was designed to provide an additional level of scrutiny to implementing decisions relating to specific areas of concern, including the environment, security and safety, or protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants. These references to the examination procedure are replaced now with a power to amend regulations that does not feature an opportunity for scrutiny. For example, reg 30(17) replaces a requirement to follow the examination procedure with:
“The appropriate authority may by regulations amend Annex 9 to the Phytosanitary Conditions Regulation where the amendment is appropriate in the light of a risk assessment in relation to a plant, plant product or other object.”
Removing a defined process for strong committee-level scrutiny—that is, us—and decision making and replacing that with a standard reference to the right of the appropriate authority to make regulations represents, in the view of Greener UK, an unhelpful weakening of oversight, and I rather agree. This will be particularly pertinent if the Government choose to pass future regulations via the negative procedure. Will the Minister explain why the EU examination procedure could not be replicated within the UK context to provide clear democratic oversight of amendments? Will she outline how the Government propose to ensure that levels of scrutiny for secondary legislation pertaining to
“the environment, security and safety, or protection of the health or safety, of humans, animals or plants”
will not be weakened as a result of these changes?
I am grateful to Greener UK for finding these detailed points. As I said, I do not necessarily require a reply today. I will conclude with some more basic questions. At paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory notes for the Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 we are told:
“This will be a temporary and risk-based transitional arrangement for plant health controls”.
How long is temporary, and how much risk, because I am not entirely sure that I like the sound of that? It sounds like an excuse to me.
There has been no impact assessment of these regulations on businesses, yet there are clear indications that businesses will be impacted. Under these regulations, the revised approach for EU imports will be phased in over six months from January 2021 to
“stagger the operational implementation of controls on EU products to allow trade to continue to flow whilst businesses adapt to the application of third country import controls.”
Businesses moving plant-passported commodities within GB will need to modify the reference code that they use when issuing plant passports from EU to UK, so why has there not been an impact assessment of these regulations? Is it really presumed that there will be no impact on businesses at all?
The logic of paragraph 12.4 of the explanatory notes for the Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 is, frankly, “Alice in Wonderland” stuff. It outlines the extra checks that will be done, which I applaud, but goes on to say that because they are a result of the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and therefore do not reflect a change in policy, there is no need for an impact assessment. Can the Minister explain whether there has been an impact statement somewhere else? If so, where?
Finally, as I suggested at the outset, the bald statement that
“For Northern Ireland, separate legislative arrangements will be needed in order to maintain alignment with Sanitary and Phytosanitary related EU regulations and specify requirements for GB goods entering Northern Ireland”
is an understatement. Could the Minister outline what those separate legislative arrangements will look like and when they will be ready?
As ever, there are many questions. Ensuring plant health really matters. We are an island, but sadly, we need to be careful, and that is why we have a body of established law. It should not be weakened in any way, and while there is no desire for unnecessary extra checks, we all benefit when we stay safe.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Both these SIs continue the legislative decoupling of Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK, replacing mentions of “the UK” and “the Union” with “Great Britain”. We have discussed the operational requirements for these measures over the last 20 minutes, but it is telling nevertheless. They serve to highlight the additional restrictions, barriers and hurdles that will face food and drink exporters after the end of the transition period. They are an unfortunate but necessary reminder of the inordinate legislative and bureaucratic challenge that accompanies the UK’s departure from the EU.
The Horticultural Trades Association has called for a delay in the implementation of these regulations and checks on plant imports. In a roundtable discussion in mid-November, the HTA raised concerns that
“The proposals as currently envisaged are logistically impossible to implement”
and that
“The requirements will not achieve the objective of improved plant health because of their complexity and the administrative and financial burden they impose”.
The HTA also understands that the required IT systems are not ready or fully tested, and it says that the Government are
“pressing ahead with compromises that are wholly iniquitous for the industry”.
Given this concern from industry, what assurance can the Minister provide that these measures will promote and support the sector, which relies on £350 million-worth of plant imports? It would be devastating to the industry if imports in the new growing season were disrupted even to a reduced or marginal extent.
HTA chairman James Barnes said:
“It is imperative that government understands their proposals represent the biggest single non-tariff barrier in the history of our industry. By asking us to comply with new terms and conditions not yet agreed, with just 32 working days to go, represents an absolute ‘train crash’ for the industry and is setting us up to fail.”
That chimes with my observations on issues related to horticulture such as seasonal farm labour and the broader agricultural debate, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised in the previous debate in terms of the Secretary of State’s ambitions for lamb under import substitution. Those things taken in tandem, and a range of others besides, indicate that DEFRA Ministers, if they are not careful, inhabit some abstract bureaucratic ideal world and appear dangerously disconnected from the operational realities facing our farmers, growers and processors. Does the Minister think that the Horticultural Trades Association is wrong, and if not, why does it have such a negative impression of these provisions?
Victoria Prentis
I find that I am being asked by one hon. Gentleman to display my legal and obsessive statutory instrument skills and by another to assure him that I am not out of touch with farmers and will be going home to look after the sheep tonight. I can assure them that both those skillsets are very useful in a modern farming Minister.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) made slightly rude comments about the length of my statutory instruments. I am afraid that these transitional SIs are necessarily long because we are simply amending the retained EU legislation. We are doing it in a way that genuinely makes it current, to reflect the risks to GB. The extensive instruments have been through the normal checking procedures, including several pairs of eyes’ checks by DEFRA and other Government lawyers—as the hon. Gentleman knows, I was one for 17 years—so I am fairly confident that they are good enough. They have been well scrutinised by the JCSI, on which I sat for a number of years, and the devolved Administrations, and the versions we are debating today include helpful amendments that were made by all those people, so I am fairly confident that the instruments are up to scratch. I am as confident as I think we can be. I accept, however, that they are long.
The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions about replacing the oversight of the Commission. EU functions have already been incorporated into the UK-wide plant health risk group arrangements. Those functions include the auditing system of SANTE F and decision-making structures such as the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed technical committee. A sub-group of the plant health risk group will be responsible for all technical aspects of these audits. In addition, there is a national IT system, which is operational now, that replaces the EU notification and rapid alert system. The UK system has been backfilled with publicly available data from EU systems, so I am confident that the UK will be able to continue to benefit from that at the end of this year.
As I said earlier, from 1 January, GB is introducing a phased import regime for EU goods to maintain biosecurity and to keep trade as frictionless as possible. The phased EU import regime will allow time for trade to adapt to the new import requirements for EU goods. GB plant health authorities are undertaking significant recruitment to increase the number of plant health inspectors. The numbers have gone from about 200 inspectors employed by the Animal and Plant Health Agency to more than double that, and I believe the ambition is for 250 extra to be in place early next year. We have sufficient resources to meet demand from the turn of the year and to ensure minimal disruption to trade.
GB plant health services are currently reviewing their operating hours to ensure that biosecurity standards will continue to be met and strengthened in ways that support trade and smooth the flow of goods while minimising the burden on businesses. There has been enormous engagement with the horticultural industry on the planning for this, with individual operators and key stakeholder groups. Most recently, we have undertaken a series of feasibility sessions, with more than 300 participants on the Zoom, and equivalent export sessions. Alongside that, we are hosting a series of webinars—there was one earlier this week, I think—on the new plant health requirements for imports, exports and internal movement.
For goods imported from the EU, which the hon. Member for Angus raised, GB will be carrying out a phased implementation of import checks, which will be aligned to the risks posed by different regulated commodities. Lower-risk goods will receive a lower frequency of checks.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. In order to prepare for the end of this year, it is essential that we have the right legislation in place to continue to protect plant biosecurity while facilitating trade and movement of plants and plant material. I hope that hon. Members fully understand the need for these regulations, which ensure that existing regimes for safeguarding Britain’s biosecurity will continue to operate effectively at the end of this year by addressing plant health risks faced by GB rather than the EU. I commend them to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Exiting the European Union (Plant Health)
Resolved,
That the draft Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 10 November, be approved.—(Victoria Prentis.)
Petitions
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents in my constituency of Rugby regarding the decision by NHS England to remove the local pharmaceutical services contract from MW Phillips Chemist in the village of Binley Woods, which is where I grew up. The petition has run alongside an online petition on the same issue. Together, the two petitions have been signed by 849 people.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Rugby,
Declares that the local pharmacy in Binley Woods is a lifeline and hub to more than 3,000 residents; and further that it is deplorable that NHS England and NHS Improvement, Midlands Region, have decided to remove the Local Pharmaceutical Services (LPS) Contract from the Pharmacy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with NHS England and reverse this decision, and to ensure that the pharmacy can continue to provide medical, wellbeing and social care for both the young and elderly population within Binley Woods and the adjacent villages.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002631]
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
My constituents and their daughter Carina were put through months and years of anguish on the basis of evidence collected against National Policing Improvement Agency guidance for which the police have never apologised, so I rise to present to the House the petition of Julia and Robin Burn.
The petition states:
The petition of Julia and Robin Burn,
Declares that, in 2010, in conducting their investigations into allegations made against the petitioners, Dyfed-Powys Police did not proceed in accordance with the appropriate National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) guidance; further declares that these allegations were later found to be groundless and without merit; further that this resulted in the petitioners’ mute autistic daughter being taken into local authority care for six months; and further that, after no further action was taken, no attempt was made to return her.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to instigate an independent review of Dyfed-Powys Police’s handling of this case.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002633]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now suspend the House for three minutes in order to allow the safe exit of Members participating in the previous item of business and the safe arrival of those who anticipate with great delight the next item of business.
Coronation Street: 60th Anniversary
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We are about to start the Adjournment debate. Some Members from the north-west were determined to come here and, quite rightly, Tracy Brabin came to me and said, “Mr Speaker, we ought to be aware that it is a very important event, and I would like to have an Adjournment debate.” How could I stop that?
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Eddie Hughes.)
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
What an enormous pleasure it is to be able to discuss the much-loved British institution of “Coronation Street”, as it reaches the grand old age of 60 and is still going strong. Our constituents have gone through so much in these last few months, and it is nice to be in this place to discuss something upbeat and positive. Reaching its diamond anniversary is a phenomenal achievement, especially as it remains so incredibly popular, attracting an average audience of—can you believe that it is more than that of the Parliament channel?—7 million viewers for each show.
First screened on 9 December 1960, “Corrie” was part of a new realism that was sweeping through the theatre, with “Look Back in Anger”, James Dean, Brando, and kitchen-sink dramas. Hardly anyone had a colour telly—remember that?—and there was no such thing as a remote. There were certainly no streaming channels, and we turned the telly off at 11 and went to bed. Created by scriptwriter Tony Warren, “Coronation Street” did not have a straightforward beginning, and was originally rejected by Granada television before being commissioned to run for 13 episodes. It was a slow burn, with Daily Mirror columnist, Ken Irwin, saying that it would “only last three weeks.” Earlier this year its 10,000th episode was broadcast, and in 2010, it became the longest running television soap opera in the world, earning a place in the “Guinness Book of Records.”
Set in the fictional working-class Weatherfield in Salford, “Coronation Street” has never disguised its roots. It is warm and authentic, at times laugh-out-loud funny, and at other times deeply affecting. From the very beginning, the northern dialect was used. I do not know if any hon. Members are old enough to remember those early episodes, with a young man by the name of Ken Barlow achieving a university place and finding himself embarrassed about his working-class upbringing. As a proud northerner, that is not something I have ever felt, and I am proud that this show, which is as much a part of British culture as a nice cuppa, a fish ’n’ chip supper, or sitting down to the Queen’s speech on Christmas day, is played out in a working-class community in the north.
In among the love stories, the breakups, the punch-ups, and the laughs over a hotpot, “Corrie” has always been true to the everyday difficulties that life, particularly working-class life, can bring, with strong feisty women at the centre of the action. As Ena Sharples classically said, “I don’t expect life to be easy. I’d think very little of it if it was”—a good rule of thumb for the moment.
Since those early days on the street, we have witnessed one or two things happen to the people of Weatherfield over the decades—many things—and those famous cobbles have been the stage to storylines that have gripped our country. We have cried together, gasped together, laughed together, and learned together. There have been iconic storylines that caused the nation to take a breather from people’s busy lives, make a cuppa, and pop “Corrie” on the telly—the train crash, the tram crash, the whodunnits, Richard Hillman’s reign of terror, Alan Bradley being killed by a tram in Blackpool, Deirdre, Ken, and Mike’s love-triangle! A certain Tony Blair got involved in the campaign to Save the Weatherfield One, when Deidre was falsely imprisoned, and a certain Tricia Armstrong was sent to prison for not paying her TV licence, and then gave birth behind the bar in the Rovers Return. Alongside all the entertainment, “Coronation Street” has bravely challenged us and our way of thinking with groundbreaking storylines.
Mr Speaker
Mr Shannon, you are more than welcome to intervene. You might even want to speak later, as we have a little time. Northern Ireland’s answer to Albert Tatlock, come on in.
Jim Shannon
I am not sure how to respond, Mr Speaker. “Coronation Street” has been going all my life, and a wee bit more; and I understand, Mr Speaker, it has been going all your life, and a wee bit more as well. My wife is a tremendous fan of “Coronation Street”. She never misses it. Last week, in self-isolation for the second time, I sat and watched “Coronation Street” on numerous occasions with my wife in control of the remote, so I was not able to turn over.
There was a poignant storyline last week about the loss of a young boy called Oliver. We watched every night it was on during the week, and a person would need a heart of stone not to be moved by that story, how they portrayed in a soap what affects people in reality. The soaps have a tremendous role to play in telling the stories of real life out there, and last week “Coronation Street” did that with real passion, understanding, carefulness and caution—
Mr Speaker
Mr Shannon, I said you could intervene. I will put you down to speak. You do not need to make a speech in an intervention.
Tracy Brabin
That was a really excellent intervention, because it highlights the quality of the writing and the pressure that the crew and the actors are under, in this time of covid, to deliver those performances while being two metres apart, while wearing masks in public areas and while having all those other restrictions, and often in one or two takes, if they are lucky. Those authentic, passionate, emotional performances absolutely gripped the nation, and it is now on record in Parliament that they are two extraordinary actors. They will definitely be in line for awards.
The stories I spoke of have helped untold numbers to understand their own personal difficulties, to speak out and to get help if they need it. Hayley, the first ever transgender British soap character, was portrayed wonderfully by my good friend Julie Hesmondhalgh, who gripped us right to the end when she committed suicide in Roy’s arms.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I congratulate all the team who work on “Coronation Street” on reaching this milestone. Does she agree that “Coronation Street” should be recognised for its groundbreaking storylines over the years? She mentioned the first trans character in a British soap in, I think, 1998 and how “Coronation Street” has sensitively highlighted social issues such as that, teen pregnancy, domestic violence and male rape.
Tracy Brabin
That is a great intervention, because wasn’t it groundbreaking? So many families watching that storyline in their living room may not have understood the humanity or the difficulties of being trans in 21st-century Britain, but they loved Hayley. It opens people’s mind to things they may not necessarily have experienced, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those script writers pushed the boundaries. They were very brave to have that storyline, but we loved her. We really did love that couple so much. It was absolutely heartbreaking.
To pick up on a couple of other storylines: Aidan’s suicide, which led to more calls to the Samaritans than they have ever had; Shona’s memory loss; revenge porn; racism, with the writers working closely with Doreen Lawrence to make it authentic and to give it credibility; and James, a young gay footballer struggling against homophobia. And, right up to recent days, with Bethany Platt’s sexual exploitation, David Platt’s male rape ordeal, Yasmeen’s marital coercive control and, as was mentioned, the sad death of baby Oliver. Never shying away from a difficult storyline and shining a light into the lived experience of others is what our soap operas do best. They strive to inform as well as to entertain.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. As a long-time fan of the programme and, indeed, her role in it, I am a little bit jealous, having only graced the small screen reading the news—nothing as glamorous as the Street. She mentioned the topical storyline of the challenge of being a gay footballer, but I would submit that the Street has done a great deal over many years to support challenging attitudes to homosexuality, particularly by following the experiences of existing and well-loved characters such as Todd Grimshaw or Sophie Webster as they came out, and more recently gay parents. Does she agree that it is by being entertaining that information is often best imparted and taboos are overcome?
Tracy Brabin
I thank the hon. Gentleman so much for that intervention—he is absolutely right. As we were saying about the trans character, these things could not be discussed in any other forum than that of a show. Looking at fictional characters, we wonder, “What would I think if I was that person?” Storytelling has huge power to change people’s mind.
If my history of soaps is correct, the first ever male gay kiss on television was on “EastEnders” and the first female gay kiss on “Brookside”. We must not forget the power of those shows to get that liberal view and those conversations going in people’s living rooms. As Dame Carol Ann Duffy said at the funeral of the creator of “Coronation Street”, Tony Warren,
“the millions who have loved Coronation Street for over half a century have lost their Dickens.”
Isn’t that the truth? He and others are commentators on our lives; they amplify and give opportunities to share experiences.
“Corrie” has given us actors and characters so well written and so brilliantly acted that they could be part of the family. Names such as Jack, Vera, Roy, Rita, Steve, Gail, Ken, Sally, Jim, Betty, Mike, Fred—the list could go on and on of characters so distinctive that they are recognised across the country by their first name alone. It is also a show that incubates talent, giving new actors a chance to cut their teeth on great storylines and powerful emotions. “Corrie” gave us early moments in the careers of Ben Kingsley, Sir Patrick Stewart, Joanna Lumley, Sarah Lancashire, Joanne Froggatt and Bradley Walsh. Even Sir Ian McKellen dropped by, wearing a very dodgy hat and scarf, I seem to recall.
Writers including Jack Rosenthal, Kay Mellor, Sally Wainwright and Paul Abbott have all worked in the writers room carving out brilliant plotlines and one-liners. So powerful is the writing that as a young girl I felt the trials and tribulations facing the Duckworths were as vivid as those of my own family. To go on to become part of “Coronation Street” was almost an impossible dream.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I happened to switch on my TV, and when I saw “Corrie” was being discussed I had to come down and pay tribute as a north-west MP. It is not just the actors and the writers that “Coronation Street” has developed. There are also the back room staff who are so critical to delivering brilliant television day in, day out—the wardrobe team, the make-up artists, the camera operators and so on. “Coronation Street” and Granada Television have fostered and developed that talent, transforming the north-west of England into a TV powerhouse. I am sure the hon. Lady agrees, having spent time at Granada studios, that that embryonic development has played a significant role in transforming the north-west media environment.
Tracy Brabin
I could not agree more, and I will go on to talk about how creativity and the creative industries can be a powerhouse and an engine of regeneration in our communities in the north.
Let me speak a little more personally for a minute. I grew up in a housing estate in Howden Clough in Batley, watching acts at the Batley Variety Club. For a working-class kid like me, it was a source of pride and wonder that huge stars of the day, such as Shirley Bassey and Louis Armstrong, came to my bit of the world. Seeing photographs of Eartha Kitt eating chips in Dewsbury market is sort of mind-blowing. It set me on a path that was hard. I worked in precarious jobs trying to make it, sleeping on couches and living hand to mouth, like so many aspiring actors do. We all know how tough it is to get on in such industries for those who do not have rich parents,. For working-class northern actors, working on “Coronation Street” meant you had arrived. We had grown up watching it, and we wanted to be in it. I got the chance to work with the legends of “Corrie”—Jack and Vera, Raquel, Bet Lynch and Betty Turpin—watching and learning. As someone who had not been to drama school, the ability to memorise pages and pages of script overnight and bring authentic emotions and truth to the work was a skill I learned on that job.
Many may know me as Tricia Armstrong, but aficionados may also know that I joined the show for three episodes playing Chloe, a toy shop manageress. It was a Christmas episode, and I ended up on top of the roof of the toy shop with Peter Baldwin dressed as Father Christmas. I must have impressed in that role, because I was then invited to come back a number of years later as Tricia Armstrong. That first day was, as the House can imagine, very overwhelming. Everybody in the green room was a famous face. When you have William Roache—he is now, unbelievably, 88—saying, “Would you like a cup of tea, Tracy?”, it is quite a surreal experience, as was working with Liz Dawn, who had her lines stuck all over the set like in “The Generation Game”, because she could not remember all of it. As long as there was a bit of script somewhere, she was all right. Famously one Christmas she pulled out the chicken and the lines were on the bum of the chicken as it came out—I thought, “Very convenient.” Then there was Annie Kirkbride, who we all sadly miss, who played Deirdre. Her wicked sense of humour creased us up in serious scenes.
Having struggled with the feast and famine nature of the freelance life, it was such a huge relief to have regular paid work, a paid holiday and a chance to save. More than that, it was the honour of being part of something so associated with my class and being in the homes of people every night who shared my accent and my experiences.
“Corrie” is not just about portrayal or about telling working-class stories brilliantly; it is, as the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) says, absolutely about jobs in the north. It is not just about actors and directors, but schedulers, designers, editors, costume and make-up, researchers, the props team, office staff, accountants, carpenters, electricians, painters, security guards and canteen staff—the list goes on.
Mr Speaker, you may know I am standing to be the candidate for the West Yorkshire Mayor. If I am elected, that experience on “Coronation Street” will drive my creative new deal, because our entertainment industries also have the power to build our economies, to deliver regeneration and to provide opportunity, hope and skills, and that process will take inspiration from “Coronation Street”, as it has shown us how important television can be for the economy.
“Coronation Street” has a bespoke 7.7 acre set in the north-west. It employs about 450 people and hundreds and hundreds of freelancers. It firmly cements the importance of the north in TV’s history, and in its future, too. We know it is a creative powerhouse, and the skills and talent it nurtures and develops have aided and continue to aid the gentrification of Salford.
I know that ITV takes the development of skills very seriously. To this day, it supports Tony Warren’s determination to be a champion of local talent. Tony wanted to support disadvantaged young people to get a career in an industry that is famously difficult to get started in. Shortly before his death in 2016, he worked with “Coronation Street” and ITV to establish a bursary to support local actors from disadvantaged backgrounds to train at drama schools. I can think of no better legacy for a man whose creation has brought us 60 years of public service broadcasting at its best.
The success of “Coronation Street” is built on a healthy and well-supported public service broadcasting system. In order to preserve these valuable national treasures, reforms need to be made to protect and support our PSB. I hope that the Minister, when he gets to his feet, will also reflect on that and work with the broadcasters and Ofcom to ensure public service broadcasters can continue to deliver for their audiences and, more urgently, for our regions.
Like all parts of life, covid has put massive obstacles in the path of “Coronation Street”, and the team has worked hard to overcome them. The Rovers Return is not that busy these days. The desks in the factory are slightly more spread out than they used to be, reflecting the regulations of real life, and keeping cast and crew as safe as possible while bringing familiar entertainment to our homes. While the Minister is here, let me say that large parts of film and television production have been able to get back on track thanks to the support of the Government around insurance. Screen production is part of a creative ecosystem, and to get it fully functioning once again our performing arts, theatres, music festivals and venues also need that insurance support to keep as buoyant as they can be.
During the last few months of pain and frustration, there have been many times when I am sure that many of us would have found familiarity and comfort in these words from the legendary Blanche, written by my good friend Damon Rochefort: “In my day, summit bad ‘appened you stayed home, got drunk and bit on a shoe.” I think that is quite a good metaphor for the times we live in.
If there is one thing in our country that can cross political divides, it is our love of “Coronation Street”. I am incredibly proud to have been part of the show’s history. I am one of thousands of actors, writers, producers, directors, costume makers and off-screen staff who have worked around the clock—trust me, I absolutely mean around the clock—to bring this programme to our screens year after year, decade after decade, never slipping in quality. Now I am proudly one of the millions of fans of “Coronation Street” who make the show so special, and I know that history is still there to be made, so here’s to the next 60 years.
Mr Speaker
Thank you. As somebody who was born and brought up in Granadaland and who has seen “Coronation Street” develop, it would be remiss of me not to be in the Chair at the start of this debate. Shortly I am going to hand over to another north-west Chair from Lancashire—Nigel Evans, no less. It is interesting that in “Coronation Street”, they always talk about going to Chorley market, because they know the good value of Chorley market. The other thing, of course, is that Ken Morley is from Chorley; he is just one of the stars who have been in “Coronation Street”. At home I have a tray from Newton and Ridley from the set of “Coronation Street”. Both myself and Mr Evans were on “The Politics Show” and we had to answer a certain number of questions. Guess who won—I’ve got the tray!
No more from me. I call Conor Burns.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on securing this debate; I call her my hon. Friend on this occasion because we are all here today, friends of the Street. The Minister for Media and Data, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), is on the Front Bench. He knows what a long-term, dedicated, ardent “Corrie” fan I am. I have visited the set on a number of occasions with him. I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) earlier that I could just imagine the scene in the Department as the Minister’s officials grappled with putting together a script. I think we could have had a spin-off, watching them going through the history of the storylines and characters.
Mr Speaker, you mentioned the Newton and Ridley tray. One of my most prized possessions is a cobble from the original Street that was given to me in a presentation case by the cast: “To Conor Burns, a great friend of the Street and of the show.” That is used on my desk as a serious paperweight, because those cobbles are very deep.
I have visited “Coronation Street” on a number of occasions, both before I was elected to this place and subsequently; I go more or less annually. I went with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham in 2009, before I was elected to the House of Commons. We went for the purpose of doing a political leaflet. I wondered how to engage some of the communities in my Bournemouth constituency, so we met up with Bill Roache and had pictures taken in one of the booths in the Rovers. There were also pictures of he and I walking along outside No. 1, and of us both sitting at Ken and Deirdre’s dining room table. We did it as an interview with Bill Roache. The number of people who picked up and read a political leaflet because Ken Barlow was talking to the Tory candidate—they were just intrigued. I think it was probably the best piece of political literature that I have ever done.
I visited again a couple of years ago, and Rita and Audrey were filming in the salon the Christmas scenes. This was in October, and we were at the conference. I made the mistake of saying to Sue Nicholls that I well remembered watching her as a child on “Rentaghost”, without realising this would cause her significant offence, because it pointed out the longevity and the age gap.
My right hon. Friend the Minister worked with Lady Thatcher when, as Prime Minister in 1989, she visited the set of “Coronation Street”. I have never quite known whether this story is apocryphal or actually happened, but it was reported that people were explaining to her on the way up that Alderman Roberts runs the corner shop and Ken Barlow used to edit the local newspaper, and basically setting out who all the key characters were—Bet Lynch was the landlady of the Rovers—and she is reported to have said just before she got out of the car, to the terror of those accompanying her, “Now, which one is Alf Garnett?”
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has yet to visit “Coronation Street”, and I hope that that is something he will rectify, for those of us who are dedicated fans take great offence at the fact that, as Mayor of London, he went to the inferior “EastEnders”, but has not yet paid tribute to “Coronation Street”. The 60th anniversary would be a good occasion for the Prime Minister to go up to “Coronation Street” and say thank you on behalf of the Government and the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Batley and Spen went through some of the groundbreaking issues that the writers and the cast have covered, and I think that is one of the things that has embedded “Coronation Street” in the heart of the nation. It has been groundbreaking in the issues it has been prepared to cover. We have talked about the Adam Rickitt and Bruno Langley—Nick and Todd—gay kiss. There is domestic abuse dating back to Rita and Alan Bradley, but most recently with Geoff and Yasmeen. It has dealt with child death, assisted suicide, the Roy and Hayley sex change, rape, adultery, teenage pregnancy, homelessness, stillbirth and suicide. Most recently, there were the incredibly moving scenes in which Aidan Connor committed suicide, played by the brilliant Shayne Ward, and the incredibly moving scenes—award-winning scenes, frankly—with Daniel and Sinead as Sinead died, leaving a young child behind. Daniel is played by the brilliant Rob Mallard, who is the on-screen son of Ken Barlow. I have to say that Rob, I think, is going to have the longevity of Ken Barlow and Bill Roache.
However, there is also the humour that the hon. Lady raised and talked about. Who can ever forget the scene where Blanche, Peter, Ken and Deirdre go to Peter’s meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous, and Blanche brings out all the dirty laundry to air it in public? Somebody says to her, “I am not a fan of yours”, and she replies, “I am not particularly a fan of your halitosis either.” She is desperately missed. There was the humour of Percy Sugden and Phyllis, Rita and Mavis, the relationship between Ken and Mike Baldwin, and Stan and Hilda. I remember from when I was a very young child—I have been watching “Coronation Street” for over 40 years—when they win the weekend away to a hotel. Hilda puts on some special lipstick, and Stan kisses her and says, “What does that taste of?”—“It tastes of woman, Stan, woman.” That is one of the best scenes I have ever seen.
Next week, we have the actual anniversary on 9 December. “Coronation Street” celebrated its 10,000th episode on 7 February this year. I think we should all salute everybody who has played a part over those 60 years in making it the national institution it is, and in particular Bill Roache, the longest-serving soap cast member in the world. By the way, for anybody watching this who does not know about “Coronation Street”, I would commend to them the wonderful programme “The Road to Coronation Street”, in which Bill was played by his real life son James Roache. It charts the story of Tony Warren taking this to the leaders of Granada and having it rejected, and then its being played internally and the tea ladies and others being suddenly gripped by it, and they saw the power it could have.
I end by saying this: “Coronation Street” is a family—the cast, the crew, the production teams, the writers, the directors, and everybody at MediaCity who puts so much into turning out this quality, dramatic, humorous production. They have done brilliantly during the pandemic in making sure that there are still fresh, vibrant episodes coming out at each week. I simply say, as a long-term fan, thanks to everybody involved in making “Coronation Street” for the laughter, the drama, the heartbreak, the tears and the smiles for the last 60 years. It sustains me in a positive way to know that it will be going long after I cease to be on this earth.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Mr Speaker, you enticed me to say a few words, so I feel that I should. I really want to, by the way. My intervention earlier was a speech on its own. What lovely and humorous recollections from to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin). “Coronation Street” always gives hard stories, but it also gives humour. I was thinking back on the 60-plus years that “Coronation Street” has been here—it might be here a wee bit longer—and I remember vividly the things that happened on the black and white TV, because they happened in our village of Ballywalter in the ‘60s and ‘70s. They were facts of life.
We did not have very much when we were young. That did not do us any harm, by the way. It gave us a compassion for others, I always thought. With my mum and dad in my house, while we might not have had much materially, we certainly had all the things that were important in life—the love of our parents and family. Along with the black and white TV and the storylines, one thing that resonated in my mind when the hon. Lady was speaking was the three ducks on the wall, because we had them in our house. Those might have been small things in “Corrie”, but they resonated with us. I could almost say that every one of the characters Members spoke of was so-and-so in the village. Male or female, whoever it may have been—they had the characteristics of that person. I will not say who they were, because that would not be fair, but it was people I noticed. Growing up in Ballywalter in the ‘60s and ‘70s, every one of those stories were real stories, because we could understand and relate to them.
When I got married some 33 and a half years ago, my wife loved cats and I loved dogs. I did not particularly like cats, but I realised that, if I loved my wife, I had to love her cats. That is how life is. I also realised early on that my wife was a fan of “Corrie”, and indeed of all the soaps. Such is her knowledge of all the characters and stories of “Coronation Street” and other soaps that I suspect that my good lady could become a scriptwriter for “Coronation Street”. The other great thing I have realised through all these years of marriage is that Sandra is in control of the remote whenever “Coronation Street” was on, and I have absolutely no chance of watching any other programme, be it football or whatever. That is just how life is.
I loved the mischief, the storylines and the real-life stories. When I intervened on the hon. Lady, I referred to the story of Oliver, the young boy who died on the TV programme last week. People will say that it is only a soap and not real life, but it portrays real life—I saw it in the story last week. Last week, in self-isolation with my wife, and with her in control of the remote, I really became involved in the story that they were telling. That is what the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) referred to. It was hard not to be involved, and it was hard, at the end of the week, not to be moved, emotionally, by the storyline, because I was totally gripped by what was taking place. Through all the programmes that there have been, “Coronation Street” has been able to portray heartache, pain, love and the highs and lows of life. I thank the Lord that I have never experienced what happened on “Coronation Street” last week, but some of my constituents have. That drama and that portrayal gives a feel for what is happening in the lives of others.
Of course, we have always been fortunate to have a good old Northern Ireland accent in among it all. I was just speaking to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen, trying to remember the actor’s name.
Jim Shannon
Charlie Lawson—that is exactly who it is. His character married Liz McDonald. I just loved hearing his accent, because when I come here to Parliament, my Northern Ireland accent is very different from everybody else’s. Indeed, one of my colleagues and friends from the Government Benches once said to me, “All right, Jim? I’ve really no idea what you said there—would you repeat it?” So I really do value the opportunity to be involved in this debate.
Gavin Robinson
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will understand this reference: in Northern Ireland, we cannot watch “Coronation Street” without enjoying the continuity announcement from Julian Simmons just before. Sadly, ITN has brought Julian to an end. If people do not understand who Julian is, I hope they check on YouTube for some of his introductions to “Coronation Street”. He always gave a précis in his inimitable, incredibly camp style. Perhaps I can give just one quote: I cannot even remember who he was talking about, but he said,
“once a lying, cheating, two-timing bigamist, always a lying, cheating, two-timing bigamist. A leopard never changes its spots—especially when it’s got a nose like a cooker hood.”
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Julian Simmons had that role as the person who tells us about the “Coronation Street” episode that is on the way, giving us that wee storyline, but his time at UTV and ITV has come to an end.
I thank everyone in “Corrie” for what they have done. What an opportunity this has been to speak, in a small way, about the good things that “Corrie” has brought into our lives, as well as the hard stories. It reminds us that life is not always roses for everyone—it is not always that way—but that it is also fun and laughter. “Coronation Street” does that exceptionally well.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) for securing this debate. We should also thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, because clearly he set the business for this week and ensured that the debates on the motions before us this afternoon were going to be fairly short so that we could have a substantial, longer than usual Adjournment debate to celebrate the 60th anniversary of “Coronation Street”.
I have been a fan of “Coronation Street” since I was about seven or eight years old. It was always on in our house: my parents loved it and my grandparents loved it—and as they get through their 90s in residential care together, after 70 years of marriage, they still watch “Coronation Street” every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. It is very much a family thing that we love and enjoy the nation’s favourite street.
One of the early storylines that I can remember was the murder of Brian Tilsley in the ’80s. I may have been seven at the time and I remember not fully comprehending the storyline—the brutality of it and how a father could be taken from a family, leaving the character we know as Nick Tilsley without a father. I remember that really struck me as a young boy.
I now like to see “Coronation Street” as escapism: after a busy day in this place, I can often be found on the train back to Buckinghamshire watching “Corrie” on my iPad. My doing so also maintains domestic harmony, because I must confess that I have married into an “EastEnders” family. Often, when we have “Coronation Street” on at home, my wife finds a reason to do something else. She is very appreciative that I watch it on my iPad on the way home. I like to try to ensure that that bit of escapism is available to me at the end of a busy day.
I have had the great honour and privilege of visiting the old set and the new set on a number of occasions, each time with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns). It is a privilege not only to meet so many cast members and see them filming their scenes, but to see the incredible crew and writers—everybody who works so hard to produce six episodes a week. In television, it is no mean feat to produce six episodes a week and get them ready on time for ITV to broadcast them.
As everybody else who has spoken in this debate has said, “Coronation Street” offers us that wonderful breadth— not only the laugh-out-loud moments, the entertainment and the comedy gold, but those very serious storylines. There have been storylines, as my parliamentary neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) said, that break taboos and raise awareness of things that the country is not necessarily as aware of as it could or should be. One that struck home with me—before I was elected to this House, I did some work with the UK Sepsis Trust in raising awareness of sepsis in this country—was the story of Jack Webster, who lost his leg. That really helped to raise public awareness of sepsis, to the point that, almost around the same time that that the storyline was airing, we saw in virtually every hospital and GP surgery up and down the land the “Just Ask: ‘Could it be Sepsis?’” poster going up, so it really is very powerful.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the Oliver storyline in the past few days was really difficult to watch, and the performances, particularly, of Jane Danson, Simon Gregson and Ben Price, really paid proper service to ensuring a greater awareness not only of mitochondrial disease, but of the absolute devastation that any family who loses a child must go through. As I say, it was difficult but important to watch as part of that storyline.
There have been so many other storylines. I do not want to repeat previous speeches, but the wonderful Mikey North’s portrayal of Gary Windass in the loan shark storyline over the last couple of years brought home the brutality of what can happen if people borrow money from loan sharks. Other stories include the coercive control storyline with Geoff and Yasmeen, which was so powerfully portrayed, and the David Platt male rape storyline, not yet complete in the court. We have seen domestic abuse storylines, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West mentioned, going back to Rita and Alan Bradley, and more recently, with Tyrone Dobbs. These are all highly serious issues that “Coronation Street” has helped to raise awareness of in the country, and there are so many more that I will not repeat.
As we look forward to another 60 years—hopefully more—of “Coronation Street”, there are also questions, to be serious for a moment, about the way we look at public service broadcasting. ITV is a public service broadcaster and we need to ensure that there is fairness for our public service broadcasters, particularly as they compete in advertising space with some online platforms going forward, to ensure that ITV is a strong channel that remains not only on our televisions, but on our iPads, computers and all the other ways that we are going to consume entertainment—a competitive player in that marketplace that is not disadvantaged by online programming. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is far more versed in these matters than me, to consider that going forward, and I know that the Public Service Broadcasting Advisory Panel has now launched.
I conclude by repeating my hearty congratulations to everybody involved in “Coronation Street” on this momentous anniversary of 60 years on our television screens. I look forward, hopefully, to visiting the set on many more occasions, but until then, it is my iPad on a Monday, Wednesday and Friday night—my escapism. I wish them all a very happy birthday and 60 more years to come.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on securing the debate. I enjoyed very much hearing her share some of her insights from the Street.
Earlier this year “The Road to Coronation Street” was broadcast, bringing to life the story of Tony Warren and his journey to bring “Coronation Street” to our screens 60 years ago. He has been rightly credited as the Dickens of the 20th century. “Coronation Street” is a staple of the TV diet in our household too, faithfully consumed by my partner and more fitfully so by me. I asked my partner which particular incidents in the show over the last 30 to 40 years that we have been watching it I should refer to in my speech, and they have both already been covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns): the Hilda Ogden scene in the guesthouse and Blanche’s attempts at attending an AA meeting for Peter Barlow.
During lockdown, a number of special episodes were broadcast with a special focus on the women of “Coronation Street”. These are strong, forthright, vocal northern women who have given the nation such special characters—Ena Sharples, Elsie Tanner, Hilda Ogden, Bet Lynch and Annie Walker, to name but a few—along with hugely humorous comedy characters including Percy Sugden, Norris Cole and Roy Cropper. I am sure that, with Roy’s enthusiasm for the railways, he would be keen to support the campaign in Darlington to save locomotion No. 1.
I want to share my favourite line from “Coronation Street”. It was a spin-off episode featuring Bet Lynch. She was away in Spain, and she was being chatted up in a bar by a much younger gentleman. She turned to him and said, “Go away! I’ve got ladders in my tights older than you.” “Coronation Street” is always reflective of life in our nation, representative of powerful northern voices and mindful of current issues in our society. I commend Granada for its fantastic contribution over the past 60 years to our cultural life.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the fount of all knowledge on “Coronation Street”, John Whittingdale.
The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)
I am not sure I can claim that title, particularly having listened to the contributions this evening. I would like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on obtaining the debate and managing to unite the House. Members on both sides of the House have spoken with real admiration and affection for what is undoubtedly the world’s greatest soap.
I am delighted to join others in congratulating “Coronation Street” and ITV on the 60th anniversary. At the beginning of this year, the programme transmitted its 10,000th episode, and the 60th anniversary is next week. It is the world’s longest running soap opera, and it is still the most popular. It also demonstrates the extraordinary changes that have taken place in the media landscape over those 60 years. Today, it is still bringing in the biggest audience of any soap, but that is around 7 million, whereas in the ’90s, it was regularly getting 20 million. Indeed, the departure of Hilda Ogden in the 1987 Christmas episode had an audience of 26.65 million. It is still getting something like a third of the audience share. This just shows how linear television has changed during that time, but nevertheless, “Coronation Street” has maintained its position at No.1.
I cannot claim the encyclopaedic knowledge that has been displayed by so many Members, but I, too, have twice visited the set of “Coronation Street”. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) said, the first time I did so was with Margaret Thatcher in January 1990, and it was indeed the case that I had to brief her on the way to the set on the characters who were stars at that time. I did indeed go through all the various storylines, and she was particularly keen to visit Alf Roberts’ corner shop, because of course her own father was Alfred Roberts, who ran the grocer’s shop in Grantham. She arrived on set and was very upset to see that Alf Roberts’ corner shop had the sign saying, “Licensed to sell alcohol”. She said that that would certainly have never been allowed in her father’s shop, as he would not have dreamt of selling alcohol. Having said that, she did then visit the Rovers Return, but she was very clear that she would have a bitter lemon from behind the bar.
Some 24 years later, I was lucky enough to visit the set again. This was organised by the redoubtable Jane Luca, of ITV, whom I suspect was responsible for the visits of most of my hon. Friends who have spoken of their own experiences. She organised for the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which I was Chair of at the time, to visit the new set. This was in 2014, after the set had been transferred to the new location in MediaCityUK in Salford. I was indeed accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West, whose excitement at going to the new set I remember. We met a number of cast members, including Michelle Keegan and Sam Aston. One thing that struck me was that the set had been made slightly bigger so that two cars could drive down the street and pass each other, and 54,000 cobbles had been laid, with extraordinary attention to detail. Each cobble was both positioned and weathered in order that it remained absolutely authentic. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) referred to the extraordinary amount of ancillary occupations involved and jobs created on a major TV production—I suspect that the 54,000 cobbles employed quite a lot of people.
Over the years, “Coronation Street” has had a number of famous visitors. There is a wonderful picture of Alfred Hitchcock peering around the door of the Rovers Return, and a young Prince Charles visited. As the hon. Member for Batley and Spen and one or two others have said, many great actors started their careers in Weatherfield; as well as the hon. Lady, we have the trio of theatrical knights, Sir Ben Kingsley, Sir Ian McKellen and Sir Patrick Stewart, as well as Sarah Lancashire and Joanna Lumley. As well as the actors, screenwriters such as Jack Rosenthal and Russell T. Davies started off in “Coronation Street”, and directors such as Paul Greengrass, Mike Newell and Michael Apted all directed episodes.
A number of the speakers in this debate have referred to the willingness of “Coronation Street” to confront difficult issues, and we have heard a number of examples of that, starting with the issue of racism in the very early episodes in the 1960s. Since then, it has addressed teenage pregnancy; domestic abuse, of both males as well as females; and transgender issues. It has even covered the challenge of someone having to try to find the money to pay the TV licence and failing, with this resulting in imprisonment. I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that almost nobody now goes to prison for a failure to pay the TV licence or meet the fine. I am sorry that in her case this came at a time when that was not true.
Tracy Brabin
It was pressure from this place that changed that law and a subsequent “Panorama” programme that unearthed all these cases of women who were sent straight to prison for non-payment. So I would like to thank the predecessors of MPs in here who saved so many women from experiencing that.
Mr Whittingdale
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that. It has been some years since anyone was sent to prison for that and I hope it does not happen again, but it was disproportionately women who suffered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) talked about the issue of raising awareness of sepsis. It is perhaps worth observing that there cannot be another street in Britain that has experienced so many disasters and so many tragedies in such a short space of time.
Of course, most recently, the programme has had to wrestle with the challenges of covid, both in terms of production and also as a storyline. Covid stopped production of “Coronation Street” in March, but it was able to resume in June under the protocols to ensure safety. I want to pay tribute to the ITV health and safety team and to Magnus Brooke of ITV who played a very large part in helping to draw up those protocols so that not just ITV Studios productions could get going again, but all the other broadcasters and film companies could, too.
I have been chairing the broadcasting, film and production working group, which has brought together representatives of all the broadcasters, film companies and production companies to discuss how we could get production going again. We have now put in place very strict protocols to ensure that production can take place safely. As the hon. Member for Batley and Spen mentioned, we have also put in place the £500 million film and TV restart scheme. She is absolutely right that one obstacle was the difficulty in obtaining insurance of productions against the possibility of their having to stop because of covid. I am glad to say that that is in place and, as a result, productions have been resumed by most of the major broadcasters and film companies, but it has required some quite inventive solutions.
I understand that, on “Coronation Street”, furniture is quite often placed between characters in order that they can remain apart and socially distanced. Indeed, in a particularly inventive way, filming of romantic scenes takes place with one actor sitting on one end of a sofa looking longingly at a tennis ball suspended from the ceiling and then, once that section has been filmed, the other actor takes their place at the other end of the sofa and stares at a different tennis ball longingly and the production crew then splice the two together so that no one can tell. It is very important not just, obviously, that production is done safely, but that a show like “Coronation Street” gets across the public messaging about the importance of maintaining social distancing and mask wearing. “Coronation Street” had the socially distanced wedding between Maria and Gary.
I fear that it is almost certain that Weatherfield would still be in tier 3 at the end of the national lockdown, which would mean that the Rovers Return would be able to supply only a takeaway service, but I hope that it would not be long before the Rovers Return would be in tier 2, which would, of course, allow the sale of alcohol with a substantial meal such as Betty’s hotpot.
The hon. Lady also rightly referred to the importance of the UK production sector and our creative industries and the need to ensure that every region and every nation of the UK benefits from them, and we have been very keen to ensure that more production is done outside London. The BBC now has a major centre in Salford at MediaCity. ITV is now located with the “Coronation Street” set there. I have also had the pleasure of visiting the “Emmerdale” set in Leeds. ITV still has a presence in Leeds and Channel 4 has now established its headquarters in Leeds. I am absolutely clear that it is very important that we continue to encourage production to take place right across the UK, because it brings enormous economic benefits in terms of jobs and wealth creation.
The hon. Member for Batley and Spen and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham referred to the importance of public service broadcasting. We are living through extraordinary changes in the media landscape that have brought huge extra opportunities for viewers in the range of content available through a number of streaming services that did not even exist two or three years ago. Now we have a choice of Amazon, Apple, Disney and Netflix, as well as Sky and the public service broadcasting companies. The PSBs have a tremendous role in supporting the UK creative industries, and while some of the streaming services are now commissioning content in this country, because we are so good at it here, the PSBs nevertheless still represent the major commissioners of UK content. We have recently established the Public Service Broadcasting Advisory Panel to examine the way in which PSB needs to adapt to this new landscape, but I am absolutely clear that there is still a role for public service broadcasting, and we will be looking at the issues and challenges facing public service broadcasters, such as the issue of prominence that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham raised.
I would like to conclude by joining all those who have spoken in paying tribute to a show that has not only brought pleasure and entertainment to millions of people over the course of the last 60 years, not just in the UK but in many other countries around the world, but also played a vital role in raising awareness and affecting attitudes on so many important public issues. As several people have said, I look forward to at least another 60 years.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am not going to let the moment pass without saying a few words. This is rare and exceptional, but we are going to do it, and I am grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing me to chair this part of the Adjournment debate. Congratulations, Tracy, there is nobody more appropriate than you to have this particular debate. I have to say, as well, that I have seen many Ministers answer Adjournment debates with speeches prepared by their own Departments, but John, you wrote every word of that speech. I was looking at it, and that is your handwriting. I do not know if you could read it, but none the less it is your handwriting. You have grown up with the series, as we all have in this Chamber.
I know that Mr Speaker would have wanted, in normal circumstances, to have done a big reception at the end of this debate and had many of the stars past and present in his state rooms, but I am afraid covid has meant that that cannot be. We cannot even go into the snug in the Strangers Bar, because that is closed. None the less, I am sure that at some stage we will be able to properly mark the 60 years of “Coronation Street” in the Palace of Westminster. I know that that Chamber would have been full of some of the stars looking down before we went on to the reception.
I grew up in the 1960s watching “Coronation Street” on the huge TV we had in the corner—a small screen, but a big TV—all in black and white. I lay on the floor and listened to the haunting melody on a Monday and Wednesday. My father would close the shop early in order to watch “Coronation Street” because he loved it so much. Little did I think, watching that series, that I would be chairing a debate on “Coronation Street” in the House of Commons as Deputy Speaker.
I remember once meeting Jean Alexander, the great Hilda Ogden, and I could not get over how posh she sounded when she was not being Hilda Ogden. She was such a great actress, and that is part of the thing about “Coronation Street”: the great actors and actresses—yourself included, Tracy—who have performed in the amazing, longest running soap opera in the entire world.
In the 1960s, Bill Roache opened Swansea carnival. My mother dragged me down to the front to watch Bill in the back of an open-top car. I thought I was looking at a Hollywood actor—that is the height of the fame of people who starred in “Coronation Street” in those days. Little did I think then that I would represent the Ribble Valley, in the north-west of England, in Lancashire, or that in the village I bought a house in, Pendleton, I would be living opposite Vicky Entwistle—Janice Battersby—who is now a personal friend. I went to her wedding in Manchester, when she married Andy Chapman. Lots of stars of “Coronation Street” were there.
Bill Roache, too, has become a personal friend of mine over the years—a wonderful man. He has helped me out in a couple of general election campaigns, as he has a number of people who became MPs. Bill is the longest-serving actor in the longest-serving soap. What an amazing accolade! John, you mentioned Jane Luca, and she helped me to get on to the set of “Coronation Street” as well. We are all grateful for the fantastic facilitation that Jane has given many people over the period.
Another thing that has come out about “Coronation Street” is the humour—yes, the drama, and the fact that it treat difficult subjects, but it is one of the most humorous things on TV, more than some of the other soaps on at the moment, where you feel a bit depressed at the end. With “Coronation Street”, humour runs through the entire series, the entire 60 years of its production. For me, as far as broadcasting is concerned, you can stick your “Crowns”; I am going to stick with “Corrie”, as I have for the past 60 years, and as I am sure we all will in the future.
It is a real shame that at the end of this debate, we cannot have that haunting melody of “Coronation Street” playing, which I am sure we are all thinking about now. It is the thing that got us there to watch the show and, even at the point of highest drama, there would be silence in our living rooms as we listened to that closing melody. So thank you, “Corrie”, for everything that you have done over the past 60 years.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Mark Spencer |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Kim Johnson |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West ) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Gavin Robinson |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Patrick Grady |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Jonathan Edwards |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Sir Jeffrey Donaldson |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Kim Johnson |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Mark Spencer |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Rachel Hopkins |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Peter Aldous |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab) | Stuart Andrew |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Rachel Hopkins |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deferred Divisions
Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill
Wednesday 2nd December 2020
(4 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Prisons (Substance Testing) Act 2021 View all Prisons (Substance Testing) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 December 2020 - (2 Dec 2020)
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair: Ms Nusrat Ghani
† Afolami, Bim (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
† Baker, Duncan (North Norfolk) (Con)
† Bradley, Ben (Mansfield) (Con)
† Brown, Ms Lyn (West Ham) (Lab)
† Butler, Rob (Aylesbury) (Con)
Carden, Dan (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
† Charalambous, Bambos (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Davies-Jones, Alex (Pontypridd) (Lab)
† Frazer, Lucy (Minister of State, Ministry of Justice)
† Holden, Mr Richard (North West Durham) (Con)
† Hunt, Jane (Loughborough) (Con)
Jones, Mr Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)
Lake, Ben (Ceredigion) (PC)
Loder, Chris (West Dorset) (Con)
† Marson, Julie (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Olney, Sarah (Richmond Park) (LD)
† Webb, Suzanne (Stourbridge) (Con)
Adam Mellows-Facer, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Wednesday 2 December 2020
[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]
Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill
The Chair
Welcome to the Public Bill Committee on the Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. You will all understand the need to respect social distancing guidance. If necessary, I will intervene to remind you. Note passing can no longer take place in a paper form; it has to be done electronically. The Hansard reporters would be most grateful if Members emailed any electronic copies of their speaking notes to Hansard, or just take a screenshot and send it over.
The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and online. This shows how the selected amendments and clauses have been grouped together for debate. Formal decisions on amendments and clauses will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Bill. New clauses come at the end.
Clause 1
Testing prisoners for psychoactive substances and other substances
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(7) In the Prison and Young Offender Institution (Coronavirus, etc) (Amendment)(No. 3) Rules 2020 (S.I. 2020/1077)—
(a) omit rule 2(3), and
(b) omit rule 3(3).”
S.I. 2020/1077 added a new substance to the list of “specified drugs” in the Prison and YOI Rules. That list is no longer needed because of the changes made by the Bill and so this amendment revokes the S.I.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani, and to introduce this Bill on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), who cannot be here today. I thank Lorraine O’Shea from my right hon. Friend’s office, who has been invaluable in bringing this private Member’s Bill together.
Clause 1 allows Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to test prisoners for all psychoactive substances, including any new compounds that emerge. It also allows prisoners to be tested for any controlled drug, pharmacy medicine and prescription-only medicine. It achieves that by using the definitions for those substances and medicines already set out in legislation, including the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 and the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.
It is a feature of psychoactive substances that new substances appear regularly, with slight alterations to the chemical mixture. When that occurs, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service has not been able to test for these new compounds until they have been added to the Prison Rules 1999 and the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000. The most recent example was scopolamine, a psychoactive substance added to the rules in October.
This clause will allow the drug-testing framework to respond quickly to test for new psychoactive substances, or any prescription-only or pharmacy medicines, without first having to amend the rules. Prisons and young offender institutions will be able to better plan for treatment services, identify those who should use them and, where appropriate, impose sanctions.
Amendments may still be made to the rules through statutory instruments to allow testing for substances that are regarded as harmful and which fall outside existing statutory definitions of controlled drugs, pharmacy medicines, prescription-only medicines and psychoactive substances. These are defined as “specified substances” in clause 1. Clause 2 amends the Prison Act 1952 to ensure that a substance cannot be listed as a “specified substance” in rules if it already falls within the statutory definitions of controlled drug, pharmacy medicine, prescription only medicine or psychoactive substance.
Clause 1(4) makes provision for the anonymised prevalence testing for medicinal products as well as controlled drugs, psychoactive substances and specified substances. “Medicinal products” is a wider category of substances than “prescription only medicines” and “pharmacy medicines” and is defined by reference to regulation 2 of the Human Medicines Act 2012. Having an express statutory basis for prevalence testing will provide a useful insight into trends in drug use and support healthcare providers in planning their services and tailoring their treatment programs in prisons and young offender institutions over time.
Clause 2 also sets out consequential amendments following the changes in clause 1. Clause 2 will allow the Secretary of State to make any necessary changes to the Prison Act 1952 in the event of any future changes in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 or other legislation relating to human medicines. For example, if a substance definition that our Bill refers to were to be revoked in future, we could amend the Prison Act 1952 to include the definition or refer to alternative legislation and avoid any impact to Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service’s drug testing framework.
As we have discussed, the Bill adopts a general definition of psychoactive substances. That allows HM Prison and Probation Service to test for any psychoactive substances. In the past, substances considered psychoactive have been listed in the rules as specified drugs, in order to allow for testing. That is no longer required. It is therefore necessary for the Bill to remove the existing lists added to the Prison Rules 1999 and the Young Offender Rules 2000, as per our amendment. It is better for the statute book explicitly to remove statutory instruments that would otherwise have no effect. That is why we tabled the amendment, which is a minor and technical amendment, specifically in reference to scopolamine.
Scopolamine was added to the prescribed drugs list by statutory instrument in February, so that HM Prison and Probation Service could test prisoners for a psychoactive substance that had come into recent illicit use in our prisons. Were the Bill to become part of the statute book, scopolamine would be covered by the new definition of psychoactive substances inserted into the Prison Act 1952 by clause 1 of the Bill. The SI laid in October would therefore become redundant, so the amendment removes it from the statute book.
Clause 3 confirms the short title of the Bill and makes provision for its coming into force. The clause also provides that the Bill extends to England and Wales only, as prisons are devolved in both Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. What an honour to be considering a private Member’s Bill this morning. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham is not with us, but I know that the hon. Member for North West Durham will continue to take the Bill through the House most ably. He demonstrated his skill on Second Reading. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham chose wisely.
The Bill is an important one, and Labour supports its core goal to improve the testing regime for harmful substances in prisons. Substance misuse in prisons is rife, and we are told that it fuels violence and health problems and remains a real barrier to rehabilitation. The physical and mental impact on prison staff, including those who work to provide healthcare and education, can be truly awful.
As the hon. Member for North West Durham said, the current system for enabling substances to be tested within our prisons is just not responsive enough. The drugs that are being produced change rapidly, as do the methods of smuggling them into our prisons. Removing the necessity to introduce secondary legislation every single time a new substance needs to be added to the testing regime is a necessary and proportionate change, which is of a piece with the broader changes made several years ago by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016.
I served on the Committee for the 2016 Act. If we are being frank, we probably should have provided for this issue in that measure. However, it is very welcome to have a statutory basis for anonymous prevalence testing, so that prisons and healthcare staff, prison leaders and the Government can deliver a faster, more precise and more accurate understanding of what the problems with drugs are, and where they are within the prison system.
I have two brief questions about the drafting of the Bill, which I assume the Minister will be able to answer. I raised them quickly on Second Reading, but understandably at that point I did not receive a full response. As hon. Members will know, there are occasionally issues with the interpretation of the core definition of a psychoactive substance in the 2016 Act. This Bill would copy that definition into the Prison Act 1952. Are the Government confident that the definition is robust enough? Is there a risk that the general power to specify substances to be tested for in clause 47 (3A) of the Prison Act 1952 will still need to be used if these definitions fail? I have noticed that the consequential amendment 1 opts for amending the general power that I just mentioned, so that all controlled drugs—pharmacy medicine, prescription-only medicine, and psychoactive substances—are excluded.
An alternative step would be to repeal subsection (3A) entirely. It might be that the decision to amend it, rather than repeal it, reflects a judgement that the definition of a psychoactive substance could turn out to be inadequate, and that a power to set out specific substances to be tested will still be needed. However, if that amended power in subsection (3A) were ever used in the future, it would still have to make use of an amendment to the prison rules through secondary legislation. That process would be no faster than the one that currently exists. I do not say so to oppose a general power to specify substances remaining in legislation after this Bill hopefully becomes law. However, I would welcome further explanation. Is the general power simply there in case the other definitions drawn from the 2016 Act and the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 fail, or is it there for another purpose? Is another purpose envisaged? I am quite happy to take a note on this, electronically or otherwise, after the sitting. I have no intention of causing any difficulties, but these are issues that have been flagged to us, and we would be grateful for an explanation.
Two of the largest issues where we need greater clarity about the Government’s approach in response to this Bill are addressed by the new clauses that I will come on to introduce. I can see that I am likely to have a majority when I press them to a vote. Before we come on to those new clauses, I want to raise a few other questions and issues which it would be helpful for the Minister to address. The most important question for the Government in relation to this Bill is what are they going to use it for? Once the Bill has provided the power to rectify the problems with the testing regime for Spice and other novel psychoactive substances—as it is very early in the morning and I am a bit tired, I hope Members will accept that I will say “NPS” from now on—how are the Government going to use that power to create a healthier, more therapeutic, and more rehabilitative environment in our prisons?
Something that could result from more accurate testing is more widespread use of punishment for people found to have misused drugs in custody. As I said on Second Reading, this is a difficult issue, because sometimes the punishments that are used could make it harder for people to stop using drugs, rather than easier. Would the Minister tell us more about Government’s understanding of this? Has there been, or could there be, a review of the impact that different types of disciplinary intervention have had on people who are found to be misusing drugs in custody?
The Minister—rightly, in my view— has been looking keenly at the different ways that our courts can respond to offending in the community in a way that solves problems and does not make problems that clearly exist worse. I hear that next year we are going to be considering some of those welcome changes in the sentencing White Paper. In my view, it should be no different when people break the rules in prison. People in prison have had their liberty taken away as a punishment appropriate to their crime and, given the added challenges of living in prison and all that that brings, it is more, not less, important that the disciplinary actions taken solve problems and create the conditions for rehabilitation, not reoffending. The punishments announced in 2015 by the then Justice Secretary included bans on family visits, 21 days confined to cells, removal of TV access and more. We know that the use of drugs in prison can be, or is often thought to be, caused by inactivity, loss of hope and complete and utter desperation.
I worry that greater use of at least some of those punishments might inadvertently lead to people wanting to take more drugs to get themselves mentally out of the situation—even temporarily—that they find themselves in. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be locked up. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be locked in a cell—I am completely claustrophobic and antisocial—with someone I did not like for 23 hours a day. I could imagine in those circumstances, if I were a little bit different, wanting to get out of there in my head, at least temporarily.
Ms Brown
Can I just finish this, because it is not written down and otherwise I will lose my train of thought? This is something where some of us use alcohol. If we have had a rubbish day—not that it ever happens in this place, obviously—we go home for a very large gin and tonic. That in and of itself is almost a way of trying to come down from the stresses we have had and cope with them. Some people use alcohol in much worse ways than that and do not have it under control. All I am trying to say is that we should try and walk for a few minutes in the moccasins of those who find themselves imprisoned and are struggling mentally with all that being in prison means—being separated from their families and children and having their liberty constrained.
Rob Butler
Out of an abundance of caution, I declare that prior to my election I was a non-executive director of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Notwithstanding what the hon. Lady has just said, does she accept that there is a real scourge of drugs in our prisons and that we must clamp down on them and not do anything to encourage their use? I entirely agree that rehabilitation is the right way to proceed but, equally, nothing must be done to encourage those who seek to bring drugs into prison, create an illicit economy and make the problem much worse.
Ms Brown
I absolutely agree and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, especially with the knowledge that he has, for giving me the opportunity of making myself abundantly clear. Those who bring the trade into prisons, who put at risk the lives and wellbeing of our prison staff and prisoners should feel the full penalty of the law. I have no doubt about that at all.
What I was trying and obviously failing to do was to get us to put ourselves in the mind of the prisoner who is taking this stuff and understand that in many ways it is logical to want to free oneself mentally, even just for a few hours, from some of the stresses that people have to endure when there are in prison. The hon. Member for Aylesbury is absolutely right that the full weight of the law should be felt by those who are peddling this insidious, evil stuff in our prisons and taking advantage of those who are most vulnerable. They are completely and utterly despicable. I do not think I could make myself clearer.
I would be really grateful if the Minister might say something about the Government’s understanding of the efficacy of the forms of discipline that are currently used for those who misuse drugs in prison. Is any work going on that might improve them? Obviously another way of intervening in the lives of those who are misusing NPSs in our prisons is to ensure that they get into effective treatment. There is often a medical problem at the heart of the difficulties that requires a therapeutic solution.
I will say more about that issue when we come to the new clauses, which I know will be accepted and cheered from the rafters, but for the moment let me focus a little on the important issue of transitions from community into custody, and vice versa, and from prison to prison. The Government’s statistics on that, contained in the “Substance misuse treatment in secure settings” publication, recognise only two pathways into treatment.
The first is after coming into prison from the community. We know that 90% of people who come into prison from outside and who go on to access treatment are into the treatment programme within three weeks, and 61% access it immediately. That sounds to me like a good statistic, but among people who are moving from one secure setting to another the numbers are a little worse: 41% of those who eventually access treatment after a transfer took more than three weeks to do so, which cannot be good, and just 15% started treatment immediately after their transfer. There is clearly a problem, and I really would like to hear from the Minister what she feels can be done to improve things.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I had the pleasure of visiting HMP Cardiff a couple of years ago with the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee. That prison was getting prisoners from Bristol visiting them who were under different regimes—under a different nation’s schemes. That had an impact on the prisoners from Bristol and other areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be a more joined-up approach in dealing with this?
Ms Brown
I absolutely do. It is quite clear that once someone is on a treatment programme it needs to continue seamlessly, because we all want people, when they leave prison and go back into our communities, to be able to do so free from drugs and addiction, and to start a fresh life. My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him for bringing that to our attention.
I gently suggest that the statistics, and Government policy more broadly, might be improved if we stop pretending that prisoners do not start taking drugs while in prison, rather than always going into prison with an addiction. That is the truth of it. The whole system at the moment seems to be geared to discovering who has a pre-existing dependence on drugs and ensuring that they are in treatment, which is good. Do not get me wrong, that is essential, but for drugs such as spice, which has been very common in prisons, it is not the whole story.
There is a third pathway to treatment that we need to ensure is available: a pathway for those people who did not have a drug problem when they entered prison but who, tragically and unacceptably, acquired one while inside. They are the people the system is failing most—the people for whom the boredom and difficulties of prison life are alleviated by short oblivion through illicit drugs obtained inside. I am genuinely hopeful that the Bill will enable treatment for those people. If it does, that will be a massive benefit to communities and families.
I will quickly explore one other issue. The transition between custody and community is often a revolving door, especially for those with drug abuse problems. It may be especially important for spice users. It is very evident that spice is disproportionately used by two populations: prisoners and rough sleepers. We know from last week’s Public Health England substance misuse statistics that in 2019 almost half of those entering treatment for misuse of an NPS had a housing problem—the highest proportion for any category of substances. I suspect that if we accounted for those who use spice but who are not in treatment as well as for those who are, the proportion with a housing problem would be even higher. It is incredibly difficult to hold down a job, maintain positive relationships and a family life, and to keep the mind and body healthy while living on the street. That contributes to higher levels of imprisonment among those who sleep rough.
Homelessness for prison leavers, and what the charity Nacro calls cell, street, repeat, is a priority for us, and I am led to believe that it will be a priority for the Government to reduce reoffending rates in coming years. However, we need to understand how these issues are connected; how many people come into prison with a history of rough sleeping and associated use of spice in a year; how many receive treatment for substance misuse while inside; how many are still accessing spice or other harmful substances while they are inside; how many of these people, when released, go straight back to rough sleeping; and how many are going straight back to spice use if they managed to get clean inside. I hope the Minister will offer to take this issue away and consider whether there is a need for further research, which the Ministry could commission, and how it might best be achieved.
The other important transition is when people leave prison. We need to ensure that leaving prison means starting a new, changed life. It is good for the whole of our community that prisoners, when released, do not come out and reoffend. It is also important for the prisoner that they get a true second chance. Substance misuse treatment is a massive part of ensuring that that can happen. We need to ensure that information about people’s needs travels with them as they leave prison and that treatment is immediate and consistent when they arrive in the community.
There is, unfortunately, little point in people getting clean or stable inside prison if they immediately relapse when they are out, without enough support, in the chaos and confusion of the outside world again. In fact, as we know, after release is the most dangerous time for those using illicit drugs, with appalling proportions of overdose deaths occurring in the first few days after leaving prison, just when we are wanting people to have a sense of hope and rebirth. A Norwegian study found that 85% of all deaths in prison leavers in the first week after release were due to overdoses. A US study found that the risk of an overdose death was 12.7 times higher for a prison leaver in the first two weeks after release from the general population.
Most of these deaths after leaving prison are the result of opiate use—heroin, or even more, drugs such as fentanyl—rather than an NPS. People in prison with an opiate dependence are generally on a regulated dose of a replacement drug as a medication, but when they come out, if they do not have immediate access to continue that treatment, they turn to the black market. At that point, much higher and less reliable doses are sold, which can quickly overwhelm the body, and people die. So getting transitions from custody to community right is a matter of life and death for some, and an essential part of treatment.
A few weeks ago, I met with some amazing NHS staff who work with armed services veterans in custody at HMP Wandsworth. I was delighted to hear that the staff in the substance misuse team leave the prison when those in their care are released, and go with them to their first appointment for community treatment. That is exactly the kind of integrated working that we need, but we all know that it is far from universal.
Can the Minister tell us more about what the Government are doing to improve treatment through the gate, following the recommendations in the report from the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs on custody to community transitions last year? I fully appreciate that she is unlikely to have detailed answers to all my questions at her fingertips, but I think that we, as parliamentarians, could do with them to help to design and monitor effective policy on issues that mean enough to us that we are sat here this morning.
This is an excellent Bill, whose purpose we support, but if it is not accompanied by effective, well-resourced Government policy its benefits will be limited. I am fairly certain that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham would not be impressed by that at all. I will say more when we come to the new clauses.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
It is such a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I will not detain the Committee long on the main points, but I will respond to the points that the hon. Member for West Ham raised. I, like others, give my wholehearted support to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham for introducing this very important Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham for acting as its sponsor on her behalf. I commend the excellent work that my right hon. Friend has done in preparation for the Bill, notwithstanding that she has been unable to participate in these proceedings.
Having the privilege of being the Minister responsible for prisons, probation and rehabilitation, I am acutely aware of how necessary the Bill’s provisions are. As the hon. Member for West Ham said, drugs fuel crime both in and outside prison. Moreover, new drugs are constantly emerging on to the market in prison, and criminals are tweaking the chemical compounds of existing psychoactive substances to avoid detection. The Bill ensures that drug tests are responsive to the latest challenges in prisons and young offenders institutions.
The Bill will future-proof the drug-testing framework by adopting the broader definition of psychoactive substances, prescription-only medicines and pharmacy medicines, and it will enable our prisons to start testing more immediately for new drugs substances. More than that, it will enable us to identify new and emerging trends and therefore react quickly to changes in drug use by adjusting the relevant security measures to find specific drug types or the appropriate medical response during an emergency.
There is also the issue of identifying prisoners or young offenders with ongoing drug problems. The provisions in the Bill will enable Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons to have a better understanding of which individuals are misusing drugs and therefore to ensure that they get the appropriate treatment, as well as providing evidence of what is possible in terms of prevention.
We have a multifaceted approach to tackling drugs, and the Bill will enable us to continue to enhance our ability to tackle the scourge of drugs in prisons. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham for taking the Bill through the House, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham for introducing it.
I will deal with a few of the points that the hon. Member for West Ham raised. She put forward a range of issues, and I will deal with the largest ones. She asked whether we were satisfied with the definition of psychoactive substances. I would like to assure her that we are content that the Psychoactive Substances Act provides HMPPS with a sufficiently broad definition to allow for testing of any new or existing psychoactive substances that may be used in prisons now or in the future. Of course, it is theoretically possible that a substance will fall outwith the definition in the future, so the Bill is drafted to future-proof drug testing in the case of any such eventually. However, that is not an eventuality that we anticipate at this time.
The hon. Lady asked what we will use the evidence we gather for. The key objective of the mandatory drug testing programme is to provide a means of identifying prisoners with ongoing drug problems to ensure that they are offered the appropriate treatment, and I would like to detail some of the work that we are doing on that. However, it is also right, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, who has such experience, that we need to tackle those who traffic, distribute and use illegal and illicit drugs, and prison governors should have appropriate sanctions available to them to discourage such offending. The hon. Member for West Ham is right that we need to treat people with drug use, but prisons must take a balanced approach that is consistent with that, and it is important that they have the tools available to them in appropriate places.
Bambos Charalambous
The Minister mentioned having a multifaceted approach to substance abuse in prison. A couple of years ago her predecessor mentioned that there was going to be a £10 million investment in scanners and other equipment to detect drugs going into prison—that is the other side of the equation. Could she give us any updates as to what the Government are doing on that? I am sure that is something we would all be interested in hearing about, because we want to make sure that drugs do not get into prisons in the first place.
Lucy Frazer
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. As he repeated, we do have a multifaceted approach, including limiting the supply—the measures he identified are to do that—limiting demand and providing treatment. He is right that we did a pilot programme in 10 prisons, and as a result of that and other work, we have put forward a £100 million security package, which includes the airport scanners to detect drugs that have been ingested before being brought into prisons. We also have enhanced gate security for visitors and staff, we have mobile phone blockers and we have beefed up investment in the investigation of crimes, so that we can bring people to justice if do the things the hon. Member for West Ham talked about so passionately. We need to stop the crime of supply within our prisons.
The hon. Member for West Ham rightly focused on how we limit demand and actually treat people in our prisons. We have a number of initiatives on that. She will know about Holme House—our first drug recovery prison. It is a £9 million project jointly funded by the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care. I am pleased to say that that programme will be evaluated early next year; the early signs are good, but the formal evaluation will take place next year. We also have that on a small scale in a number of prisons. We have enhanced drug-free wings. The hon. Lady rightly says that we should not be punishing and that we should be encouraging, and these drug-free units encourage and incentivise people to live a drug-free life. That is something we are very committed to increasing.
Treatment is very important, as the hon. Member for West Ham mentioned, and we need to help people get on treatment programmes. She rightly said that 90% of people coming into prison, where they are on those programmes, do have access to treatments within three weeks. In fact, 53,193 adults accessed drug and alcohol treatment services within prisons and secure settings between 2018 and 2019. I am pleased to say that 27% of those who were discharged after completing their treatment were free of dependence. The programmes that we are putting in place, having detected people who have problems, are therefore working, and I am pleased to say that that figure is an increase from the 24% who were successfully free of drugs two years earlier.
The hon. Member is right to point out that people sometimes turn to drugs in prison, when they have no hope and not much else to do. That is why we are committed to ensuring that we increase purposeful activity that will get people jobs when they come out. As evidence of that, she will know about our £2.5 billion spending programme for prison builds. We are absolutely committed to providing spaces where people can do good work and have good education in prisons.
Of course, we need to help those who unfortunately become addicted in prison. I do not shy away from the fact that that happens, but the measures in the Bill and all the other measures that I have identified will help us do that.
The hon. Member rightly talked about rough sleepers, and the link between them and prison. Around 60% of rough sleepers have been in prison in the last year, so there is a clear correlation between offending and homelessness. I have spoken previously about the close work that my Department is doing with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that we take people out of rough sleeping and into homes. That will have an impact on turning around the lives of those people who would otherwise come into our institutions.
In the spending review, the hon. Member will have seen the commitment to £237 million that the Prime Minister announced for accommodation for up to 6,000 rough sleepers. She will also have seen a further £144 million for associated support services and £262 million for substance misuse treatment services, which, when fully deployed, are expected to help more than 11,000 people a year. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, through our joint work, is not only taking people off the street, but giving them the treatment they need for their addiction. That spending is a 60% increase on the 2019 SR.
The hon. Member talked about other transitions into the community and between prisons. She is right to identify those points. We are already doing a significant amount of work on transitions into the community. She mentioned the important work that is being done in Wandsworth. That is not one of our RECONNECT programmes, but she will know that we have a RECONNECT service that the NHS is rolling out across the country. That is doing exactly what she identifies: ensuring that those who leave prison engage with community health services and supporting them to make that transition easier. Having spoken to the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care regularly, I know they are committed to rolling that out in the coming years, in full, everywhere and to every prison in the country.
I agree that there is more work to do on transferring between prisons. That relates to healthcare, NHS records and the work that we need do in prisons, but we are committed across the board to joining up the prisoner journey, not only in healthcare, but in other areas such as education.
The hon. Member mentioned naloxone. That point rightly comes up often, because it is important that, when we release prisoners who are addicted, there are no drastic consequences. Public Health England monitors the number of eligible prisoners who are given naloxone. Currently, 17% of those who have an opiate dependency get naloxone, which is up on previous years. I recognise that it could be more and I know that PHE is doing a piece of work at the moment to monitor performance in relation to take-home naloxone across all prison establishments and to identify best practice. I have spoken to them and they have an ambition that everybody will get it.
I hope I have addressed the hon. Member’s points. The Government are pleased to support the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham promoted and that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham introduced today, and I commend it to the Committee.
Mr Holden
I thank hon. Members who have taken part today, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, who tried to introduce the measure in a previous Session as a ten-minute rule Bill. It did not quite reach Committee stage, but we are rocking on. I hope we can keep it going today. I thank the hon. Members for West Ham and for Enfield, Southgate.
Mr Holden
I will wait until later to heap praise on the hon. Lady.
Some important points have been raised by Members of different parties, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, who has brought his expertise to bear today. I know he does not often speak outside Prime Minister’s questions, but I am glad he could grace us with his presence.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Consequential amendments
Amendment made: 1, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(7) In the Prison and Young Offender Institution (Coronavirus, etc) (Amendment) (No. 3) Rules 2020 (S.I. 2020/1077)—
(a) omit rule 2(3), and
(b) omit rule 3(3).”—(Mr Richard Holden.)
S.I. 2020/1077 added a new substance to the list of “specified drugs” in the Prison and YOI Rules. That list is no longer needed because of the changes made by the Bill and so this amendment revokes the S.I.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Assessment of the effects and value for money of this Act
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare an assessment of the value for money of the provisions of this Act in achieving their objectives.
(2) That assessment must consider—
(a) the extent to which the Act is achieving its objectives;
(b) the number of tests conducted;
(c) the number of positive results;
(d) the number of novel psychoactive substances found;
(e) the number of prescription-only substances found;
(f) the timeliness of updates to the testing regime when new substances are introduced into prisons;
(g) the amount spent on testing;
(h) the net effects on expenditure on the treatment of substance misuse;
(i) the effects of this Act on value for money in substance testing in prisons.
(3) A report on the assessment must be laid before Parliament no later than one year after the Act comes into force.”—(Ms Brown.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Reports by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—
“(1) The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs must make biannual reports to Parliament on substance testing in prisons.
(2) Each report under this section must include assessments of—
(a) the number of substances that have been tested for;
(b) which substances have newly appeared in prisons, and in what quantities;
(c) the speed at which novel substances are being accounted for by the testing regime;
(d) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the health of prisoners, including any effects on numbers of suicides or serious self-harm events in prisons.
(3) Any report under this section may contain recommendations for action they might have for healthcare providers in prisons, HM Prisons Service or any other public body relating to substance testing in prisons.”
Ms Brown
New clause 1 would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact and value for money of the Bill within a year of its coming into force. I hope the Bill will increase the speed at which new psychoactive substances are identified in the prison system, and I hope the system will be able to identify quickly where medicines are being misused before that leads to harm. I hope that more people who need treatment for their drug problems will be identified, and that access to treatment will therefore improve. I hope the performance and value for money of the testing provider will improve, because it has a new, clearer mission and renewed scrutiny from the Ministry and Parliament.
We all hope there are results, but whether the benefits of the Bill are realised will depend on policy decisions and their implementation by both the Prison Service and the outsourced testing provider. I hope the Minister will say something about that, particularly about the value for money of the existing contract and what is happening to ensure that the testing service provided will be fit for purpose by the time the Bill comes into force. For me, the most important aspect of this is ensuring that treatment improves, because we know there are currently failures in the system.
The most recent data show that 11% of people receiving substance misuse treatment in prison said they had a problem with NPSs. For many, they will not be the only substances they are misusing. That proportion has been rising; it was just 5% in 2015-16, but, given the very high estimates for use in some prisons, it is probably reasonable to expect that the numbers of NPS users in treatment will need to increase further.
Those figures suggest that currently, spice users may be disproportionately unlikely to be in treatment; as we know, some evidence suggests that around one third of those misusing drugs in prison last year were NPS users. Given that the tests have been inaccurate, the true proportion could be even higher. All that suggests that treatment rates for NPS in prisons are significantly lower than they need to be. In the community at large, just 8% of those known to the national drug treatment monitoring system had an NPS problem last year.
That is concerning, because it raises the possibility that there may not be the knowledge or established treatment options available for people leaving custody across the country. I would like to hear what recent assessments the Government have made of the proportion of NPS users in prison who are in treatment, what plans the Government have to improve access to treatment for NPS users on the basis of the Bill, and what plans are in place to ensure that NPS users leaving custody have good access to treatment in the community.
The potential for a significant improvement in monitoring treatment and outcomes is there. Passing this Bill will be a good prompt for the Government to ensure that they provide the resources required for that to happen. If the Minister will commit to making a written statement on these matters in due course, after the Bill has commenced and enough time has passed for an assessment to be made, I will happily withdraw this new clause.
New clause 2 would require the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, as an expert body that has the central role in advising us on all issues relating to substance misuse, to publish a report to Parliament every six months on the substances that are getting into our prisons and their effects, the adequacy of the testing regime and any recommendations it might have as a result of its findings.
The Bill would remove the requirement for the Government to involve Parliament in the process for adding new substances to the testing regime. As a means to improve the responsiveness of testing, that is welcome, but it reduces the number of opportunities for and the level of scrutiny that we can apply to drug testing and to the way drug testing is used.
I believe we need to find a way to remedy that potential lack of transparency and scrutiny and to ensure that the results of anonymised prevalence testing are not kept as a secret for prison governors, HMPPS, managers and so on. We need to make maximum use of this information as a source of understanding of what is going on in our prisons, what is going wrong and how we might fix it.
On Second Reading, I raised the fact that both the branches and the national organisation of the Professional Trades Union for Prison, Correctional and Secure Psychiatric Workers—the POA—are currently denied access to results of the prevalence studies that already happen. I suspect that ensuring that staff know what substances were getting in, and what their effects are, would be helpful in improving responses to incidents. If there are regular, transparent reports, that will also help the prison system as a whole to respond to problems proactively, even if they have not yet shown up locally. It will aid the Justice Committee and external watchdogs such as Her Majesty’s inspectorate, independent monitoring boards and the prison and probation ombudsman to perform their essential work to improve the prison system.
Knowing how many prisoners are affected by the misuse of substances would also be helpful to probation services and local authorities, which will be responsible for meeting people’s needs, including their need for substance misuse services, once they are released. If we do not know what those needs are, how can we put plans in place to ensure that the right treatment will be accessible as soon as it is needed and where it is needed?
As we have heard, the Bill extends the testing regime to cover prescribed and pharmacy medicines that can be misused. On Second Reading, I raised the need to ensure that the results of testing are shared with healthcare partners, because understanding what substances are out there will help them to prioritise resources and ensure that the right training is in place. We also need to ensure that prisoners who test positive for a substance are not penalised if they have a genuine medical need, but that their need is recognised and properly and adequately responded to. Sometimes, people who cannot access the right healthcare quickly resort to self-medication, even if they do not have a legal prescription or they risk their health in doing so. That happens with vulnerable people in the community and, as we know, in prison.
Timely and transparent reports on the outcomes of prevalence testing would keep us informed about another essential aspect, which is how illegal drugs get into our prisons in the first place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate said, there has finally been some progress on that in recent years as a result of new internal body scanners, along with extra staffing and metal detectors, being introduced at the prisons with the largest number of people moving in and out regularly. Obviously, we hope that progress continues but, again, we need to do more than hope. If we had a clear basis for monitoring where different substances are getting in, and if regular reports were being published, it would help us to ensure that there was accountability in the system to drive that progress forward.
The Minister will know that there are calls for further investment in technology to shut down routes into prison. Devices are available to prisons to detect packages being smuggled within the body, but anything that can be concealed underneath or within clothing can be found only in a manual search. That is particularly difficult with drugs such as spice that can be soaked in sheets of paper or an extra layer of clothing and transported into prison that way. Although the technology available has significantly improved, it can be improved further.
One option is millimetre wave scanners, which hon. Members may have experienced at many UK airports. I am told that they can detect hidden items more accurately than a manual search. They can reduce the close contact required and possibly make visiting more comfortable for law-abiding family members. In a written parliamentary answer, the Minister told me that the Government do not currently believe that the scanners “meet…operational requirements”, but I would like to hear more about what the flaws are and whether it is rather a cost-benefit issue.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the pandemic that is still raging all around us. One of the consequences of covid, I understand, is that the mandatory drug testing programme was shut down during the first wave. Another consequence is that two of the biggest routes for drugs into prisons—on prisoners as they enter, or on prison visitors—were, and are, heavily restricted.
Surely, there must be lessons to be learned from whether access to harmful substances has or has not reduced, which should tell us something helpful about targeting efforts to shut down access to drugs in future. Likewise, we should be able to learn lessons about the connection between mandatory testing and treatment, and between testing and disciplinaries, from the extraordinary period we are in. I say gently that I do not think the Minister engaged with that point on Second Reading, so I am really hoping that today she is enthusiastically wanting to say more.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member for West Ham has highlighted two matters in her amendment, both of which relate to reporting. I am very grateful for her having raised these very important matters, but I would like to reassure her that the amendment is not necessary, because sufficient procedures are already in place to measure and record what work will be done.
I would like to highlight, as the hon. Lady has, that making sure treatment is available is critical, and the first step is this one: identifying what substances are out there. The second step is identifying those people who we need to help, and the third is to give treatment. I hope that in the points I raised in response to her earlier speech, I have identified the considerable measures that we are taking to support people in their treatment, including the significant sums we are giving to rough sleepers—of course, there is an overlap there with prison leavers—and the RECONNECT service that the NHS links up with those treatments within prison and in the community.
I would like to go through the substance of the amendment. Through proposed new clause 1, the hon. Lady is seeking to expand the current scope of reporting by obligating an assessment of value for money after a year, so I will identify the structures that are already in place. As I said, the key objective is to ensure that people are identified, so that they can get treatments, and the effectiveness of that objective is continually reviewed as part of the national prison drugs strategy, which we published in April last year.
The Department also released an annual assessment, with accompanying statistics, as part of HMPPS’s annual digest. This provides a number of the items that the hon. Lady has enumerated in her amendment, including the number of tests conducted, the number of positive tests, and the number of psychoactive substances found. Furthermore, we believe that the contract for providing the drug testing service is effectively managed and reviewed by operational and commercial teams through regular formal contract meetings. To understand the capabilities of the various testing providers, HMPPS has undertaken extensive market engagement with potential suppliers, and it will do so again during future contract tendering processes.
In relation to the specific points the shadow Minister made about value for money, I can reassure her that the provisions in the Bill would contribute to value for money through drug testing in prisons and ensuring that complete information is routinely gathered relating to the misuse of substances in custody. This, as I said, will enable us to make the right operational responses, as well as ensure that we get the right interventions. I believe that there is scrutiny for drug testing in prisons, supported by existing processes, and we should not rush into legislating on this issue.
I would, of course, be happy to write to the hon. Lady when the annual digest is published—I believe the next one is due in July—to draw her attention to those matters, so that she gets that material as quickly and speedily as possible. Of course, I am always happy to engage with her when she has questions, so that we can resolve any issues that she feels have not been fully dealt with. I ask her to withdraw new clause 1.
10.30 am
In new clause 2, the hon. Lady is asking that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs make biannual reports to Parliament on substance testing in prisons—that is quite similar to new clause 1. As I have explained to the Committee, the effectiveness of drug testing is continuously reviewed and the contract in which it sits is already scrutinised.
Officials at the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs have advised us that the council is not set up for the type of role proposed in the new clause, which appears to be about reporting on the operations and performance of the substance testing system. The council’s role is to provide independent science advice to the Government. That may involve, for example, synthesising advice based on evidence collected on misuse and societal harms. Its role is not to report on the objectives of specific drug testing programmes. I can reassure the shadow Minister, however, that the ACMD already has a role in making recommendations for action, but more broadly, under its role in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The new clause would broaden those functions beyond their current scope.
I will address a few of the specific points that the hon. Lady made and I hope that I can alleviate some of her concerns. She identified and mentioned the significant investment that we are making in security—the £100 million investment to which I referred earlier when addressing the main clauses. In the course of that significant programme and of ensuring that we have funding from the Treasury for it, we have identified where we think, having done some work, the best value for money is. That is why we are pursuing those measures in the course of our programme.
The hon. Lady talked about the impact of covid on drug testing and the importance of lessons learned. I completely agree with her about the importance of looking at what we have learned in this period, and we are undertaking a broad study on that, with input from a wide range of people, including service users, third parties, and HMPPS itself. We suspended drug testing between April and June because of the social distancing measures and the lockdown within prisons, but under our current national framework prisons can reintroduce testing. Where that is done, prisons must take account of social distancing and cohorting measures. At the moment, it is too early to evaluate the impact of the changes on the drug testing programme, but we will of course be looking at all those issues in due course.
Rob Butler
On the point about the impact of covid, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all the staff in HMPPS—the officers, the staff in prisons, the governors and those at HMPPS head office—for their tremendous effort to minimise and mitigate the effect of covid on the prison estate during the pandemic?
Lucy Frazer
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in that. He makes an important point: at HMPPS, the governors, prison officers and all the staff in the service have done such a remarkable job through extremely challenging times. The statistics show that we were looking at a significant number of deaths—2,500 to 3,500 deaths—and in the first wave, the death count was in the mid-20s. Although all those deaths are, of course, very sad, that figure is a credit to the joined-up working at every level, including with the POA. Again, I put on the record my thanks to them for the constructive way that they have engaged; I know that they are tired and that it is difficult.
I am very pleased with this morning’s news about the vaccine, because we can see some light at the end of the tunnel of this very difficult period. While many people will be celebrating Christmas, many of our prison officers will still be on the wings doing their work. I pay tribute to them for all the work that they have already done and for the work that I know that they will do, unrelentingly, over the next three months. May I say that I do not find that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury only does PMQs? He is a regular participant in all justice matters, and it is a pleasure to see him serving on the Committee.
I make one last point to the hon. Member for West Ham. She made some important points about who we will give the information to and how it will be used. Like her, I agree that once we collect information, we should use it to our best advantage. We will look very closely at her suggestion that the information be widely shared and see what we can do to share that data within prisons.
My understanding is that we do currently share some of the prevalence data with the POA for substances that have already been tested for. Of course, we need to ensure that we respect security and that we do the right thing in terms of policy making, but that is something that I am very happy to look at further. She also mentioned sharing data with the NHS. We will, of course, be sharing our insights with healthcare providers so that they can quicker adapt their services.
I am always happy to engage with the hon. Lady, as she knows, on these and any other matters, but I ask her to withdraw the new clause.
Committee rose.
Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill
(4 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Welcome to the Public Bill Committee on the Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. You will all understand the need to respect social distancing guidance. If necessary, I will intervene to remind you. Note passing can no longer take place in a paper form; it has to be done electronically. The Hansard reporters would be most grateful if Members emailed any electronic copies of their speaking notes to Hansard, or just take a screenshot and send it over.
The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and online. This shows how the selected amendments and clauses have been grouped together for debate. Formal decisions on amendments and clauses will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Bill. New clauses come at the end.
Clause 1
Testing prisoners for psychoactive substances and other substances
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(7) In the Prison and Young Offender Institution (Coronavirus, etc) (Amendment)(No. 3) Rules 2020 (S.I. 2020/1077)—
(a) omit rule 2(3), and
(b) omit rule 3(3).”
S.I. 2020/1077 added a new substance to the list of “specified drugs” in the Prison and YOI Rules. That list is no longer needed because of the changes made by the Bill and so this amendment revokes the S.I.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani, and to introduce this Bill on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), who cannot be here today. I thank Lorraine O’Shea from my right hon. Friend’s office, who has been invaluable in bringing this private Member’s Bill together.
Clause 1 allows Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to test prisoners for all psychoactive substances, including any new compounds that emerge. It also allows prisoners to be tested for any controlled drug, pharmacy medicine and prescription-only medicine. It achieves that by using the definitions for those substances and medicines already set out in legislation, including the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 and the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.
It is a feature of psychoactive substances that new substances appear regularly, with slight alterations to the chemical mixture. When that occurs, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service has not been able to test for these new compounds until they have been added to the Prison Rules 1999 and the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000. The most recent example was scopolamine, a psychoactive substance added to the rules in October.
This clause will allow the drug-testing framework to respond quickly to test for new psychoactive substances, or any prescription-only or pharmacy medicines, without first having to amend the rules. Prisons and young offender institutions will be able to better plan for treatment services, identify those who should use them and, where appropriate, impose sanctions.
Amendments may still be made to the rules through statutory instruments to allow testing for substances that are regarded as harmful and which fall outside existing statutory definitions of controlled drugs, pharmacy medicines, prescription-only medicines and psychoactive substances. These are defined as “specified substances” in clause 1. Clause 2 amends the Prison Act 1952 to ensure that a substance cannot be listed as a “specified substance” in rules if it already falls within the statutory definitions of controlled drug, pharmacy medicine, prescription only medicine or psychoactive substance.
Clause 1(4) makes provision for the anonymised prevalence testing for medicinal products as well as controlled drugs, psychoactive substances and specified substances. “Medicinal products” is a wider category of substances than “prescription only medicines” and “pharmacy medicines” and is defined by reference to regulation 2 of the Human Medicines Act 2012. Having an express statutory basis for prevalence testing will provide a useful insight into trends in drug use and support healthcare providers in planning their services and tailoring their treatment programs in prisons and young offender institutions over time.
Clause 2 also sets out consequential amendments following the changes in clause 1. Clause 2 will allow the Secretary of State to make any necessary changes to the Prison Act 1952 in the event of any future changes in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 or other legislation relating to human medicines. For example, if a substance definition that our Bill refers to were to be revoked in future, we could amend the Prison Act 1952 to include the definition or refer to alternative legislation and avoid any impact to Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service’s drug testing framework.
As we have discussed, the Bill adopts a general definition of psychoactive substances. That allows HM Prison and Probation Service to test for any psychoactive substances. In the past, substances considered psychoactive have been listed in the rules as specified drugs, in order to allow for testing. That is no longer required. It is therefore necessary for the Bill to remove the existing lists added to the Prison Rules 1999 and the Young Offender Rules 2000, as per our amendment. It is better for the statute book explicitly to remove statutory instruments that would otherwise have no effect. That is why we tabled the amendment, which is a minor and technical amendment, specifically in reference to scopolamine.
Scopolamine was added to the prescribed drugs list by statutory instrument in February, so that HM Prison and Probation Service could test prisoners for a psychoactive substance that had come into recent illicit use in our prisons. Were the Bill to become part of the statute book, scopolamine would be covered by the new definition of psychoactive substances inserted into the Prison Act 1952 by clause 1 of the Bill. The SI laid in October would therefore become redundant, so the amendment removes it from the statute book.
Clause 3 confirms the short title of the Bill and makes provision for its coming into force. The clause also provides that the Bill extends to England and Wales only, as prisons are devolved in both Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. What an honour to be considering a private Member’s Bill this morning. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham is not with us, but I know that the hon. Member for North West Durham will continue to take the Bill through the House most ably. He demonstrated his skill on Second Reading. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham chose wisely.
The Bill is an important one, and Labour supports its core goal to improve the testing regime for harmful substances in prisons. Substance misuse in prisons is rife, and we are told that it fuels violence and health problems and remains a real barrier to rehabilitation. The physical and mental impact on prison staff, including those who work to provide healthcare and education, can be truly awful.
As the hon. Member for North West Durham said, the current system for enabling substances to be tested within our prisons is just not responsive enough. The drugs that are being produced change rapidly, as do the methods of smuggling them into our prisons. Removing the necessity to introduce secondary legislation every single time a new substance needs to be added to the testing regime is a necessary and proportionate change, which is of a piece with the broader changes made several years ago by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016.
I served on the Committee for the 2016 Act. If we are being frank, we probably should have provided for this issue in that measure. However, it is very welcome to have a statutory basis for anonymous prevalence testing, so that prisons and healthcare staff, prison leaders and the Government can deliver a faster, more precise and more accurate understanding of what the problems with drugs are, and where they are within the prison system.
I have two brief questions about the drafting of the Bill, which I assume the Minister will be able to answer. I raised them quickly on Second Reading, but understandably at that point I did not receive a full response. As hon. Members will know, there are occasionally issues with the interpretation of the core definition of a psychoactive substance in the 2016 Act. This Bill would copy that definition into the Prison Act 1952. Are the Government confident that the definition is robust enough? Is there a risk that the general power to specify substances to be tested for in clause 47 (3A) of the Prison Act 1952 will still need to be used if these definitions fail? I have noticed that the consequential amendment 1 opts for amending the general power that I just mentioned, so that all controlled drugs—pharmacy medicine, prescription-only medicine, and psychoactive substances—are excluded.
An alternative step would be to repeal subsection (3A) entirely. It might be that the decision to amend it, rather than repeal it, reflects a judgement that the definition of a psychoactive substance could turn out to be inadequate, and that a power to set out specific substances to be tested will still be needed. However, if that amended power in subsection (3A) were ever used in the future, it would still have to make use of an amendment to the prison rules through secondary legislation. That process would be no faster than the one that currently exists. I do not say so to oppose a general power to specify substances remaining in legislation after this Bill hopefully becomes law. However, I would welcome further explanation. Is the general power simply there in case the other definitions drawn from the 2016 Act and the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 fail, or is it there for another purpose? Is another purpose envisaged? I am quite happy to take a note on this, electronically or otherwise, after the sitting. I have no intention of causing any difficulties, but these are issues that have been flagged to us, and we would be grateful for an explanation.
Two of the largest issues where we need greater clarity about the Government’s approach in response to this Bill are addressed by the new clauses that I will come on to introduce. I can see that I am likely to have a majority when I press them to a vote. Before we come on to those new clauses, I want to raise a few other questions and issues which it would be helpful for the Minister to address. The most important question for the Government in relation to this Bill is what are they going to use it for? Once the Bill has provided the power to rectify the problems with the testing regime for Spice and other novel psychoactive substances—as it is very early in the morning and I am a bit tired, I hope Members will accept that I will say “NPS” from now on—how are the Government going to use that power to create a healthier, more therapeutic, and more rehabilitative environment in our prisons?
Something that could result from more accurate testing is more widespread use of punishment for people found to have misused drugs in custody. As I said on Second Reading, this is a difficult issue, because sometimes the punishments that are used could make it harder for people to stop using drugs, rather than easier. Would the Minister tell us more about Government’s understanding of this? Has there been, or could there be, a review of the impact that different types of disciplinary intervention have had on people who are found to be misusing drugs in custody?
The Minister—rightly, in my view— has been looking keenly at the different ways that our courts can respond to offending in the community in a way that solves problems and does not make problems that clearly exist worse. I hear that next year we are going to be considering some of those welcome changes in the sentencing White Paper. In my view, it should be no different when people break the rules in prison. People in prison have had their liberty taken away as a punishment appropriate to their crime and, given the added challenges of living in prison and all that that brings, it is more, not less, important that the disciplinary actions taken solve problems and create the conditions for rehabilitation, not reoffending. The punishments announced in 2015 by the then Justice Secretary included bans on family visits, 21 days confined to cells, removal of TV access and more. We know that the use of drugs in prison can be, or is often thought to be, caused by inactivity, loss of hope and complete and utter desperation.
I worry that greater use of at least some of those punishments might inadvertently lead to people wanting to take more drugs to get themselves mentally out of the situation—even temporarily—that they find themselves in. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be locked up. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be locked in a cell—I am completely claustrophobic and antisocial—with someone I did not like for 23 hours a day. I could imagine in those circumstances, if I were a little bit different, wanting to get out of there in my head, at least temporarily.
Ms Brown
Can I just finish this, because it is not written down and otherwise I will lose my train of thought? This is something where some of us use alcohol. If we have had a rubbish day—not that it ever happens in this place, obviously—we go home for a very large gin and tonic. That in and of itself is almost a way of trying to come down from the stresses we have had and cope with them. Some people use alcohol in much worse ways than that and do not have it under control. All I am trying to say is that we should try and walk for a few minutes in the moccasins of those who find themselves imprisoned and are struggling mentally with all that being in prison means—being separated from their families and children and having their liberty constrained.
Rob Butler
Out of an abundance of caution, I declare that prior to my election I was a non-executive director of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Notwithstanding what the hon. Lady has just said, does she accept that there is a real scourge of drugs in our prisons and that we must clamp down on them and not do anything to encourage their use? I entirely agree that rehabilitation is the right way to proceed but, equally, nothing must be done to encourage those who seek to bring drugs into prison, create an illicit economy and make the problem much worse.
Ms Brown
I absolutely agree and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, especially with the knowledge that he has, for giving me the opportunity of making myself abundantly clear. Those who bring the trade into prisons, who put at risk the lives and wellbeing of our prison staff and prisoners should feel the full penalty of the law. I have no doubt about that at all.
What I was trying and obviously failing to do was to get us to put ourselves in the mind of the prisoner who is taking this stuff and understand that in many ways it is logical to want to free oneself mentally, even just for a few hours, from some of the stresses that people have to endure when there are in prison. The hon. Member for Aylesbury is absolutely right that the full weight of the law should be felt by those who are peddling this insidious, evil stuff in our prisons and taking advantage of those who are most vulnerable. They are completely and utterly despicable. I do not think I could make myself clearer.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I had the pleasure of visiting HMP Cardiff a couple of years ago with the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee. That prison was getting prisoners from Bristol visiting them who were under different regimes—under a different nation’s schemes. That had an impact on the prisoners from Bristol and other areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be a more joined-up approach in dealing with this?
Ms Brown
I absolutely do. It is quite clear that once someone is on a treatment programme it needs to continue seamlessly, because we all want people, when they leave prison and go back into our communities, to be able to do so free from drugs and addiction, and to start a fresh life. My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him for bringing that to our attention.
I gently suggest that the statistics, and Government policy more broadly, might be improved if we stop pretending that prisoners do not start taking drugs while in prison, rather than always going into prison with an addiction. That is the truth of it. The whole system at the moment seems to be geared to discovering who has a pre-existing dependence on drugs and ensuring that they are in treatment, which is good. Do not get me wrong, that is essential, but for drugs such as spice, which has been very common in prisons, it is not the whole story.
There is a third pathway to treatment that we need to ensure is available: a pathway for those people who did not have a drug problem when they entered prison but who, tragically and unacceptably, acquired one while inside. They are the people the system is failing most—the people for whom the boredom and difficulties of prison life are alleviated by short oblivion through illicit drugs obtained inside. I am genuinely hopeful that the Bill will enable treatment for those people. If it does, that will be a massive benefit to communities and families.
I will quickly explore one other issue. The transition between custody and community is often a revolving door, especially for those with drug abuse problems. It may be especially important for spice users. It is very evident that spice is disproportionately used by two populations: prisoners and rough sleepers. We know from last week’s Public Health England substance misuse statistics that in 2019 almost half of those entering treatment for misuse of an NPS had a housing problem—the highest proportion for any category of substances. I suspect that if we accounted for those who use spice but who are not in treatment as well as for those who are, the proportion with a housing problem would be even higher. It is incredibly difficult to hold down a job, maintain positive relationships and a family life, and to keep the mind and body healthy while living on the street. That contributes to higher levels of imprisonment among those who sleep rough.
Homelessness for prison leavers, and what the charity Nacro calls cell, street, repeat, is a priority for us, and I am led to believe that it will be a priority for the Government to reduce reoffending rates in coming years. However, we need to understand how these issues are connected; how many people come into prison with a history of rough sleeping and associated use of spice in a year; how many receive treatment for substance misuse while inside; how many are still accessing spice or other harmful substances while they are inside; how many of these people, when released, go straight back to rough sleeping; and how many are going straight back to spice use if they managed to get clean inside. I hope the Minister will offer to take this issue away and consider whether there is a need for further research, which the Ministry could commission, and how it might best be achieved.
The other important transition is when people leave prison. We need to ensure that leaving prison means starting a new, changed life. It is good for the whole of our community that prisoners, when released, do not come out and reoffend. It is also important for the prisoner that they get a true second chance. Substance misuse treatment is a massive part of ensuring that that can happen. We need to ensure that information about people’s needs travels with them as they leave prison and that treatment is immediate and consistent when they arrive in the community.
There is, unfortunately, little point in people getting clean or stable inside prison if they immediately relapse when they are out, without enough support, in the chaos and confusion of the outside world again. In fact, as we know, after release is the most dangerous time for those using illicit drugs, with appalling proportions of overdose deaths occurring in the first few days after leaving prison, just when we are wanting people to have a sense of hope and rebirth. A Norwegian study found that 85% of all deaths in prison leavers in the first week after release were due to overdoses. A US study found that the risk of an overdose death was 12.7 times higher for a prison leaver in the first two weeks after release from the general population.
Most of these deaths after leaving prison are the result of opiate use—heroin, or even more, drugs such as fentanyl—rather than an NPS. People in prison with an opiate dependence are generally on a regulated dose of a replacement drug as a medication, but when they come out, if they do not have immediate access to continue that treatment, they turn to the black market. At that point, much higher and less reliable doses are sold, which can quickly overwhelm the body, and people die. So getting transitions from custody to community right is a matter of life and death for some, and an essential part of treatment.
A few weeks ago, I met with some amazing NHS staff who work with armed services veterans in custody at HMP Wandsworth. I was delighted to hear that the staff in the substance misuse team leave the prison when those in their care are released, and go with them to their first appointment for community treatment. That is exactly the kind of integrated working that we need, but we all know that it is far from universal.
Can the Minister tell us more about what the Government are doing to improve treatment through the gate, following the recommendations in the report from the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs on custody to community transitions last year? I fully appreciate that she is unlikely to have detailed answers to all my questions at her fingertips, but I think that we, as parliamentarians, could do with them to help to design and monitor effective policy on issues that mean enough to us that we are sat here this morning.
This is an excellent Bill, whose purpose we support, but if it is not accompanied by effective, well-resourced Government policy its benefits will be limited. I am fairly certain that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham would not be impressed by that at all. I will say more when we come to the new clauses.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
It is such a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I will not detain the Committee long on the main points, but I will respond to the points that the hon. Member for West Ham raised. I, like others, give my wholehearted support to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham for introducing this very important Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham for acting as its sponsor on her behalf. I commend the excellent work that my right hon. Friend has done in preparation for the Bill, notwithstanding that she has been unable to participate in these proceedings.
Having the privilege of being the Minister responsible for prisons, probation and rehabilitation, I am acutely aware of how necessary the Bill’s provisions are. As the hon. Member for West Ham said, drugs fuel crime both in and outside prison. Moreover, new drugs are constantly emerging on to the market in prison, and criminals are tweaking the chemical compounds of existing psychoactive substances to avoid detection. The Bill ensures that drug tests are responsive to the latest challenges in prisons and young offenders institutions.
The Bill will future-proof the drug-testing framework by adopting the broader definition of psychoactive substances, prescription-only medicines and pharmacy medicines, and it will enable our prisons to start testing more immediately for new drugs substances. More than that, it will enable us to identify new and emerging trends and therefore react quickly to changes in drug use by adjusting the relevant security measures to find specific drug types or the appropriate medical response during an emergency.
There is also the issue of identifying prisoners or young offenders with ongoing drug problems. The provisions in the Bill will enable Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons to have a better understanding of which individuals are misusing drugs and therefore to ensure that they get the appropriate treatment, as well as providing evidence of what is possible in terms of prevention.
We have a multifaceted approach to tackling drugs, and the Bill will enable us to continue to enhance our ability to tackle the scourge of drugs in prisons. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham for taking the Bill through the House, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham for introducing it.
I will deal with a few of the points that the hon. Member for West Ham raised. She put forward a range of issues, and I will deal with the largest ones. She asked whether we were satisfied with the definition of psychoactive substances. I would like to assure her that we are content that the Psychoactive Substances Act provides HMPPS with a sufficiently broad definition to allow for testing of any new or existing psychoactive substances that may be used in prisons now or in the future. Of course, it is theoretically possible that a substance will fall outwith the definition in the future, so the Bill is drafted to future-proof drug testing in the case of any such eventually. However, that is not an eventuality that we anticipate at this time.
Bambos Charalambous
The Minister mentioned having a multifaceted approach to substance abuse in prison. A couple of years ago her predecessor mentioned that there was going to be a £10 million investment in scanners and other equipment to detect drugs going into prison—that is the other side of the equation. Could she give us any updates as to what the Government are doing on that? I am sure that is something we would all be interested in hearing about, because we want to make sure that drugs do not get into prisons in the first place.
Lucy Frazer
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. As he repeated, we do have a multifaceted approach, including limiting the supply—the measures he identified are to do that—limiting demand and providing treatment. He is right that we did a pilot programme in 10 prisons, and as a result of that and other work, we have put forward a £100 million security package, which includes the airport scanners to detect drugs that have been ingested before being brought into prisons. We also have enhanced gate security for visitors and staff, we have mobile phone blockers and we have beefed up investment in the investigation of crimes, so that we can bring people to justice if do the things the hon. Member for West Ham talked about so passionately. We need to stop the crime of supply within our prisons.
The hon. Member for West Ham rightly focused on how we limit demand and actually treat people in our prisons. We have a number of initiatives on that. She will know about Holme House—our first drug recovery prison. It is a £9 million project jointly funded by the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care. I am pleased to say that that programme will be evaluated early next year; the early signs are good, but the formal evaluation will take place next year. We also have that on a small scale in a number of prisons. We have enhanced drug-free wings. The hon. Lady rightly says that we should not be punishing and that we should be encouraging, and these drug-free units encourage and incentivise people to live a drug-free life. That is something we are very committed to increasing.
Treatment is very important, as the hon. Member for West Ham mentioned, and we need to help people get on treatment programmes. She rightly said that 90% of people coming into prison, where they are on those programmes, do have access to treatments within three weeks. In fact, 53,193 adults accessed drug and alcohol treatment services within prisons and secure settings between 2018 and 2019. I am pleased to say that 27% of those who were discharged after completing their treatment were free of dependence. The programmes that we are putting in place, having detected people who have problems, are therefore working, and I am pleased to say that that figure is an increase from the 24% who were successfully free of drugs two years earlier.
The hon. Member is right to point out that people sometimes turn to drugs in prison, when they have no hope and not much else to do. That is why we are committed to ensuring that we increase purposeful activity that will get people jobs when they come out. As evidence of that, she will know about our £2.5 billion spending programme for prison builds. We are absolutely committed to providing spaces where people can do good work and have good education in prisons.
Of course, we need to help those who unfortunately become addicted in prison. I do not shy away from the fact that that happens, but the measures in the Bill and all the other measures that I have identified will help us do that.
The hon. Member rightly talked about rough sleepers, and the link between them and prison. Around 60% of rough sleepers have been in prison in the last year, so there is a clear correlation between offending and homelessness. I have spoken previously about the close work that my Department is doing with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that we take people out of rough sleeping and into homes. That will have an impact on turning around the lives of those people who would otherwise come into our institutions.
In the spending review, the hon. Member will have seen the commitment to £237 million that the Prime Minister announced for accommodation for up to 6,000 rough sleepers. She will also have seen a further £144 million for associated support services and £262 million for substance misuse treatment services, which, when fully deployed, are expected to help more than 11,000 people a year. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, through our joint work, is not only taking people off the street, but giving them the treatment they need for their addiction. That spending is a 60% increase on the 2019 SR.
The hon. Member talked about other transitions into the community and between prisons. She is right to identify those points. We are already doing a significant amount of work on transitions into the community. She mentioned the important work that is being done in Wandsworth. That is not one of our RECONNECT programmes, but she will know that we have a RECONNECT service that the NHS is rolling out across the country. That is doing exactly what she identifies: ensuring that those who leave prison engage with community health services and supporting them to make that transition easier. Having spoken to the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care regularly, I know they are committed to rolling that out in the coming years, in full, everywhere and to every prison in the country.
I agree that there is more work to do on transferring between prisons. That relates to healthcare, NHS records and the work that we need do in prisons, but we are committed across the board to joining up the prisoner journey, not only in healthcare, but in other areas such as education.
The hon. Member mentioned naloxone. That point rightly comes up often, because it is important that, when we release prisoners who are addicted, there are no drastic consequences. Public Health England monitors the number of eligible prisoners who are given naloxone. Currently, 17% of those who have an opiate dependency get naloxone, which is up on previous years. I recognise that it could be more and I know that PHE is doing a piece of work at the moment to monitor performance in relation to take-home naloxone across all prison establishments and to identify best practice. I have spoken to them and they have an ambition that everybody will get it.
I hope I have addressed the hon. Member’s points. The Government are pleased to support the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham promoted and that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham introduced today, and I commend it to the Committee.
Mr Holden
I thank hon. Members who have taken part today, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, who tried to introduce the measure in a previous Session as a ten-minute rule Bill. It did not quite reach Committee stage, but we are rocking on. I hope we can keep it going today. I thank the hon. Members for West Ham and for Enfield, Southgate.
Mr Holden
I will wait until later to heap praise on the hon. Lady.
Some important points have been raised by Members of different parties, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, who has brought his expertise to bear today. I know he does not often speak outside Prime Minister’s questions, but I am glad he could grace us with his presence.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Consequential amendments
Amendment made: 1, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(7) In the Prison and Young Offender Institution (Coronavirus, etc) (Amendment) (No. 3) Rules 2020 (S.I. 2020/1077)—
(a) omit rule 2(3), and
(b) omit rule 3(3).”—(Mr Richard Holden.)
S.I. 2020/1077 added a new substance to the list of “specified drugs” in the Prison and YOI Rules. That list is no longer needed because of the changes made by the Bill and so this amendment revokes the S.I.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Assessment of the effects and value for money of this Act
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare an assessment of the value for money of the provisions of this Act in achieving their objectives.
(2) That assessment must consider—
(a) the extent to which the Act is achieving its objectives;
(b) the number of tests conducted;
(c) the number of positive results;
(d) the number of novel psychoactive substances found;
(e) the number of prescription-only substances found;
(f) the timeliness of updates to the testing regime when new substances are introduced into prisons;
(g) the amount spent on testing;
(h) the net effects on expenditure on the treatment of substance misuse;
(i) the effects of this Act on value for money in substance testing in prisons.
(3) A report on the assessment must be laid before Parliament no later than one year after the Act comes into force.”—(Ms Brown.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Reports by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—
“(1) The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs must make biannual reports to Parliament on substance testing in prisons.
(2) Each report under this section must include assessments of—
(a) the number of substances that have been tested for;
(b) which substances have newly appeared in prisons, and in what quantities;
(c) the speed at which novel substances are being accounted for by the testing regime;
(d) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the health of prisoners, including any effects on numbers of suicides or serious self-harm events in prisons.
(3) Any report under this section may contain recommendations for action they might have for healthcare providers in prisons, HM Prisons Service or any other public body relating to substance testing in prisons.”
Ms Brown
New clause 1 would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact and value for money of the Bill within a year of its coming into force. I hope the Bill will increase the speed at which new psychoactive substances are identified in the prison system, and I hope the system will be able to identify quickly where medicines are being misused before that leads to harm. I hope that more people who need treatment for their drug problems will be identified, and that access to treatment will therefore improve. I hope the performance and value for money of the testing provider will improve, because it has a new, clearer mission and renewed scrutiny from the Ministry and Parliament.
We all hope there are results, but whether the benefits of the Bill are realised will depend on policy decisions and their implementation by both the Prison Service and the outsourced testing provider. I hope the Minister will say something about that, particularly about the value for money of the existing contract and what is happening to ensure that the testing service provided will be fit for purpose by the time the Bill comes into force. For me, the most important aspect of this is ensuring that treatment improves, because we know there are currently failures in the system.
The most recent data show that 11% of people receiving substance misuse treatment in prison said they had a problem with NPSs. For many, they will not be the only substances they are misusing. That proportion has been rising; it was just 5% in 2015-16, but, given the very high estimates for use in some prisons, it is probably reasonable to expect that the numbers of NPS users in treatment will need to increase further.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member for West Ham has highlighted two matters in her amendment, both of which relate to reporting. I am very grateful for her having raised these very important matters, but I would like to reassure her that the amendment is not necessary, because sufficient procedures are already in place to measure and record what work will be done.
I would like to highlight, as the hon. Lady has, that making sure treatment is available is critical, and the first step is this one: identifying what substances are out there. The second step is identifying those people who we need to help, and the third is to give treatment. I hope that in the points I raised in response to her earlier speech, I have identified the considerable measures that we are taking to support people in their treatment, including the significant sums we are giving to rough sleepers—of course, there is an overlap there with prison leavers—and the RECONNECT service that the NHS links up with those treatments within prison and in the community.
I would like to go through the substance of the amendment. Through proposed new clause 1, the hon. Lady is seeking to expand the current scope of reporting by obligating an assessment of value for money after a year, so I will identify the structures that are already in place. As I said, the key objective is to ensure that people are identified, so that they can get treatments, and the effectiveness of that objective is continually reviewed as part of the national prison drugs strategy, which we published in April last year.
The Department also released an annual assessment, with accompanying statistics, as part of HMPPS’s annual digest. This provides a number of the items that the hon. Lady has enumerated in her amendment, including the number of tests conducted, the number of positive tests, and the number of psychoactive substances found. Furthermore, we believe that the contract for providing the drug testing service is effectively managed and reviewed by operational and commercial teams through regular formal contract meetings. To understand the capabilities of the various testing providers, HMPPS has undertaken extensive market engagement with potential suppliers, and it will do so again during future contract tendering processes.
In relation to the specific points the shadow Minister made about value for money, I can reassure her that the provisions in the Bill would contribute to value for money through drug testing in prisons and ensuring that complete information is routinely gathered relating to the misuse of substances in custody. This, as I said, will enable us to make the right operational responses, as well as ensure that we get the right interventions. I believe that there is scrutiny for drug testing in prisons, supported by existing processes, and we should not rush into legislating on this issue.
I would, of course, be happy to write to the hon. Lady when the annual digest is published—I believe the next one is due in July—to draw her attention to those matters, so that she gets that material as quickly and speedily as possible. Of course, I am always happy to engage with her when she has questions, so that we can resolve any issues that she feels have not been fully dealt with. I ask her to withdraw new clause 1.
10.30 am
In new clause 2, the hon. Lady is asking that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs make biannual reports to Parliament on substance testing in prisons—that is quite similar to new clause 1. As I have explained to the Committee, the effectiveness of drug testing is continuously reviewed and the contract in which it sits is already scrutinised.
Officials at the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs have advised us that the council is not set up for the type of role proposed in the new clause, which appears to be about reporting on the operations and performance of the substance testing system. The council’s role is to provide independent science advice to the Government. That may involve, for example, synthesising advice based on evidence collected on misuse and societal harms. Its role is not to report on the objectives of specific drug testing programmes. I can reassure the shadow Minister, however, that the ACMD already has a role in making recommendations for action, but more broadly, under its role in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The new clause would broaden those functions beyond their current scope.
I will address a few of the specific points that the hon. Lady made and I hope that I can alleviate some of her concerns. She identified and mentioned the significant investment that we are making in security—the £100 million investment to which I referred earlier when addressing the main clauses. In the course of that significant programme and of ensuring that we have funding from the Treasury for it, we have identified where we think, having done some work, the best value for money is. That is why we are pursuing those measures in the course of our programme.
The hon. Lady talked about the impact of covid on drug testing and the importance of lessons learned. I completely agree with her about the importance of looking at what we have learned in this period, and we are undertaking a broad study on that, with input from a wide range of people, including service users, third parties, and HMPPS itself. We suspended drug testing between April and June because of the social distancing measures and the lockdown within prisons, but under our current national framework prisons can reintroduce testing. Where that is done, prisons must take account of social distancing and cohorting measures. At the moment, it is too early to evaluate the impact of the changes on the drug testing programme, but we will of course be looking at all those issues in due course.
Rob Butler
On the point about the impact of covid, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all the staff in HMPPS—the officers, the staff in prisons, the governors and those at HMPPS head office—for their tremendous effort to minimise and mitigate the effect of covid on the prison estate during the pandemic?
Lucy Frazer
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in that. He makes an important point: at HMPPS, the governors, prison officers and all the staff in the service have done such a remarkable job through extremely challenging times. The statistics show that we were looking at a significant number of deaths—2,500 to 3,500 deaths—and in the first wave, the death count was in the mid-20s. Although all those deaths are, of course, very sad, that figure is a credit to the joined-up working at every level, including with the POA. Again, I put on the record my thanks to them for the constructive way that they have engaged; I know that they are tired and that it is difficult.
I am very pleased with this morning’s news about the vaccine, because we can see some light at the end of the tunnel of this very difficult period. While many people will be celebrating Christmas, many of our prison officers will still be on the wings doing their work. I pay tribute to them for all the work that they have already done and for the work that I know that they will do, unrelentingly, over the next three months. May I say that I do not find that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury only does PMQs? He is a regular participant in all justice matters, and it is a pleasure to see him serving on the Committee.
I make one last point to the hon. Member for West Ham. She made some important points about who we will give the information to and how it will be used. Like her, I agree that once we collect information, we should use it to our best advantage. We will look very closely at her suggestion that the information be widely shared and see what we can do to share that data within prisons.
My understanding is that we do currently share some of the prevalence data with the POA for substances that have already been tested for. Of course, we need to ensure that we respect security and that we do the right thing in terms of policy making, but that is something that I am very happy to look at further. She also mentioned sharing data with the NHS. We will, of course, be sharing our insights with healthcare providers so that they can quicker adapt their services.
I am always happy to engage with the hon. Lady, as she knows, on these and any other matters, but I ask her to withdraw the new clause.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Covid-19: Access to Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to the normal practice in order to support the new call list system. Members should sanitise their microphones and then remove and dispose of the material used for that when they leave the room. Members are asked to observe the one-way system and should speak only from the horseshoe. Members may speak only if they are on the call list. That applies even if the debate is undersubscribed. Members may not join the debate if they are not on the call list. This is a slight change, but I want to remind Members that they must arrive for the start of the debates in Westminster Hall, although they are not expected to remain for the winding-up speeches. Members may wish to stay beyond their speech, but they should be aware that doing so may prevent other Members from speaking if it is a full debate.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to cancer diagnosis and treatment during the covid-19 outbreak.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise this issue. Of the many vital issues discussed in this place in recent months, the impact of covid-19 on cancer treatment must be at the very top of the list for importance to families right across the United Kingdom. I want to start by saying very clearly that there is a national cancer crisis—a backlog that we need to catch up with urgently—so I will be concluding my speech by asking the Minister to meet me and the clinical advisers who support the Catch Up With Cancer campaign as a matter of priority in the coming days.
Since the start of the pandemic, organisations, charities, frontline NHS staff and MPs have been urging the Government to invest in cancer services to prevent a national tragedy in cancer. Indeed, the experts we work with warned at the start of the pandemic that tens of thousands of people were set to die as a result of cancellations, delays and disruptions to their treatment. Sadly, it looks as though those warnings have been proved right, although for thousands of families it is not yet too late for us to catch up with cancer.
I have two main points to address. Both relate in large part to the covid-induced backlog and the apparent failure to make addressing it a central feature of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s comprehensive spending review just last week. The first point I would like to address today is the scale of the cancer backlog itself. All the feedback from the frontline and from our expert clinical advisers strongly suggests that the Government and NHS management are repeatedly failing to grasp the true size and scale and danger of the backlog. The Government and senior NHS managers keep saying that services are back to normal levels and that good progress is being made on the backlog, but all the evidence from frontline staff provides a clear picture that it is just not true to say that we are back to normal.
Even then, the simple fact remains that, with the scale of the backlog, “back to normal” is nowhere near good enough anyway. Even if services were back to pre-covid levels—we contend that they are not—it would be mathematically impossible to have caught up. Why? Because the flow of patients was all but stopped for several months, but cancer, of course, did not take a break. It kept striking people at the same rate it always does, so the only way we can catch up with cancer is to have services super-boosted to levels in excess of pre-covid capacity. We estimate that cancer services need to be running at something like 120% of pre-covid levels for two solid years to catch up. That view is shared by other keen observers of this problem, such as the chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). But the brutal reality is that services are not yet even at their pre-covid capacity. In September, treatment was at only 94.5% capacity, and as long as the treatment rate continues to be below 2019 levels, the cancer backlog will continue to grow.
We are hearing from frontline staff that services were not yet back to normal before the recent lockdown in November. One cancer centre has told us that during that lockdown, referrals have yet again “fallen off a cliff”. Analysis from Macmillan Cancer Support, using the Government’s own monthly cancer waiting times data, shows that during the pandemic around 1,000 fewer people in south Cumbria and Lancashire will have had their first cancer treatment, compared with the same period last year—a 17% drop—which suggests we are missing one in six people with cancer. There is no serious doubt about what is happening to those missing people. Their cancers will have grown and spread and, in many cases, become incurable by the time they are identified and by the time, if at all, they are treated. Across the country we hear of patients presenting with more advanced cancers due to not being seen early enough. Some staff tell us that they have never seen such advanced cases.
The all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, like all the all-party groups on cancer, is strenuous in its insistence on a consensual and collegiate approach, and sees Ministers, especially the Minister here today, as partners and not opponents. I am grateful to the Minister for her courtesy, her willingness to engage and her very clear concern. I am also grateful to all Members here and to those who are not present but who dearly wanted to be. Many are absent because this Chamber is not yet enabled for virtual participation. They include the hon. Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd).
Our collective view is that we need urgent action to catch up with cancer. I mentioned the figures for my own area, but Macmillan estimates that across England as a whole there are a terrifying 50,000 missing diagnoses. Clinicians report that more patients are now coming through needing palliative rather than curative care—people who could have survived who are now on end-of-life pathways and are simply being treated to alleviate the pain.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
That is a really important point. How do we quantify the scale of the backlog to enable us to have an action plan to address it? Specialists say that whereas the ratio is currently 50:50 in terms of the therapeutic application of radiotherapy for treatable cancers and therapeutic palliative care, last year it was 70% treatable and 30% palliative. Do we not need the release of the datasets to quantify that in an accurate way?
Tim Farron
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making a very important point. I have heard the same reports from the frontline that treatment would normally be 70:30 curative to palliative and that now it is 50:50. That is a blindingly obvious consequence of the fact that when we catch cancer, we catch it too late.
I have a request of the Department, which we have made before, including in face-to-face meetings with the Secretary of State. I want the Department of Health and Social Care team responsible to sit down with the frontline experts—we can provide them this afternoon—and go through the evidence of the backlog. There is no way of tackling the problem if the NHS management and the Department are not cognisant of it and prepared to listen to the people working their socks off in cancer units all over the United Kingdom.
I want to make another important point. Whoever was in power during this time would have been handed the same challenge and would have made many mistakes. The Government have rightly sought to control the virus so that we can protect the NHS and save lives. The lives that we seek to save are those at risk from not just covid but other illnesses, including, of course, cancer.
We as a country have stood together and defended our NHS so that it has the ability to fight cancer in the midst of a pandemic, which is what every clinician is desperate to do. The great success of this year, for which Ministers should rightly be proud, is that our NHS has not collapsed and did not fall over. Our doctors, nurses, paramedics and clinicians of every sort have saved lives, defeated the odds and kept our NHS on its feet so that it can fight cancer, and yet a failure at senior levels of NHS England and in Government to recognise the scale and nature of the cancer backlog means that people are dying today who did not need to die.
We have terminal diagnoses for cancers that could have been treatable among my constituents and yours, Ms McVey—among all our constituents. Their lives have been cut short when earlier, more urgent and more ambitious action from our leaders could have saved them. What troubles me so much is that we hear statements from some in senior management in the NHS, and from within the Department, that suggest they do not quite get the scale of the backlog problem. They freely admit that they do not know how big the backlog is. On more than one occasion, I have heard the Secretary of State seek to reassure us by saying that progress has been made on recovering the 62-day wait. If people understand what is happening, however, that does not reassure them. It does the exact opposite: it sends a shiver down their spine—it confirms the problem.
Surely Ministers know that the 62-day waiting time target for treatment does not give a complete snapshot of the situation, because it captures only patients who are already in the system. I am sorry to be brutal, but as more people die, there are fewer people in the system. The target does not take into account the tens of thousands of undiagnosed patients who may be going about their daily life completely unaware that they are living with cancer.
I fear that the Government hugely underestimate the cancer backlog, and the consequence will be thousands of unnecessary deaths and lost life years. An article last month in The BMJ estimated that there will be 60,000 lost years of life as a result. Does the Minister recognise the significant fall in people receiving cancer treatment this year compared with 2019? Like me, is she worried that this will mean there are thousands of people out there with undiagnosed cancer who have yet to come forward?
I move on now to my second point, which relates to the Chancellor’s recent comprehensive spending review, which was a pivotal opportunity to signal that the Government, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Chancellor and NHS leaders understood the need for investment in the techniques and treatment required to quickly build capacity in order to clear the cancer backlog and ensure a resilient service going forward—to build the capacity that is vitally needed if we are to make sure cancer patients are not the collateral damage of covid. Far from seizing that pivotal opportunity, the Government appear to have turned it into a missed opportunity. As far as we can tell, there is no boost to cancer treatments in the comprehensive spending review. There is no increase in capacity to catch up with cancer, and there is no plan to do what is needed to save thousands of cancer patients’ lives.
The Action Radiotherapy charity estimates that the true cancer backlog could be as high as 100,000 patients. It supports the estimate of the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee that it would take cancer services working at over 120% pre-covid capacity two years just to catch up. Members of all political persuasions, working with clinicians and experts who are desperate to make a difference, are clear about how the Government could provide the boost required to catch up with cancer and to save thousands of lives. The answer is not to exhort our heroic frontline staff to work harder—they continue to be inspirational, straining every sinew. It is not to carry on doing what we have always done, but just doing it a little better. It requires some new thinking. It requires taking an axe to some of the internal bureaucracy that has held back some treatments, such as radiotherapy. Crucially, it requires investment, but that critical investment seems to be missing from the comprehensive spending review. That is a missed opportunity on a massive scale, and I hope it is not too late to make a change.
I have to say that there has been a collective gasp of disbelief across the oncology and radiotherapy sector, as it appears—unless we are all mistaken—that there is not even an explicit mention of radiotherapy in the spending review, never mind of the investment in it. Radiotherapy is covid-safe and is required by over 50% of cancer patients. It already plays a significant role in 40% of cancer cures and is able, where clinically appropriate, to substitute for chemotherapy and surgery at times when they are deemed not to be appropriate because of the fact that we are in a pandemic. It is hugely cost-effective: it cures patients for as little as £5,000 to £7,000 apiece.
The reality is that radiotherapy has huge untapped potential to do even more to clear the backlog. For many reasons, however, it has been actively restricted and held back for years. Although radiotherapy treats 50% of cancer patients, it receives just 5% of the annual cancer budget—something for which recent Governments of all parties must share the blame. That is why the UK is massively behind on technology that could empower the workforce to do more. Pre-pandemic it was estimated that as many as 24,000 patients were missing access to radiotherapy treatment each year. It is worse now.
Faced with the current crisis, the radiotherapy community came together to put together a transformation plan for consideration at the comprehensive spending review. The six-point plan would deliver a super-boost to cancer services to clear the backlog, with innovative technology and digital solutions to deploy linear accelerators at the many covid-clean hospital sites in England, such as the Westmorland General Hospital in my constituency, that are perfectly suited to adding satellite capacity to their main cancer units while protecting patients and clinicians from covid infection risk. The plan would also see an immediate boost in precision radiotherapy at existing cancer units, upgrading linear accelerators to perform curative treatment over shorter periods. However, on our reading of the spending review, that appears to have been totally ignored. In fact, as far as we can tell, there is no clear plan of investment in cancer treatment capacity at all.
While the investment in diagnostic machines over 10 years is truly welcomed by all of us here, it is not enough. According to Freedom of Information Act requests carried out by the Radiotherapy4Life campaign, more than half of NHS trusts are using radiotherapy machines that are more than 10 years old. To replace only the machines that deliver diagnostics, or radiology, and not those that actually cure people—the radiotherapy machines—is a baffling decision, to me and, more importantly, the experts. Patients and the public will be shocked to learn that immediate solutions presented by expert professionals to the covid-induced cancer crisis are being overlooked.
Every week that we delay giving an immediate boost to cancer services—capacity, diagnostics and treatments —we increase the risk of losing cancer patients needlessly. Recent data shows that for every four weeks of delay in starting treatment there is as much as a 10% increase in deaths. Some departments report a 20% drop in the number of patients classified as curable, leading to downgrading to palliative treatment instead. Patients—our constituents, families and friends—are being told that their cancer now cannot be cured and that their treatment will be palliative instead. Yet the decision to catch up urgently with cancer has been either delayed or ignored. We will pay a huge cost for missing out on the chance to correct things at the spending review. That is why I hope it is not too late to do so. The public inquiry, when it happens, will reveal the situation. The cost of the understandable litigation by patients and families who have been failed will be needlessly huge.
We first wrote to the Secretary of State about the growing crisis in April, and we have not stopped warning of the devastating impact that there will be on the lives of cancer patients. Three hundred and seventy-five thousand people have signed the Catch Up With Cancer petition and have hundreds of patients shared their heartbreaking stories. Experts are saying that there will be as many as 35,000 unnecessary deaths and, as I have said, 60,000 life years lost to cancer because of the impact of the covid crisis. Cancer survival rates have been pushed back to where they were more than a decade ago.
I know that the Minister cares. She is a good person seeking to do a good job. I hope that she will forgive me for being direct today, but thousands of people could have their lives lengthened or saved, and their families could be spared unspeakable grief, if we acted urgently to catch up with cancer. I conclude by repeating my plea in the strongest possible terms. Will the Minister meet me and, most importantly, the expert clinicians who advise the Catch Up With Cancer campaign, in the next few days so that we can turn the tide on the crisis?
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Just for the ease of colleagues, I will say that I am looking to call the Front-Bench speakers at 10.30 am, so divide the time among yourselves.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Thank you, Ms McVey. I will do a quick calculation.
Andy Carter
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I congratulate him on securing this important debate, and pay tribute to his excellent opening speech. I agree with many of the points that he made. The issue is incredibly important for families up and down the UK, and I am delighted to be able to join him in speaking in the debate.
I want to thank those who work in oncology in Warrington—the consultants, nurses, radiographers and, of course, GPs who are right at the frontline as the primary gateway into cancer services. Their work, and that of those in their sector across the UK, has continued through the pandemic.
Early on, I spoke to the chief executive of Warrington hospital, Professor Simon Constable, who outlined the steps his team were taking to try to maintain cancer care services in as near normal fashion as possible. Their ability to operate across two campuses, with a covid-free site in Halton, has meant that procedures such as breast cancer could operate very close to normal. The partnership formed with Spire hospital in Stretton, where the NHS has contracted bed space and use of operating theatres to give capacity for critical operations, has meant that referrals for urgent treatment in Warrington have continued.
I think that talking to real people is when we hear the true stories. Last Friday, I spoke to a constituent called Helen who lives in Lymm. It was one of the more pleasant conversations that I have had with her over the last few weeks. She very sadly discovered that her breast cancer had returned in April, which was the same week we hit the peak of the first wave. Understandably, she was incredibly concerned when she contacted her GP. Helen was referred back to a consultant and, after tests, was told that she needed a double mastectomy. I remember talking to her earlier in the year, when she told me the news, and she explained in detail her fears of catching covid when she went into hospital to undergo radiotherapy and tests. She was asked to isolate and follow detailed guidance, and she was superbly cared for by her son at home, who went out of his way to make sure she had everything that she needed. She went into hospital in Halton for treatment and last week, some eight weeks after the operation, told me that she was looking forward to going back to work as a supply teacher in one of our local schools. Her description of the care that she received from the NHS was incredible, and she said that they could not have done more for her. I highlight this story because I think we have not heard enough about the work that has continued over the last few months—but that does not mean we do not have a problem with cancer care services.
The local hospital in Warrington was treating 170 patients for covid at the start of November. It was one of the most under pressure hospitals in the entire country. The team has only been able to operate about 80% of normal services. I say only but I actually think that is pretty good, given that we are in a global pandemic and that is roughly in line with services across the north-west of England. I suspect though that the 80% headline masks many true and worrying statistics that we will discover over the next five years.
Last week I also spoke to executives at Macmillan Cancer about the local situation in Warrington, as well as the national picture. I pay tribute to the Macmillan nurses who have continued to work with patients in their homes through lockdown, particularly those who have supported families of loved ones who are near their end of life. Macmillan estimates that across the UK there are currently 50,000 missing diagnoses, meaning that, around 33,000 fewer people started treatment compared to a similar timeframe last year. That backlog of undiagnosed cancer could take 18 months to tackle in England alone. Most worryingly, if cancer referrals and screenings do not return to pre-pandemic levels, the backlog could grow by 4,000 missing diagnoses, reaching over 100,000 by October next year.
During much of the pandemic, the NHS has been open for business, and we should be proud of that. Anyone who needs care and treatment can continue to access it. When they need it, they can go to their GP and be seen, especially where delays could impose an immediate and long-term risk. I think the most worrying statistics are on urgent GP referrals in July and August. They were 72,000 lower than last year. In some ways, that highlights the most stark problem that the pandemic is storing up for us.
We have seen a significant reduction in people starting their cancer treatment in 2020. Between March and September, around 31,000 fewer people started their first cancer treatment, which is a drop of 17% compared to 2019. More than 650,000 people with cancer in the UK have also experienced disruption to their cancer treatment or care because of covid-19. For about 150,000 people, that included delayed or rescheduled cancer treatment.
I welcome the announcement of £3 billion of extra funding to support NHS recovery from covid-19 and to help tackle and ease some of the pressures in all our hospitals, allowing them to carry out more checks, scans, operations and procedures. That will help to ensure that cancer patients can access the care they need as quickly as possible, but we need to tackle the backlog, and we cannot afford to undo the great work and investment that has gone into cancer treatments in recent years. I am delighted to speak in a health debate today because of the news we have heard that a vaccine has been approved and is on the way. That is incredibly welcome, but we must put that alongside the challenges that exist in every single branch of medicine, and particularly in cancer care, where the patient backlog is extending.
One of the biggest challenges we face is caused not by money or pressure on NHS services but by putting things off. We all do it—mainly due to a fear of going into hospital. I mentioned Helen earlier, who talked about her greatest fear being to go into hospital. Lumps and bumps are not treated because we think it does not really matter at the moment. I am afraid that is particularly true for us men, and the pandemic has highlighted that. We really do need a public information campaign that says, “If you spot a problem, don’t leave it for a later date.”
As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, since 2010, survival rates from cancer have increased year on year. We have a really good story to tell in this country—about 7,000 people are alive today who would not have been here if mortality rates had stayed the same—but to sustain that drop, the NHS and Government will have to take action like they have never done before. It is critical that the cancer workforce is ring-fenced against any further redeployment to ensure that cancer care continues and further avoidable cancer deaths are averted.
Before the pandemic, there were about 3,000 specialist cancer nurses, which Macmillan modelling indicates is around 2,500 below the level required to deliver basic cancer care—and given the backlogs, that figure is probably closer to 3,500. Patient feedback to Macmillan was that, though its nurses work incredibly hard, they are not getting the support that they need. I really welcome the 14,000 additional nurses we have recruited in the last 12 months as I do the additional £260 million fund allocated for Health Education England in the one-year spending review, which will go towards the Government’s commitment to train 50,000 more nurses. However, my hon. Friend the Minister will know that that alone will not address the significant shortfalls in specialist cancer care nurses. I am therefore really keen to hear from her how the Government can commit to further long-term funding support for the next iteration of the NHS people plan to eliminate the gap in the cancer workforce.
It is hugely important that the Government back the national cancer recovery plan and the additional resource needed to build capacity and help beat the backlog now and in the long-term, getting the right skills and resources in the right places to make sure we have the biggest impact possible and, most importantly, encourage people to get the treatment that they need. Getting all of us to feel comfortable with reaching out to our GPs early on, so that we can get treatment, must be our No. 1 priority.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I rise as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer to talk about the worrying backlog of people who have not yet received a diagnosis of cancer. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for securing the debate. We have been working hard cross-party to raise the issue of cancer services and the backlog, which is an issue really close and dear to my heart and one on which we need to make far more progress. I thank him for his excellent speech and his work.
Despite the amazing efforts of clinicians working in the NHS and additional support from the Government, the backlog of cancer is big and it is real. It was caused by the impact of addressing the first wave of the pandemic. I am not just talking about the backlog of people within the cancer system, which are often the figures that the Government deem to be the backlog. The real backlog is of undiagnosed people yet to come forward and present to the NHS through the three main routes: GPs, screening programmes and A&E.
In “The forgotten ‘C’” report by Macmillan Cancer Support, which uses the Government’s own data, it is projected that there are currently 50,000 missing diagnoses. The hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) has spoken in great detail about the figures, which I have also had from Macmillan. That means that compared to a similar timeframe in 2019, 50,000 fewer people have been diagnosed. That is a huge amount of people that we cannot ignore.
Macmillan Cancer Support estimate that 33,000 fewer people across the UK started treatment this year than in 2019. Working on the current rates, that backlog of undiagnosed cancer could take 18 months to tackle in England alone, not talking about the rest of the United Kingdom. Macmillan says that
“if cancer referrals and screening do not return to pre-pandemic levels, the backlog could grow by almost 4,000 missing diagnoses every month, reaching over 100,000 by October next year.”
That worries me to the pit of my stomach.
Such gravely concerning figures on the cancer backlog are echoed and supported by Action Radiotherapy, which states that the backlog of patients still waiting for potentially life-saving treatment amid the coronavirus pandemic could be as high as 100,000, with cancer services needing to work at around 120% to clear the backlog over the next two years. Those incredibly sobering and worrying statistics concern me.
In a recent parliamentary answer, the Government stated that they do not recognise those figures and they continually give an overly optimistic view of the current state of cancer services. The Government’s latest cancer waiting times from September 2020 state that urgent referrals were at more than 100% of the 2019 levels. That is over 45,000 people who have received cancer treatment, which is 96% of last year’s levels. Across the period from March to September 2020, over 291,000 cancer treatments were carried out, which was 86% of the level in 2019 and 94.5% of patients with a decision to treat received a first treatment for cancer within 31 days. Those are promising and improving statistics from the delays and disruption we saw in the first period of the pandemic. We cannot deny that.
I take this opportunity to thank the incredible and dedicated cancer workforce that has been indispensable in getting services back nearer to pre-covid levels. That is why we have to call on the cancer workforce and we need to keep them there doing their jobs. They are very precious, particularly at this time. Their efforts have been incredible and it is important to acknowledge their service to patients across the country, and their fantastic efforts in continuing cancer care across the second wave.
From all accounts, we are not seeing the delays and disruption across the board that we saw during the first wave of the pandemic. However, despite the improving situation there are many instances where the performance of the cancer system is operating at a slightly lower rate than before the pandemic. To tackle the backlog, the cancer system needs to out-perform its pre-pandemic performance, which it is not doing in all areas.
For every month that the NHS is working at below pre-pandemic levels, the backlog is building and it is not being beaten. Urgent GP referrals appeared to be roughly back to normal in September, but there were still around 338,000 fewer people not seeing a specialist following an urgent referral between March and September this year, compared to last year. I am rightly concerned about the potential for missing diagnoses. Macmillan Cancer Support estimate that it would take 17 months at 10% above 2019 levels to see 338,000 extra patients, which are striking figures.
The real issue is that Ministers are painting an over-rosy picture of the cancer backlog and trying to refute the claims that a large number of people are not having cancer treatment this year compared with previous years. The Government cannot refute their own cancer waiting times data for those starting first cancer treatment. From March to September, there were 31,000 fewer patients starting first cancer treatment in England, which is a drop of 17% compared with the same period last year.
Let us be clear: there are 31,000 people in England who currently could have cancer, and yet, for numerous reasons associated with the pandemic, have not presented to the NHS with symptoms. That is an incredibly worrying and troubling statistic. Without acknowledgement of the scale of the issue, neither the solutions to the problem nor the resources needed to tackle it will materialise.
Again, while September’s monthly activity was improving, it is still down on last year and so the backlog will continue to grow each month. Month by month, performance is below 2019 levels, which is a huge concern—and a huge and daunting task that is currently being underestimated by the Government.
The national cancer recovery plan, which is yet to be published by the Government, and only runs to March 2021, only uses metrics on the backlog that include those on the 62-day and 31-day cancer pathways, as well as those with longer waits for diagnostics or treatments above 104 days. It in no way estimates the significant number of people yet to present to the NHS. That is the real backlog, which the Government are failing to acknowledge and are failing to take significant and timely steps to address.
While the Government have made some welcome steps in adding additional capacity through the independent sector and just recently committed £1 billion extra in the comprehensive spending review to deal with backlogs in the NHS, it is uncertain how much of that money is allocated to the cancer system. Will the Minister confirm how much of that funding will be spent on beating the backlog in cancer care?
It is clear that the restoration of the cancer system is a priority at the highest levels of the Government and that significant resources have already been allocated to that endeavour, but—it is a very big but—until the Government acknowledge and plan to tackle the monumental scale of the real backlog that is still building, the health outcomes of many thousands of people out there yet to be diagnosed with cancer will be significantly grave and the Government will not be able to meet their ambitious targets for cancer within the NHS long-term plan. Will the Minister acknowledge the scale and reality of the problem, commit the strategic and monetary resources needed to tackle it now and work with key stakeholders such as Action Radiotherapy, the different all-party parliamentary groups and Macmillan Cancer Support, which have been working hard to support those living with cancer and who have been severely impacted by the pandemic?
I welcome the previous and the soon-to-be-had engagement with the Minister. We appreciate that we are working in unprecedented times. However, I was a little bit concerned to read a letter dated 30 November from NHS England’s cancer programme to the cancer alliances. The letter, which is advice on maintaining cancer recovery, shows the depth of arrangements and efforts that are being made to restore the cancer system and continue with cancer care, but it fails to acknowledge and deal with the huge backlog of people we have spoken about today—those who are yet to come forward for a diagnosis.
The national cancer recovery plan is too short term and has the wrong priorities to deal with the backlog in the long term. That is what we are concerned about; that is why we have come here today to present the issues to the Minister. I look forward to speaking with her, but I ask that this issue is dealt with immediately.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Ms McVey, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I also thank my friend, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for securing this debate.
I am sure this will seem like groundhog day for the Minister, with a whole phalanx of MPs supporting the calls for more resources for cancer, but this is a very serious issue and I make no apology for rehearsing those arguments. Until we see tangible results arising from our lobbying efforts, I am afraid it will continue. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made an excellent opening speech, setting out the arguments in a thoroughly cogent and thoughtful manner. I also want to pay tribute to the NHS workforce, in particular our cancer workforce, not just the oncologists but the therapeutic radiotherapists, the technical staff who keep the service running, and those key personnel who work behind the scenes, often unacknowledged, whose expertise has the potential to improve cancer outcomes.
The speeches have been excellent so far, but I will take issue with one point raised by the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) about our cancer performance. Our focus in this debate is on what we can do immediately to address the cancer backlog, but I would respectfully point out that, even before the pandemic, our performance on cancer outcomes was not world-beating. In fact, for the seven most common cancers, in a direct comparison with similar advanced industrialised countries, we were either bottom or second bottom. There was a job of work to be done even before the pandemic, and the impact of covid has shone a spotlight on that.
I have the great privilege to be vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for radiotherapy and vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer. The charity Action Radiotherapy estimates the full cancer backlog stands at more than 100,000 patients, and it agrees that it would take cancer services working at over 120% of pre-covid capacity for two years just to catch up. The chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), agrees with that figure, having done some research of his own.
We need a distinct plan. It cannot be a case of Members simply lobbying Ministers and asking for more resources. We need to quantify the scale of the problem; we need an action plan. I am very much aware that we have a cancer recovery plan, but we need an action plan that addresses all the issues. I also believe that we need somebody with some clout to lead it. Last week the Government announced that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), would be the Minister responsible for driving forward the vaccination programme. Cancer is such an important area of concern to the public and to the broader community that we need to have someone with some clout, preferably a Minister or senior person within the NHS, to be given the responsibility to drive this initiative forward.
Experts are predicting 35,000 deaths and 60,000 lost years of life, with cancer survival rates having been pushed back to where they were 10 to 15 years ago. We need to address this issue. When we have asked questions in previous debates, Ministers have responded, and I mean no disrespect to the Minister who is in her place at the moment, because I know that she fully understands the issue. I do not want to make any apology here, but there is a difference between investing in diagnostics and investing in curative treatments. There is a difference between radiology and radiotherapy, and I am not convinced that the Secretary of State understands those differences. We welcome the additional investment in digital imaging and improved diagnostics, but we must address how we get more resources and improve the number and quality of the skilled cancer workforce to get to grips with the backlog.
It is appropriate to mention the implications of the pandemic for prostate cancer, which was also referred to by the hon. Member for Warrington South. Movember, when men grow a moustache to raise awareness and funds for men’s health during November, ended earlier this week. Prostate Cancer UK has identified two major concerns. The first is the detrimental impact on GP referrals for prostate cancer. That came to mind when my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) mentioned the three referral pathways of A&E, GP referral and screening programmes. There is a massive issue. I suspect that hon. Members present have some experience of how extraordinarily difficult it is, particularly for older people, to get a face-to-face appointment with a GP at this time if they have concerns about possible early symptoms of cancer. Again, that needs to be addressed, because it is having an impact on the backlog.
The second concern is about men accessing support and communication at the time of diagnosis and when living with side effects or advanced disease. Calculations by NHS England and Prostate Cancer UK suggest that there are between 3,000 and 5,000 men with undiagnosed higher risk prostate cancer who would otherwise have been diagnosed had referral rates been at pre-covid levels.
In the time that I have remaining, I will focus on two main areas and I have some specific asks of the Minister. The first area, which I have raised on previous occasions, is data and information. We have heard statements from Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care and from senior NHS leaders that indicate that they do not have an accurate estimate of the full cancer backlog of delayed treatments, diagnostics and screenings. The publication of the radiotherapy dataset, which is available, would show precisely the extent and character of the backlog, because it would compare the position now with the position 12 months ago.
For reasons that are not apparent to me, the publication has been delayed by NHS England, so my first ask of the Minister is, why is that? Why will those radiotherapy datasets not be published? I do not know whether NHS England is being too slow to act or whether it is some kind of bureaucratic hold up, but it must be driven forward, as it is imperative to ensure that the cancer recovery plan is accurate. That is despite the fact that NHS England and Ministers are fully aware of the effect of the pandemic on cancer services; we have been raising the issue since April.
It is clear that knowledge is power. A lack of accessible data is resulting in an inability to catch up with cancer. Let us be frank: people are dying unnecessarily as a result. There was the awful case of Kelly Smith, one of many tens of thousands of people, who was a 31-year-old mother of three who died as a result of delayed treatment for bowel cancer. It was absolutely tragic. That caused her family to launch the Catch Up With Cancer campaign and petition, which I believe now has almost 400,000 signatures. If that does not concentrate Ministers’ minds, I do not know what will.
The second area is the comprehensive spending review and, in particular, the lack of any detail or specific reference to funding for modernising radiotherapy services. The Chancellor’s announcement last week was most welcome, but when the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale asked about the cancer backlog and additional resources for advanced radiotherapy, he was referred to Health Ministers and the Secretary of State.
We should be aware that radiotherapy is safer to administer during the pandemic than alternative treatments. I am not attempting to set up a competition, but we have to recognise that radiotherapy is non-invasive and covid-safe, and has a range of applications. It is needed by about half of all cancer patients and is a significant treatment in 40% of cancer cures. I have benefited from it myself on three occasions. It is also hugely cost-effective, curing patients for as little as £5,000 to £7,000 per treatment. It is very efficacious in terms of the curative rate, and it could do much more to clear the backlog, but it is being held up by underfunding and bureaucracy, which have slowed the roll-out of new technology for a number of years.
Despite freedom of information requests showing that nearly half of trusts are using radiotherapy machines that are 10 years old or older, it appears that the spending review includes funding only for diagnostic machine replacements and not radiotherapy treatments. Even before the pandemic, Radiotherapy4Life estimated that 24,000 patients did not have access to radiotherapy and would benefit from it. Will the Minister commit to improving access to local radiotherapy by investing in new networked treatment delivery centres? Furthermore, will he consider all the elements of the six-point plan to transform radiotherapy services to ensure that we have the treatment capacity to catch up? Will he sweep away the bureaucracies that have contributed to the backlog?
There is no doubt about it. We need a supercharged—“super boosted”, to use the Prime Minister’s words—treatment capacity if we are to address this cancer crisis.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing the debate and setting the scene, and all hon. Members on their incredible contributions. I look forward—I said this yesterday and need to get away from saying it again—to the Minister’s response and the contributions of the shadow Minister and the Scots Nats spokesperson.
I have been contacted by many constituents asking me to attend and speak in this debate, and as my party’s health spokesperson I am very happy to do so. One of the heartbreaking stories I have heard in the past couple of difficult days is a widow saying:
“my husband only died of cancer—he isn’t important”.
I honestly could have cried when I heard those words, because I believe that she genuinely felt that no one cared, and that is what she told me. I felt that hardness; I had a compassionate understanding of what she was saying.
We are in unknown territory and undoubtedly we are distracted. How can we save people from contracting covid? How do we treat those who have it? How do we keep people in contact with others for their mental health? How do we ensure economic viability to pay for the future health needs of this nation? We are distracted, but when we have widows and cancer patients telling us how left behind and unimportant they feel, we know that in our distraction we have got this wrong. It pains me to say that.
Throughout this pandemic, I and others have lost loved ones. Two of the girls in my office have lost loved ones: one lost a sister and the other lost two uncles. We know the devastation, but we have all lost loved ones to cancer too. It is not that one is less important than the other, so that is why this debate is so important. I am thankful for this debate, which allow me to come alongside my colleagues and friends—that is what they are—to discuss how better we can do this together.
I was contacted by a radiotherapist who highlighted the massive problems they are dealing with daily. There are two main radiotherapy centres in Northern Ireland. I know this is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I am saying this to give some context to the debate. One is in Belfast, and the other is the newer, smaller North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin. I am told that the main issues in radiotherapy are the result of the lack of investment and funding. There are major problems as a result of staffing—doctors, therapy radiographers and physics—including recruitment, training and retention. That has a knock-on effect on service delivery, development and research. Investment is needed to replace old radiotherapy treatment machines.
Northern Ireland would like to feel more connected to mainland UK radiotherapy, through sharing best practice, training support, data sharing, peer review and so on, and that is what we are asking for. It is important that we take an holistic approach to this across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The covid problems found also included more patients having their treatments disrupted in many centres in the United Kingdom and a higher proportion than average reporting a poor or very poor experience. That also worries me greatly. We have members of the all-party parliamentary group for radiotherapy in the Chamber today, and I know that every one of us understands these issues, including the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who set the scene. One hundred per cent of responders said they were treating patients who would usually be having chemotherapy or surgery. The additional referrals were for a range of cancers, including oesophagus, lung, breast, head and neck, upper gastro- intestinal and bladder, and also included palliative cases.
I want to speak about one specific cancer, pancreatic cancer. It has been highlighted that there was already an emergency before covid-19. This was a critical issue back in March and it is even more critical today, in December. Surgery is the only potential cure for pancreatic cancer. Before the pandemic, only one in 10 people received surgery. With pancreatic cancer, a six-month delay to surgery means a 30% reduction in survival and a three-month delay a reduction of over 17%. Unfortunately, that sets the scene, with pancreatic cancer progressing from a curative to a non-curative disease while treatment is delayed. Surgery, for some, is no longer an option. That is greatly disturbing.
Reports of service restoration are encouraging. We hear from clinicians that, in most parts of the UK, surgery and treatment are now back up and running at near normal levels, but for so many people with pancreatic cancer and their families the damage has already been done. For those diagnosed in the future, the continued delays to the restoration of clinical trials are stunting crucial improvements in treatments and outcomes.
People with pancreatic cancer have also experienced an information gap, with 40% of patients who were impacted by the pandemic reporting having received insufficient information and support about treatment, symptom management or palliative care. We have had multiple reports of people being sent home from hospital with a new diagnosis without any further information on the disease, their prognosis or treatment options. Anyone facing something incredibly dark such as pancreatic cancer at an advanced stage will want the person opposite them to tell them what is wrong and give them some light on a way forward. All of us in this Chamber today, and all of us outside it, have been touched by cancer. For every two people we meet, one of them, or someone in their family, will have had it. Unfortunately we are continually confronted by this, each and every day.
Calls and emails to Pancreatic Cancer UK’s support line nurses have been up 58% on the normal weekly average, and there has been a 34% increase in the number of people being supported each week. Again, I think those figures are the critical factor in where we are on this. Pancreatic Cancer UK has also been contacted by a larger proportion of palliative patients than normal, because that is unfortunately what pancreatic cancer often leads to. If people do not get an early diagnosis and early surgery, they are confronted with end-of-life care. For families, that is incredibly difficult and complex, and a very difficult time in their lives. People with pancreatic cancer have reported feeling forgotten and isolated, at a time when they are also unable to see friends and family due to the risk of covid-19 transmission.
We are all heartened by the tremendous news today that we are going to roll out the covid-19 vaccine late this year and into next, given the time it will take to get to everyone. That is good news, but we have to address the issues for those with cancer now. I believe we need to do better, and the changes must be implemented from here at Westminster and across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain of Northern Ireland. On behalf of all those cancer patients—all the ones who have contacted us, and all those facing an incredibly difficult time—I look, as I often do, to the Minister for a response. I know we will get that, but we really do need to be reassured. We need early diagnosis and extra care, and we need to show compassion in this place for those outside.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am grateful, as all our constituents will be, that this issue has been brought to the fore in the way that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has done in securing this debate. My only regret is that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who is a cancer specialist, cannot be here to share her wisdom and knowledge on such matters because she cannot participate remotely. You have got me instead, Ms McVey.
As we see from our inbox, there is concern that the reconfiguration of our national health services to meet the projected clinical demands of the pandemic went too far, and has come at a cost to non-covid patients. There are serious concerns about a cancer backlog. Gravely ill patients were, and clearly continue to be, cared for by our four national health services consistently throughout the pandemic, thanks to the dedication of clinicians and nursing and support staff. That is not to say that the pandemic preparedness had no consequences, but to defend the qualified and proportionate repositioning of the health services in the face of we knew not what exactly, back in March. The backlog is a consequence. How can we address it now?
As we have heard, Action Radiotherapy has suggested that there have been 100,000 missed diagnoses. That is a serious challenge for us to address across these islands. The Scottish Government undertook extensive work to improve cancer treatment over the last decade, and have made every effort to ensure that it was minimally disrupted throughout the pandemic. There has been disruption, however—of course there has.
Macmillan has expressed its concern that 50,000 diagnoses have been missed. When Macmillan speaks on these issues, Ministers in all four Administrations should listen to that message. A drop of 72% in cancer referrals as a result of covid is a cause for serious concern; we do not need to be specialists to understand that. Even though only a percentage of those referrals will result in a cancer diagnosis, there will nevertheless be a backlog of referrals and resulting care plans to be worked up as a result of covid. Dr Gregor Smith and many across these islands have insisted that people should report and present to their GPs when they notice something unusual. The First Minister of Scotland has also stressed that the NHS remains available to those who need it. Advice has been sent to all cancer service centres in Scotland, including the key message that health boards are expected to maintain full and urgent cancer services.
Who among us is unfamiliar with those in our communities, usually from an older generation, who do not like or want to trouble people, so do not present to their GP? For some, particularly men, there is a somewhat understandable reticence to present for healthcare in the middle of the pandemic. We can therefore see significant presentation deferral, which needs to be acknowledged, accepted and resourced. That needs to be resolved quickly, acknowledging the time-critical nature of some of the conditions. Cancer treatment services in Scotland—and, I assume, in the other three nations—have continued as much as possible throughout lockdown, using modified operational models. I thank NHS Tayside, which employs many of my constituents and looks after the healthcare of all my Angus constituents. I especially thank those at the cancer centre in Dundee, who have worked tremendously hard. The Scottish Government invested a great deal in additional MRI scanners and CT scanners to aid diagnosis, but I accept the important difference that other hon. Members have highlighted between diagnosis approaches and resource, and treatment.
Many challenges persist in this priority issue, not least the staffing of specialist consultants. That is especially challenging now because recruiting from EU countries is challenging as a result of Brexit, and retaining domestic consultants is also challenging. At the start of covid, the average age of NHS returnees—those who nobly answered the call to assist with covid and its consequences—was 57. Many of those doctors are retired because of the punitive implications of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs rules on pension allowance. That really needs to be addressed soon, to allow that dormant domestic capacity to keep their shoulders to the wheel should they wish to, without being unduly penalised. That issue of doctors’ pensions is one of the most hopeless instances of the total failure of a whole-system approach in modern governance, with HMRC tying the hands of our NHS behind its back. That is a really easy win—low-hanging fruit—that we can resolve quite soon.
The UK Government must ensure that cancer treatment does not move backwards in the aftermath of coronavirus, and must focus proper additional investment on our NHS. Despite the work of the NHS in Scotland and across the UK, there is a backlog of people seeking cancer screening and/or treatment. At this stage, we have three priorities: satisfying the routine cancer demand; the health commitments in and around covid; and the cancer backlog. To ensure that this does not spiral into an enduring secondary health crisis, significant and defined supplementary investment is needed to clear the backlog of screening and treatment, and to get cancer services restored to at least the level seen before the pandemic. It is important for colleagues in England to keep a weather eye on what the Barnett consequentials are for the devolved nations as a result of funding announcements. To be clear, if there are no Barnett consequentials for the devolved Administrations, what we are seeing is simply relabelled money rather than new investment. That will not fly.
The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) do not need the clinical direction of the Department of Health and Social Care—that is taken care of by the devolved Administrations—but we are umbilically connected to the funding settlement for NHS England. That is why it is so essential. The £3 billion offered for next year is a third of what the SNP has been calling for on a yearly basis. After a prolonged period of austerity, £3 billion is not even enough to cover the outstanding hospital repairs required in England alone, much less to restore cancer services. Regardless of where we live on these islands, we have all convened here this morning to try to restore cancer services and protect those affected. I respectfully look forward to any specific indications that the Minister can give us of additional funding to address this very serious and pressing issue.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms McVey, and I commend the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for securing the debate. When he opened it, he said he thought this was an issue on which we could work through consensus and in a collegiate fashion, which is absolutely right. The tone that he set, and that other hon. Members have followed, reflected that. He also said that he was direct in his contribution, which he was. He was right to be direct, because these are life and death issues, and we in this place need to be really focused on them in the most direct fashion.
I was lucky to meet the hon. Gentleman in July, alongside representatives from the secretariat of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, to discuss this issue. Of course the situation is not exactly the same as it was in July, but the crux of the issue is the same. It is great to go beyond virtual meetings and the back-channel conversations that we have in Parliament, and to get the subject on to the Floor of the House in order to have a public conversation about what is a very public and important matter. I particularly agreed with the hon. Gentleman’s point about “back to normal” not being good enough, because “back to normal” will not help us clear the backlog. Actually, we do not want to go back to where cancer services were in January. Hon. Members have touched on many ways to make services better—I will do the same later—and we should seek to do so. I share the hon. Gentleman’s anxiety about the gap between some of the rhetoric that we have heard from the Secretary of State, and the reality of what the numbers tell us about where we are at the moment.
Cancer touches us all at some point, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said yesterday and again today. For me, it was 33 years ago: I lost my father just before my third birthday. You come to terms with it and learn to live with it, but it is something that you carry around with you every day for the rest of your life. One of my major reasons for wanting to be a Member of Parliament is that I want there to be as few families like mine as possible. We can beat cancer to the best of our ability, so that people need not live their life in the shadow of cancer. I know that the Minister shares that aspiration. That is part of the consensus that we can build on this important issue.
The speeches this morning have been really good. The hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) started with Helen’s story, which was a really important thing to do. Lots of numbers have circulated—I will be guiltier than anyone else of throwing tens of thousands here and there—but each one of those statistics is a person and a life. That is what really matters. I strongly share the hon. Gentleman’s recognition of the creativity of our NHS.
I nodded and agreed when my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) made the point about undiagnosed cancers. I worry sometimes that when the Secretary of State talks, he is talking about the backlog and dealing with treatment for those who have a diagnosis. That is of course absolutely crucial, but it is only part of the problem that we are dealing with.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) has been a very good friend to me ever since I was elected in 2017, but particularly in my Front-Bench role over the past eight months. I am grateful to him for his counsel and guidance, and for constantly sharing his information with me to enrich my work. He was right to say that we have to understand the performance picture a year ago—frankly, covid was a very distant and small threat, and we had not really grasped how it would change our lives. We were not happy with cancer performance or with the direction of travel over the last decade. Certainly, as the Opposition, we were very concerned about that. We have to see the current situation in that context.
The hon. Member for Strangford was yesterday the Member in charge of a brilliant debate on cancer in children and young people. Collectively, we raised and analysed really important issues, and I know that the Minister took an awful lot away from that. The hon. Gentleman’s contribution today was very much in the same vein. It was about an holistic approach, across the four nations, all of which are represented today, which is really nice. As the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), who speaks for the SNP, said, this is of course a devolved issue. But we need to tackle it collectively.
I will make a few points of my own. In yesterday’s debate, I touched on the impact that covid has had on cancer diagnosis and treatment in children and young people—a demographic that is often both reluctant to visit the doctor and diagnosed slowly; it often takes multiple visits for that to happen. We will need to do things differently to tackle the pre-existing issues such as that and to catch up in relation to where we are.
Of course it was right that we prioritised covid during the first wave and have continued to make tackling the pandemic an important priority. We should take real pride in the fact that our NHS has taken such a strong punch to its capacity and stood there; that was not inevitable. We have seen other health services around the world overwhelmed, so we should be really proud of ours. It is a real testament to the institution that it has stood firm.
Nevertheless, we know that we now have an undiagnosed and untreated backlog of cancer. It is hard to estimate its true size because it is unknown. However, working off the best estimates of experts in the field—I shall use many of the numbers that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale did in opening the debate—we are talking about a backlog of about 100,000 patients, which it would take about two years, working at 20% higher capacity than pre-covid, to capture. We cannot do that just by wanting it to be better or wanting people to put their shoulders to the wheel even more, after a year in which the NHS has been working flat out. We will have to do things fundamentally differently. If not, the price will be preventable deaths. Every four weeks of delay in starting treatment can cause an increase of up to 10% in the risk of death. The estimate is that the backlog could cause between 30,000 and 60,000 deaths, which starts to become of the same order of magnitude as the number of deaths from covid itself. That is how serious the situation is. As we emerge from the pandemic, we need to tackle cancer with the urgency and focus with which we have tackled covid.
There is particular concern about missed screenings. Cancer Research UK estimates that 3 million screenings were missed over the last year. Also, we know that fewer people went to the GP with symptoms during that time, because they were worried about other issues or capacity issues. As a result, about 350,000 fewer people were referred between April and August than we would normally expect, and there was a consequent 39% drop in the number of key diagnostic tests undertaken in that period.
I was really glad to hear yesterday from the Minister that the numbers of GP referrals are now back around pre-pandemic levels. That is a good sign. Actually, there were more referrals in September 2020 than in September 2019, but the two-week wait target of 93% is not yet being met, so there is definitely some context for that.
We need to understand that this issue will still not apply evenly throughout the population. Cancer does not know who we are when it grows in our bodies, but different demographics are affected differently—yesterday we talked about young people—and there are issues about different cancers, too. The points that the hon. Member for Strangford made about pancreatic cancer were well made.
The scale of the problem is exceptional and it calls on us in this place to make it a real focus and to have really strong, robust plans; so, now that I have talked about the problems, here are my suggested solutions. For me, this goes across four phases—planning, resourcing, new treatments, and workforce.
In August, the Secretary of State said that he very much hoped that the backlog would be cleared
“within a matter of months”.
Since I assumed my role, I have used three out of four sessions of Health questions to ask about cancer and try to get the Government on the record on that, which is why it is so great that we are having this debate. My heart sank when the Secretary of State said he thought the backlog could be cleared within a matter of months, because there is a problem; I do not think it is rude or unkind to say so. It has been recognised, during the pandemic, that some of the rhetoric that comes out of the Department is wishful and not grounded in reality. We are always told that things will be “world-class” and that things will be done “by the end of next month”. People’s hopes are got up and then dashed. We do not need exaggerated rhetoric here; we need exaggerated action.
I cannot see how anybody thinks that we can clear the backlog—the real backlog, which includes the lack of diagnosis as well as delayed treatment—within a matter of months. I do not think it helps anybody to talk in those terms. However, in October, at the Health questions before last, the Secretary of State gave me a categorical assurance that he has a cancer recovery plan that will drive down waiting lists each month for the rest of the year. I welcome that. That could be done and I am keen to hear the Minister reflecting on progress on that.
Similarly, at the most recent Health questions, the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), said that there was greater capacity to deal with these things.
Grahame Morris
I cannot dispute the answer that my hon. Friend received from the Minister. It was an obvious answer, but the waiting lists have reduced because people are not presenting. There are fewer screening programmes, people are finding it harder to see their GP and things have become more and more difficult, so there is bound to be a reduction in waiting times, but that does not reflect the true picture of the backlog.
Alex Norris
Those points are very well made and get to the heart of what we as an Opposition want, what all Back Benchers want—and in fact, everyone. We do not want to beat cancer on paper and in statistics; we want to beat it in reality. We are not making this an issue of politics. It has to be an issue of coming together, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said in opening the debate, with new and challenging things. Critically, at the heart of this, there is an indication of a plan, so I hope that today the Minister will commit to publishing it, give us greater detail on what is in it, update us on its progress in recent months and tell us whether it works through the full pathway, from symptoms to treatment, or whether it is just a diagnostics plan. To what extent is it being maintained in the second wave, and, with the national cancer recovery plan expiring next March, will there be a longer-term successor? I know that is a peppering of questions, but this is our best opportunity to ask, so I hope the Minister will take that in the spirit intended.
On resources, there was £1 billion in the spending review to tackle backlogs. Will the Minister clarify how much of that will go to cancers? Although the money is welcome, it is less than all the health experts have called for. The Chancellor has promised to give the NHS what it needs, and this is a “what it needs” issue, so resources are important.
On innovation, I am lucky enough to have lots of innovative companies contact me to talk about their treatments. It cheers the spirit to hear about developments in chemotherapy that will make it possible for drugs to be tailored to individuals. That is remarkable. However, I will make a point about radiotherapy because of the hon. Members between me and the door; I will not get out unless I do. Radiotherapy is safe to deliver in a pandemic, is significant in 40% of cures and is cost-effective. That is an area where we can make a real impact. Will the Minister commit to follow what my hon. Friend the Member for Easington said and publish the delayed radiotherapy dataset? That would be a nice step forward.
Macmillan has raised concerns that the long-term plan for the NHS will not be matched by the workforce available. It thinks we need a further 2,500 specialist cancer nurses. Where are we up to with that?
The most important message that any of us can send today is to a person listening to this, watching this or following the coverage who has a hacking cough, a lump or bump or blood in the stool, and has previously used the pandemic—as perhaps many of us would—as a reason not to access care. I ask them to please not do that. The NHS is there for them. We need them to access it. It will be there.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I am about to call the Minister, but am mindful that Tim Farron needs time to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I have been given nine minutes to answer an enormous number of questions, so I will canter through in the hope that I answer some of them. We are a group that meets and discusses these things on a fairly regular basis. Indeed, I am back here this afternoon for a lung cancer debate, so this is an ongoing conversation, which I appreciate is vital. It is right that we recognise, as several hon. Members have, that the NHS has stood up during the pandemic, which was a blow to its very belly. We have put much effort into retaining services, not only for cancer, but for stroke patients and others, so that they can go to our NHS in their time of need.
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for securing this debate and for all the work he does as chair of the APPG. He has such a formidable set of musketeers supporting him on what is one of the most focused APPGs. We are due to meet in January, but I will try to fit in a short meeting this side of the recess.
I have never said we were world beating—I came to this place because we were not; we had challenges before. Up to March last year, there were 2.4 million patients, which is 1.4 million more than in 2010. We were on a trajectory and covid hit us hard, and I would be the first to say that it has presented major challenges for the entire healthcare system.
The significant impact of shutting down services resulted in a sharp reduction in the number of people being referred urgently with suspected cancer and from screening programmes. That is a statement of fact. I am not going to stand here and say that it did not happen, but I am also not going to say that Herculean efforts have not been made since then.
I am really pleased that the cancer services recovery plan has had input from many cancer charities, including Macmillan, which has been mentioned, as well as many Royal Colleges, including those of General Practitioners, of Pathologists, of Radiologists and of Surgeons. It is vital that the right people make the recovery plan, which is being led by Professor Peter Johnson and Cally Palmer. It is in their hands together—a coalition—and I hope the recovery plan very much leads the way on a route to addressing the backlog and making sure that we take opportunities.
I think we all agree on some of the challenges, including those on data, referral systems and the lack of optimal radiotherapy machines in Westmorland. Again, that is a statement of fact and we need to address how we improve that situation so that every single person has appropriate access to treatments. As treatments advance or are shorter—more oral chemotherapy can be given at home, for example—there is a chance to redesign services to make them better and deliver more for patients. Every single day, I think of those patients. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) made a comment about the loss of individuals. Every single day, that is what motivates me.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) for his comments about how hard the workforce are working. Whether it is a cancer nurse specialist, a radiotherapist, a radiographer or a surgeon, they are putting their back into this effort, because it could be a member of their family. They are a tremendously committed workforce, to whom I extend enormous thanks—but we need to get more of them. How do we convince a young nurse that his or her route is to become a cancer nurse, even though all the other specialists are also asking for them? We should also be working on that as a coalition, saying, “This is a fantastic area.”
We want to eradicate breast cancer by 2050. The survival rate for testicular cancer is now at a 98%. Pancreatic cancer is a dreadful disease, but we are now seeing not a two-week death sentence, but a couple of years. There are advances all the time and we must optimise that. Each and every person deserves to see that power, particularly on today of all days, when a vaccine has been approved and we know how brilliant this country’s life sciences industry is. We can beat this disease, but it takes time. I am absolutely committed to the patient-centred approach. One in four patients presented at A&E before this crisis—they presented too late. We know what the golden thread is.
There have been some positive announcements. I was encouraged to hear that we will pilot the Grail blood test, which can detect cancer from saliva. I am also pleased that in November’s spending review there was a further £325 million of investment in diagnostic equipment. The allocation of that will be determined in the next few weeks. I cannot give hon. Members any promises, and they would not expect me to say what will be allocated, but I understand the lobbying and the importance of not necessarily having shiny, sparkly front doors to walk through but getting the kit on the ground that can help save people’s lives. We know that no one single thing gives people the best chance of survival—it is the golden thread of swift referrals and screening that gives us early diagnosis—so we need those faecal immuno- chemical tests and to roll out the lung cancer pilots, and we are doing that. We need to ensure that we drive up those workforce numbers. We also need shorter waiting times for optimal treatment that will ultimately turn the tide on this disease.
Our strategy for maintaining services concentrates on stepping up hubs for cancer surgery and optimising independent use, which we have done as a Government. We stood up; we did not shy away from it. There have been no arguments about us using the private sector during the pandemic, have there?
Jo Churchill
I am really sorry but I have only got two minutes.
The NHS will accelerate the roll-out of rapid diagnostic centres. As I said in this Chamber yesterday, in March we had 17 of them and we now have 45—we have stood up 28 of them in the course of the pandemic. Most importantly, they will support early diagnosis, which we know is key. I am pleased that we are concentrating on recovering and maintaining cancer services. Through the newly formed cancer recovery taskforce, led by Professor Peter Johnson, we can drive that commitment forward with everybody.
The workforce have adapted, flexed and cared for individuals in the most challenging of circumstances. Every death concentrates my mind. My first text yesterday was from a friend who told of the passing of someone who had lost her fight against breast cancer after seven years. The disease does not go away. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) would be here if she were not going through treatment and, as she would tell us, it sucks. The cancer workforce are a special part of the NHS family and I want us to ensure that they know how special they are so that people come forward to join them.
We know that referral rates have been variable across different cancer types. Arguably, some cancers have really challenged us, and particularly those that need endoscopies and colonoscopies. We are still not there because of the treatment. Lung cancer referrals were poor before we went into the pandemic. What would someone think if they had a persistent cough? They might get a covid test. Actually, if that test is negative, we need to ensure that they are referred by 111 to the system for a lung cancer test.
I have a lot more that I would like to tell hon. Members, but I dare say that we will be back here imminently. On that note, I will hand over to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale.
Tim Farron
The hon. Members for Warrington South (Andy Carter), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Angus (Dave Doogan) and for Nottingham South (Alex Norris), and indeed the Minister, all made excellent points, and I am extremely grateful. I thank the Minister for what she said and for agreeing to meet us this side of the recess. To be specific, we are after a meeting with her, of course, and departmental finance officials so that we can revisit the investment decision—that decision is problematic—and have our experts meet hers to get to the bottom of the data. We need to see the datasets so that we can explore the extent to which there is an urgent crisis—we are certain that there is one.
Finally, the Minister talked about the importance of diagnosis. The Government are making progress on diagnostics. Of course, in the NHS long-term plan, we see the desire to find more cancers earlier so that we can treat them. If we find more cancers early, however, we will have more people to treat. That is why the radiotherapy investment that we have called for is essential, not just now but in the long term.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I will suspend the sitting for two minutes so that hon. Members can exit safely and the next lot can come in safely.
Local Government Reorganisation: Somerset
(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered local government reorganisation in Somerset.
This is a great opportunity. I am delighted to see the Minister in her place and to be working with her once again, as I have done for many years. I am grateful to be able to raise the subject of local government reorganisation. It is important to many people, but at the moment it is an irrelevant sideshow due to the awful pandemic. The only reason it is on the agenda now is that the leader of Somerset County Council pushed, bullied and forced it down the throats of our local party.
When the virus started to spread, the voice of David Fothergill boomed out across local radio. Unfortunately, his numerous broadcasts had nothing to do with the worst health crisis in a generation. Instead, Councillor Fothergill polished his ego and got his leg over his personal hobby-horse named One Somerset. It was “Somerset calling, Somerset calling.” It was impossible to avoid hearing or seeing the message, or the man. He made dozens of videos and droned on and on about the golden advantage of single unitary status and the perils of accepting anything less.
One Somerset was already becoming a dangerous distraction to the main task of fighting the disease. One day, we may discover what really happened to some of the huge grants that the county council was given to fight covid. Did the cash go where the Government intended? Did it help to save lives? Was it diverted and at what human cost? I sincerely hope that the county council is not found to have blood on its hands.
The Minister’s Department had hoped to publish a White Paper on the future of local government this year, but launching such a policy document would have been insensitive while the Government grappled with the worst of the crisis. It was a good call that I totally agree with. Councillor Fothergill, however, refused to wait; the man has no patience. He boosted the county council’s publicity team to 28. That is actually more than the Downing Street press unit. He set aside a war chest of £2 million, I am told, to fight for his vision for One Somerset. He also hired a unitary fanatic from Wiltshire with the unlikely name of Carlton Brand—it really is true. Dr Brand, I am told, is being paid in the region of £200,000 for his work. However, Dr Brand’s model is riddled with holes and was completely out of date when Wiltshire went unitary in ’09. When I last looked, it was £21 million in the red already and its relationships with its parish councils have turned desperately sour. I would not buy a pair of used bicycle clips from Dr Brand, let alone a pair of lycra cycling pants, but Fothergill has paid him a small fortune to take the ancient Wiltshire model with a few tweaks, and foist it on us.
In the shadowy world of used car dealers, One Somerset is what they call a cut and shut job. It looks safe until it is found that the front end is a wreck and is welded on to the back end of another wreck, and the paint job at both ends does not match. One Somerset is a municipal death trap. The county councils could not believe Fothergill’s timing. To launch that cobbled-together rust bucket when people were dying from covid was crass, inept and totally unnecessary. It was the tactic of a ruthless smash and grab monster; and that is still his aim—to smash the district councils and grab their cash reserves. His case is based on propaganda and lies. He is Taunton’s answer to William Joyce, and we all remember what happened to that particular traitor—Albert Pierrepoint’s first customer, as I seem to recall.
There is an important question of geographical involvement. What is the exact area of Somerset that we are talking about? It is not a silly query, even for a Member of Parliament who represents a big part of it. When it was established, in 1889, Somerset County Council mirrored Somerset’s traditional borders. It was enormous, bringing in Avonmouth just south of Bristol, and including Weston-super-Mare, Bath and everything in between, including places such as Midsomer Norton, the quaint town where “Midsomer Murders” was filmed. How appropriate. All those picturesque settlements are in Somerset and have nothing to do with Somerset County Council. If I asked Members to draw me an outline of Somerset County Council’s area, many would be stumped. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister has an idea. In her patch it should be easy. Kent County Council still has traditional borders, and I am delighted for it; but the county council is a mishmash and a muddle in Somerset—a misnomer, and a minefield for any Minister of the Crown. The county has been reorganised so often that it is now unrecognisable. How on earth are local people expected to take it seriously?
Somerset County Council is also broke. It has been on skid row for two decades. In ’07 it had only £11 million in reserves. Here we are 13 years later and the reserves are dangerously low. What scares the pants off me is that Fothergill’s One Somerset master plan suggests running the same risk. He allows a mere 10% contingency, as opposed to the 25% that is recommended by the Treasury. If an unexpected crisis happens—and Somerset County Council’s dismal record is littered with expensive crises—there is very little left in the kitty. The county council usually reflects the spending cuts and redundancies that a bunch of new smooth-talking consultants with a magic bullet have left. That is roughly what happened in 2007 when Alan Jones, Somerset’s teeny chief exec, stuck his thumb in the air, thought he felt a wind of change, and yelled “Eureka!” He had a beady eye on the reserves of the district councils all those years ago. He reckoned if the Government agreed to scrap the districts he could save the county from bankruptcy. Labour was in power and Jonesy thought he would get away with it. Wiltshire county was pitching for unitary status and so was Cornwall. The unspeakable little man jumped on the bandwagon and then fell off it. Quite simply, he had not bargained on the most important: the people.
Somerset folk are really canny and strong willed, as I can testify. They may not love their district councils, but at least they know who they are and why they are there. They hate and reject the face of unapproachable bureaucracy. The districts demand a referendum and should have one. The county council refused, so we did it ourselves: a full vote with polling booths and all the trimmings. It cost a bit, but it proves the point. Four hundred thousand people cast a vote and 82% rejected the unitary plan. Mr Jones limped away with his tail between his legs and left the council. Bad chief execs come and go but tightrope walking should not be part of the job description. After the referendum defeat, Alan Jones signed the county up to a lunatic outsourcing scheme called Southwest One. It had disaster written all over it. The four district councils were too sensible to touch it. Our Mr Fothergill was in favour. Southwest One promised to save hundreds of millions of pounds. It fell flat on its face and cost the county £70 million in payments.
Why does this county council always end up with second-rate top brass, incapable of walking along a corridor, let alone a tightrope? The men and women who do the hard graft—the staff—are more like lions, but they are constantly led by donkeys. They are donkeys that lurch from crisis to crisis, blaming everyone else: adult social care, children’s services; the list goes on. Today we have a class A jackass running the county, preaching the only way, and the leader is Fothergill.
In reality, west Somerset should be called three Somerset. This great county has already got two unitaries. Back in 1996, North Somerset, and Bath and North East Somerset were created. Both are struggling today. They are far too small to survive much longer. I wonder if anyone can identify the architect of the biggest, first reorganisation in 1974, when the demolition of our historic county began. That was the Minister who pushed the boundaries as far down as Midsomer Norton. We could call him the Midsomer murderer, after the TV series. Does anybody recall his name? Here is a clue: the poor man died in 1981 and, in a by-election, his safe seat fell to Shirley Williams of the SDP. It was the late Sir Rodney Graham Page. Be warned, history always forgets those who carved up our county.
Counties may be going out of fashion, which may be fair enough. We understand that local government must never stand still, but intelligent change is the best way, Minister. That is why the Government are right to insist that big ideas should come from the councils themselves and not be imposed on them. It is also vital to demonstrate genuine local support. I think the Minister will use the term good, local support. What does that mean?
If a county council votes for reorganisation, does that represent good support? No, surely not, if all four districts vote against One Somerset. Far more elected councillors booed than cheered Mr Fothergill’s hobbyhorse. If a county council secures the backing of a handful of prominent figures, is that good support? How many endorsements are needed? I think we should be told. I note, with great concern, that One Somerset is bragging—bragging, of all things—about the support of Mrs Mountstevens, the police and crime commissioner. Mrs Mountstevens’ reputation for dishonesty now matches Mr Fothergill’s. No wonder they are mates. She broke the rules and picked her own deputy by simply giving him the job; a typical crooked stich-up. To make matter worse, her deputy used to be a lawyer who set up Southwest One, the failed outsourcing partnership. What goes around comes around.
How are the public going to be consulted? It is not good enough to offer cheap online quotations, yet that is the system that Somerset has opted for. Can anyone fill in a form on a website? Lord Haw-Haw could sit all night ticking boxes in his favour; perhaps he does. That is wide open to abuse. Precisely the same dodgy process was tried when Taunton Deane Borough Council set about swallowing west Somerset. I will remind the Minister what happened. It was another half-baked scheme from another corrupt council leader, who—and I will say this only once—claimed to be a Conservative. The people never got a proper say and, when the elections were held for the new council, the Conservatives were basically wiped out.
The people will always punish stupid decisions and stupid people at the ballot box. We should never forget that as MPs. I would like to think that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will select a much more open and honest form of public consultation for this proposal.
I realise this is short notice, but I will provide some detail today. If it is fair, it will have my enthusiastic support. Frankly, we need something that is more thorough than a referendum. I know that, if necessary, the districts are willing to run their own referendum. I hope the Minister can see that that will not be required. I bring today for the Minister a letter from the leader of Sedgemoor District Council, which is partly in my constituency, along with Somerset West and Taunton. He asks the Government to consider bringing back the old county—for the Secretary of State to consider bringing us together, back to 1974, when the travesty of destroying our wonderful county was seen to be important. This is an opportunity.
Colleagues in this place and in Somerset understand that we want to be given a say. The critical mass of the existing county, with the ridiculous proposal to save only £18 million, will do nothing—nothing, Minister. It will just enable it to limp on, but limp on to what? Another oblivion; another loss. This letter—this opportunity—means that we can secure our self-esteem, and bring our historic heartland and the people we represent together.
The MPs of this area are mainly of one party, which is the most successful democratic political party in the world. Why? Because we listen to the people and understand what they say, and it is important that we continue to do so. I ask the Minister to urge our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to think about this long and hard, because I hope that today is the start of chance for the Government to put right a terrible wrong, and to understand that the will of the people matters beyond all else. I will pass this letter to the Minister and thank her for her courtesy in listening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) on securing this debate. His passion for Somerset and its history is well known across the House. He often treats us to interesting snippets of historic fact.
I understand his long-standing interest in this matter. The Government are committed to levelling up all areas of the country and empowering our regions by devolving money, resources and control away from Westminster. We will in due course set out our detailed plans in the local recovery and devolution White Paper, as my hon. Friend mentioned.
At the spending review, the Chancellor announced a new £4 billion levelling-up fund, building on the success of our £3.6 billion town fund. Local areas across England will be eligible to apply directly to the fund to finance things that communities need and people want. The spending review makes available up to £600 million in 2021-22, and we will publish a prospectus for the fund, launching the first round of the competitions in the new year. Further finding will spread over subsequent years, up to 2023-24.
The Government consider that locally led changes to the structure of local government, whether in the form of unitarisation or district mergers, can be the appropriate means of saving taxpayers’ money, and improving service delivery and local accountability. However, we are clear that any reform of a local government area is most effectively achieved through locally led proposals, put forward by those who know the area best—the very essence of localism, to which the Government remain committed. There is no question of, as my hon. Friend referred to, top-down imposition of Government solutions. Any proposal for change will need to meet our long-standing criteria and must be likely to improve local government in the area, command a good deal of local support and lead to unitary councils covering a credible geography.
This brings me to local government reorganisation in Somerset, one of the three areas of the country where, on 9 October, the Secretary of State invited all the principal councils to submit locally led proposals for unitary local government. The other areas where councils received an invitation were Cumbria and North Yorkshire. Councils in these areas have been developing ideas about restructuring local government in their areas for some time and have requested such invitations.
In Somerset, all five councils published a report on the future of local government there in January 2019, looking at a wide range of options for improving local services. It is right that Somerset councils should now have the opportunity to take their local discussions to a conclusion and, if they wish, make a proposal for unitary reform. We have received two outline proposals from Somerset councils—one from the county council proposing a single unitary for the area, and one from the district councils proposing two unitary councils. The councils will now have until 9 December to submit their proposals in full.
I welcome the healthy debate that this process represents on the best way forward for local government in Somerset to ensure that councils can deliver excellent services for their businesses and residents. It would not be appropriate for me to comment today on those proposals as they are yet to be submitted in full, but I would like to outline the steps that we plan to take after the full proposals have been received.
The next step is for the Secretary of State to consult. The statute requires that any such consultation consult any councils that would be affected by a proposal but did not submit it, as well as any other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate. We will be keen to gather views from a wide range of stakeholders, including councils, other public service providers, businesses, voluntary sector organisations and, very importantly, local residents. Of course, we look forward to hearing from all local MPs.
We would hope to launch any consultation in early 2021. We may consult on the proposals received, or we may decide at that point not to take a proposal further, if for example it was not in compliance with the invitation. Hence, we may undertake the consultation on both proposals for Somerset.
Following the consultation, the Secretary of State will carefully consider the proposals, assessing them alongside the long-standing criteria that I described earlier. He must have regard to all representations that he has received in relation to the proposals, including those received through the consultation exercise, and all other relevant information available to him.
Where the Secretary of State decides that a proposal should be implemented, he will seek parliamentary approval for the necessary secondary legislation—the structural changes order—with which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset is familiar. Such an order would need to be considered by each House. If Parliament approves the implementation of such a proposal, it is likely that a new unitary council will be established from 1 April 2023. The majority of the implementation work that councils will undertake will be in 2022-23, with elections to shadow or preparing councils in May 2022.
I just want to touch on elections. The Secretary of State has the power to postpone local elections. We recognise that, when making proposals, councils may request that the May 2021 local elections in the area be postponed for a year. There are precedents for a one-year postponement of local elections where unitarisation is under consideration, the examples being the Buckingham and Northamptonshire unitarisations. Such a postponement avoids members being elected for a short period and confusion for the electorate, who are asked to vote for councils for the future that are under consideration and may be abolished. We will carefully consider any such request from any councils and any other representations that we receive on that.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate, and I look forward to having further discussions with him on the matter. I am grateful to him for passing on the letter addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the issues that he has raised.
With the invitation, councils in Somerset now have an opportunity to move forward with reforms that can open the way to achieving significant benefits for local people and businesses, delivering service improvement, facilitating economic growth and contributing to the levelling up of opportunity and prosperity across the country. I very much hope that we see successful proposals and outcomes for Somerset and indeed the rest of the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Homelessness and Temporary Accommodation
(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered homelessness and temporary accommodation.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and delighted, as well, that the debate has attracted support in the Chamber on an issue that is central to much of our work as Members of Parliament but not discussed as often as we would like. Although there is a great deal to cover under the topic of homelessness and temporary accommodation, I shall concentrate particularly on conditions, and I hope that colleagues will address some of the other important issues that come under its umbrella.
“I feel like I am being punished.”
Those were the words of a desperate mother accepted as homeless after experiencing domestic violence, and placed in temporary accommodation by my local authority, Westminster City Council, like tens of thousands of others. There were 98,300 households in temporary accommodation in June, including 127,240 children, and that was up by 14% in the last year alone. The mother was found a private flat by the council, somewhat misleadingly described as temporary, because she has stayed in that limbo for seven years already. That is not my personal record for temporary accommodation. The current record is 21 years, and 10 years is not at all unusual.
The properties that the mother in question and everyone like her have been placed in are expensive. Their rents are similar to full market-level private rents. In a particularly cruel twist, those high rents mean that a high percentage of homeless households are immediately caught by the benefit cap, even though the occupants had no choice about where they were placed, or the rents they would pay. They are also insecure, as the mother in question is. Families such as hers are forced to move constantly, not just within the local area but across the city and beyond, regardless of the schools that the children attend or their personal needs.
A heavily pregnant constituent, who was registered blind, was placed first in north London, in a property with multiple stairs, that was not self-contained and where she was at risk of falling, and then in east London, where she was expected to navigate totally unfamiliar surroundings. She said to me:
“I’m very frightened from places I’m unfamiliar with, as I can’t get around”.
A family with two blind young adult children attending college were told they simply had to learn new mobility routes, as they were sent to the other side of London. These are all recent cases. Someone else told me:
“We were living locally for 19 years, and working in the hospital. We were evicted from our flat and had to approach Westminster council for help. We were placed in an emergency self contained flat that we were told was just for six weeks, so we couldn’t change our daughter’s school. But unfortunately its lapsed to 7 months. The transport is too expensive from West London just to take my daughter to the school. The cost is £60 weekly which we can’t afford any more—and the journey is too long—my wife has to leave home at 6AM to reach the school at 9AM. She find it very hard with little girl who is just 28 months old.”
The stories of dislocation and of the crisis of affordability could fill this debate alone, but I want to concentrate on the condition of the properties that my constituents are placed in. Those conditions are beyond belief, particularly given the amount of public money that is going into supporting the almost entirely private landlords providing the accommodation.
The family commuting five hours a day to school also reported:
“The condition of the flat is very bad & cold we are on the top of the building, & all is glass, with damp everywhere, the water leaking through the glass all around us”.
The same mother I referred to at the beginning of the speech, who was homeless owing to domestic violence, contacted me a few weeks ago to say:
“The property we are in is a shambles with mice, rats and rising damp and mould throughout. The Council has contacted the housing association managing the property, who has contacted the landlord. She sent her surveyor to the property in August. He was shocked to see how much damp we have. He said it would need major work done. I have postnatal depression and suffer from an illness which means I get migraines with stroke-type symptoms with them. I am on medication. My eldest son also has asthma and rising damp is in the kids room. The damp in my room is so bad myself and the baby are now sleeping on the floor in the front room and the new born is having problems breathing”.
Another mother wrote to me—all these examples are from this year, in the time of covid:
“I am in shock that the council can give properties to people in the state I was given mine especially with a six week old baby. I was told last minute after just giving birth that the temporary emergency accommodation I was in needed to be vacated. I was given a flat on the other side of London despite explaining all my support system was locally which is important to me as someone who suffers depression and anxiety with a history of attempted suicide which has gotten worse since I’ve been moved so far already.
Now I’m sitting in the living room on the first night nursing my new born when suddenly there is leaking from the ceiling and water is falling fast. The next day a contractor comes and tells me this is a previous issue that wasn’t fixed by Westminster and if he hadn’t come today the ceiling would have collapsed on me! He had to cut two big holes in the ceiling to dry out the ceiling as a water pipe had been leaking for some time before I moved in. Now the ceiling in the kitchen is leaking with water falling through the smoke alarm”.
There are more, oh so many more:
“Dear Ms Buck. I live in a Westminster temporary council flat, one of my 3 children is autistic. My neighbour down stairs shouts and kicks my door because of the leaking water in her flat which we reported to the agency A2Dominion”—
the housing association responsible for managing the property—
“and no one fixed. My kids are scared—especially the autistic child—they can’t sleep and so are doing no good in school”.
Another constituent came to me after being referred through the council’s children’s services. Even then—although Westminster council has now responded to this and one or two of the other cases—the council took 10 months to resolve the problem, despite being told:
“The mould is so severe because it was left for a very long time untreated…I can send you a copy of the EH”
environmental health—
“report and at least 40 pictures to outline the severity of mould and dampness and how it ate the plastering off the walls. This mould releases spores into the air which makes everybody inside this place always in hayfever condition. We have to keep all windows open for at least 5 hours every day. You could imagine the cost of heating…as we have a little boy who is autistic and had a very serious breathing condition and needs medical attention if he gets a simple cold. It is not only my son getting constantly ill but our food is mouldy and the clothes inside the cupboards are mouldy too.”
Another constituent wrote:
“Although we are on the waiting list for many years now, A2Dominion has not kept up its maintenance of this property. We have mould in all the rooms, carpets and furniture. The floor is a hazard as initially it did not even have underlay. Due to the wear and tear of 15 years we were advised to remove it and now we are without carpet. Winter is settling in and we will be cold. In the last few weeks, we have had to kill 6 mice. There are holes in floorboards and walls where they come in”.
Another said:
“I am in a temporary accommodation…by Westminster council placed in Leyton. I have written to my landlord to tell them that repairs are needed for three years now. I have allowed a reasonable time for my landlord to do these repairs, but they have not done them. I reported these problems to my landlord: Mould everywhere, walls are wet and the flooring wet everywhere. My son now has respiratory problems and hard breathing due to the property state, and is now under the hospital for his respiratory infection…it’s getting worse day by day. The house is all mould and suffocating for me and child—it’s life threatening to me and my son. I have contacted the housing at Westminster, the receptionist keeps telling me she will send an urgent email and someone will call me back but not a single person is. Ceiling has fallen down on me and my 3 years old in the bathroom…The agency came to try to cover it up and the man working for the agency when he opened the ceiling roof said this is life-threatening and it needs to get repaired but the landlord refusing to pay a lot of money as it costs too much.”
Another wrote to me:
“I am writing to inform you of my revolting state of living in this temporary accommodation of mine and the neglect of A2Dominion. I am a mother of two autistic children under the age of 10. Both suffer from severe disabilities…My temporary accommodation has horrid dampness…which has affected our cardiovascular medical condition and has made my children and I suffer tremendously during the past one year and a half ever since we moved into here. The carpets are damp to the point where you cannot keep your feet on the ground for too long while sitting. In addition to rats and mice that were roaming through the flat freely my electric meter caused a huge fire in the building which was luckily put out...Due to this, I have been without electricity for almost a week now.
I have spent the last 6 days in the most difficult state. I have not had any help or support from A2Dominion nor the council. Both are throwing the responsibility on another, while I am staying in a home everyday in order to keep my kids warm and fed in this cold winter. We are literally homeless right now and nothing has been done to fix the electricity and replace the meter, regardless of the hundreds of calls and pleas for help that I have made. I have no option but to turn to you for help. I am desperate and exhausted. My children are struggling and suffering with me. Their medical conditions are a huge obstacle, as they unable to accept change.”
And another:
“I’m writing this email in the hopes you could help me…I’m currently in long term temporary accommodation in Newham with my 4 month old baby…I’m from Westminster and have been accepted by the council. I’m currently in an unsuitable accommodation which…is infested with mice and vermin. I moved in in March this year and by the third day I reported the infestation of mice and large holes in the bathroom, kitchen and living room. Due to covid-19 the landlord refused to fill out any holes forcing me to do it myself very unprofessionally and desperately whilst heavily pregnant. When Lockdown came to an end the landlord did send out two different men…to fill the holes, and they did nothing…I pressured the housing to help force the landlord to fill the holes and it was a back and forth for a couple of weeks resulting in the maintenance team saying ‘the house is 200 years old…there’s nothing more I can do’ and ‘The kitchen flooring has water damage causing wood decay along the whole flooring for the kitchen which brings in rodents from the basement’…now as there’s holes everywhere and I even hear them eat through some holes and they come in…some eat the poison and die in my house…I’m stranded alone dealing with this, and it’s worsening my postpartum depression and anxiety. I can’t stay in this house another week. Due to lockdown new restriction of staying in other households I am really fighting my depression as I can’t even sofa surf due to safety issues. Please, please help us.”
And the last:
“In 2018 my family had been placed by Westminster in our current flat which has been deemed unfit to live in and determined to be detrimental to our health on a number of occasions during our stay (there is black mould/fungus/bacteria covering our walls). In addition to this, due to the building being quite literally bent out of shape, and slowly collapsing in on us, the windows in the living room are unable to close…making the entire house very cold, especially as we approach winter times. We have lived in these deteriorating conditions for…2 and a half years now despite it being considered urgent by every inspector that came to inspect the building saying that we should be rehoused immediately”.
I have managed to get two or three of these cases resolved in the last week. These are a selection, and I could have doubled, tripled or quadrupled the examples of the conditions that people are being kept in. The harshness of the conditions that people are experiencing as they go through the homeless system has to be seen to be believed. I do not understand how local authorities let this happen. I do not understand how the housing associations that are intermediaries—A2Dominion, Genesis, and Stadium housing associations among the worst, in my own experience; others will have other examples—allow this to happen. I do not understand how the Government allow it to happen, given the amount of public money that is being put into this.
The pressure of numbers is taking its toll. The figures are creeping up every year, year on year since 2011. Local councils are unequipped to cope with and pay for the homes that are required. Two thirds of all households that are homeless in Britain—62,670 households—were placed in temporary accommodation by London local authorities. Even prior to covid-19, London boroughs’ expenditure on homelessness was expected to rise to a total of £1 billion by 2021-22. Nearly a quarter of this is unfunded by central Government, thereby increasing the pressure on other services. There is no doubt that the pressure of those figures means that the ability to manage the quality of the accommodation is undermined, and the Government are failing to make good on the requirement to support these services. Unless the Government act on this, the brutal experiences being endured by my constituents will only continue to worsen.
Research from Shelter earlier this year revealed the explosion of the temporary accommodation industry. Between April 2018 and March 2019, councils spent over £1 billion on temporary accommodation—a rise of 9% in a year, and 78% in five years. Shelter’s research shows that 86% of this money is flowing directly to private providers, most of whom are unregulated. This explosion in expenditure has been fuelled by a chronic lack of investment in decent, genuinely affordable social housing.
The Minister will, I fear, just tell us how much the Government are spending. That is utterly meaningless unless there is a recognition of how far short funding falls, compared with what is needed, and of the wider context of cuts to social security, local housing allowance, local councils and social house building. I hope that I will be disappointed and that that is not what the Minister will say.
We need fundamental changes to housing supply and housing support in the social security system. We need proper management of and accountability for the homes that vulnerable and homeless people get stranded in. We need to strengthen the welfare safety net, remove the benefit cap, reverse the freeze to local housing allowance and ensure that rents align with the 50th percentile of market rents. We need urgent legislation to give private renters more security and end no-fault evictions, which remain one of the leading causes of homelessness. We need to invest in a new generation of social housing to provide families with stable, permanent and affordable homes.
Local councils need their homelessness costs to be fully funded. Homeless households need to be accommodated locally, except in exceptional circumstances, and the routine use of out-of-borough housing must be ended. Ministers have previously assured us that that will happen. They have promised us that it should be the exception rather than the rule, but that commitment is honoured only in the breach. Capacity and resources need to be made available to ensure that standards of accommodation are acceptable.
Homelessness is always a hellish experience, and the people who endure it are almost by definition already highly vulnerable. It should not be a punishment, but my constituents ask me this question again and again: “Why am I being punished for the sin of being homeless?”
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I am afraid that there are a lot of people trying to take part, so if you want me to get you all in, we will have to limit you to three minutes. I am sorry.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for her very compelling speech and for the personal accounts of her constituents. All Members have experience of similar emails and one-to-one encounters, so I thank her for raising this important issue. I also thank the Minister for the Department’s commitment during the pandemic to tackling rough sleeping and trying to end it across England. We have had the highest commitment in funding that I can remember to tackle the issue during the pandemic and enable local councils to house those who are sleeping rough, so I thank the Minister for that.
The hon. Lady’s excellent speech was about the conditions of temporary accommodation, and I want to focus on temporary accommodation for families. As she said, this is particularly a London issue, given the high cost of living, the high population and the lack of affordable and social housing. It is something that I saw at first hand in my previous roles, when I worked as a community outreach worker. I saw families who were living in rat and cockroach-infested multi-dwelling homes with other families. It was a London issue that I saw over and over again.
I have visited other parts of the UK, including the west midlands, to look at best practice in places where we have tackled this problem proactively. Something that I noticed in the west midlands was the approach of linking housing to employment. Andy Street, the Mayor of the west midlands, has done an excellent job of providing housing, employment opportunities and transport. As housing is a devolved matter, mainly to the Mayor or local authorities, it would be worth the Mayor of London looking at how he can support families who are trapped in temporary accommodation.
I also ask that the Minister consider the high cost of temporary accommodation in urban areas. Between 2018 and 2019, councils spent more than £1 billion on temporary accommodation. That explosion in expenditure has been fuelled by a chronic lack of genuinely affordable social housing, and that is particularly true in London.
This is an incredibly complex issue to tackle, and as I said it is the devolved power of the Mayor. Unfortunately, the expansion of permitted development rights has inadvertently led to the creation of some low-quality and unsuitable accommodation—
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this important debate. No civilised country in the 21st century should have people living on the streets. Governments of all persuasions have tried to combat the problem of homelessness, with varying degrees of commitment and success. Despite those efforts, it took a pandemic to demonstrate the scale and scope of the action needed to eradicate homelessness once and for all.
The UK Government appear to have pledged to end rough sleeping, but it is the Welsh Government who have developed truly ambitious plans. During the pandemic, the decisive and compassionate action of councils in Wales in partnership with Health, the third sector, registered social housing and voluntary organisations to bring people off the streets has saved lives. Homeless people were placed in safe and secure accommodation, engaging with local services perhaps for the first time. That was all achieved in a few weeks, but providing temporary emergency accommodation does not end homelessness, so the Welsh Government are determined to transform that into long-term accommodation. The second £50 million phase of the Welsh Government’s homelessness programme will therefore provide 2,266 people in emergency accommodation with long-term homes, whereas the equivalent UK Government programme in England—the £105 million next steps accommodation programme—merely suggests in its guidance that housing provided for homeless people by councils in England during the pandemic will have tenancies of just two years.
Since the start of the pandemic, the Welsh Government have allocated three times the funding available in England. Councils in Wales have received £10 million to tackle homelessness, compared with £3.2 million in England, where councils deal with a far greater number of rough sleepers. Migrants with no recourse to public funds, and those who have sofa-surfed, are included in Welsh Government policy, whereas in England that is not the case. The policy in Wales is predicated on the belief that everyone has the right to live in a secure, permanent home.
Latest figures show that not one homeless person died from covid-19 in Wales up to 26 June. The chief executive of Crisis, Jon Sparkes, said:
“Only the Welsh Government is committed to putting in place comprehensive policies to end homelessness by providing permanent homes for everyone in need”.
However, there is so much more to do. The Welsh Government Housing Minister, Julie James, said:
“There’s no easy solution to this. I’ve been clear all the way through we have not solved this problem, but we’re on the right road to making sure people are housed and not sustained on the streets.”
We must therefore tackle the problems rooted in homelessness—poverty, substance misuse and mental health issues. We need a holistic approach. Therefore, as we head into winter, which is a challenging period in any year, let along during the pandemic, I ask the Minister to support the Welsh Government’s endeavours to eliminate homelessness—
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). I represent a very rural constituency, so I suspect there is a great deal of difference between our two patches, but I recognise from my constituency a great many of the things she said about addressing rough sleeping and homelessness.
As the virus began, in March, all of us across the House were deeply concerned about the impact it could have by closing businesses, driving up job losses and leaving people unable to make their rent and mortgage payments. Moreover, there were concerns about rough sleepers, who lived in close proximity to one another, and many of whom had pre-existing health concerns and could have been particularly hard-hit by the virus. That is why I welcome the unprecedented action of both the Government and local authorities across the country to support rough sleepers and homeless people in the face of covid-19. The Government’s furlough scheme has protected 9 million jobs and helped safeguard people’s pay packets, which has helped them keep on track of mortgage and rental repayments. However, as ever, there is more to be done. We need to help those who have suffered so very badly over the year.
With today’s welcome news from the Health Secretary that the covid vaccine will be rolled out from next week, more thought should be given to how to end homeless- ness and rough sleeping. First, we need to ensure that those rough sleepers who have been provided with accommodation as part of our response to the pandemic are never returned to the streets. The Government’s £433 million investment to provide 6,000 safe and long-term homes for rough sleepers will be invaluable in achieving that. We should be providing rough sleepers with the wraparound support that they need to tackle the long-term mental health and addiction problems that some of them may be suffering from.
Evidence from around the world shows that a Housing First approach is the best way to help rough sleepers rebuild their lives off the streets, and the Government have taken the initiative in piloting such a project in Greater Manchester, the west midlands and the Liverpool city region. I believe it is highly advisable to roll out a Housing First programme throughout the rest of the country, as it would be beneficial for all those in need of housing across the country.
Secondly, the key to ending homelessness is not just supporting those already sleeping rough or living without their own roof over their head, but tackling the long-term structural problems in our society that can lead to homelessness. Above all, more must be done to ensure that we can enable everyone to afford to buy or rent their own home. Although my community is blessed with relatively low levels of rough sleeping—that has not always been the case—the latest count, from autumn 2019, found that just one person was sleeping rough in my local area. That is not true—it is undeniably not true. The statistics collected by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on that are wrong, as local charities will be able to see, so we need to review how we are engaging and calculating that data.
My time is almost up. As I said, there is more to be done, and I hope that the Government will listen to us on what we have been asking for.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Thirty-six years ago, I was a new Newham councillor. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), who is in her place, was elected a few years later, but at that time, 36 years ago, I was placed in a working party on the borough’s temporary accommodation crisis. We set a target that everybody should be in a permanent home by Christmas, and all 30 households were. It was a different world. In June this year 5,574 Newham households, including more than 7,000 children, were in temporary accommodation. It is shocking how far those problems have worsened even since I was elected a councillor. How is it that we have allowed things to become so bad?
It would be great to hear from the Minister some proposals for reducing those shocking numbers. I suspect that we will not hear those and the problems will carry on getting worse, but given that backdrop, I want to put two points to the Minister. First, will she consider a new national policy on standards and length of stay in temporary accommodation? Temporary accommodation is not covered by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. Landlords are largely unregulated. There is no limit on how long people can stay temporarily. Will the Minister take an initiative on that?
Secondly, will the Minister act to safeguard children living in temporary accommodation, especially those in shared housing? At the moment they have fewer education rights than other children, and an article in The Lancet earlier this year pointed out that they are at high risk of
“immediate and long-term effects on growth…health, and brain development.”
Newham has the largest number and highest proportion of households in temporary accommodation and spends the most on it. The figure was more than £60 million in 2017-18. One problem is that the borough represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) is competing with my borough for accommodation, and that forces the price up. A lot of the housing used is in dreadful condition. Rooms are damp and mouldy, as my hon. Friend pointed out, and children develop breathing problems. Families move frequently. They change their GP every time, and sometimes their school, and they do not get any choice. And often they do not even dare to ask for repairs.
I pay tribute to the Magpie Project in our borough, set up by Jane Williams. It does superb and caring work among families in temporary accommodation. Many have been hit by the benefit cap. Three quarters have no recourse to public funds.
Will the Minister take forward the two specific things that I mentioned—regulation on standards and protections for children?
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
I appreciate the continued advocacy by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). Homelessness is a plight that has no place in our society. In 2018, approximately 726 people died of homelessness in England and Wales. In Wakefield district, 216 individuals were being housed in short-term shelter in December 2019 after they had asked for help. It is nigh-on impossible truly to understand the ordeal of being homeless without the experience of being so. Attestations by the Community Awareness Programme in Wakefield note the poor levels of physical and mental health, which are worsened by a lack of access to support through the GP system.
Throughout the covid-19 pandemic, Her Majesty’s Government have taken unprecedented steps to provide aid to those who are homeless. On 26 March, the Government asked local authorities in England to help ensure that we got everyone in. Shelters and assessment centres have been set up and made covid-secure for rough sleepers. I know I speak on behalf of all Members when I commend the herculean efforts made, including block-booking hotel rooms and securing alternative accommodations, such as bed and breakfasts, student accommodation and so on, as well as working to supply food and medical care and other support, where needed.
The Government have provided £105 million for shorter-term accommodation and immediate support, £91.5 million of which was allocated to 274 local authorities. An additional £161 million will be provided to deliver 3,300 units of longer-term, move-on accommodation and support. Currently, £150 million has been allocated to 276 schemes across England, which are expected to be delivered by March 2021. The statistics speak for themselves. By the end of June 2020 there were 98,300 households in temporary accommodation—a rise of 14% on June 2019. A study published by The Lancet outlined that 266 deaths were avoided during spring 2020 by the measures set out by the Government.
Over these winter months, a £10 million cold weather fund will enable local authorities to provide self-contained, covid-secure accommodation. The Government’s response has been exemplary, but those measures merely alleviate symptoms of homelessness, rather than deal with the root problem. If we wish truly to eradicate the plight of homelessness, we need to enable those suffering from that horrific ordeal to achieve and prosper, providing pathways to secure employment, such as paid training schemes, to financial security, such as providing support to set up a bank account, and to permanent shelter, such as support to find somewhere to rent. All are vital in achieving that objective.
I wish to end by paying tribute to Ernest Hibbert, co-founder of the aforementioned Community Awareness Programme. Ernest passed away peacefully on Sunday 8 November. He and his wife Elizabeth established the organisation in 1997. It is thanks to their vision, compassion and energy that the service thrives as much as it does today, reaching out to help people in need in Wakefield. In honour of Ernest, I wish us to commit to seeing no rough sleepers in Wakefield by 2024.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
How temporary is temporary? Sir Edward, if you had a family in front of you at your advice surgery, how would you explain? I would explain that families who were housed in temporary accommodation two years ago have another six months to go. For a family in front of me today, I would say I could not predict, but probably the time would be about five or six years, as long as things do not get any worse. Temporary, in that vein, is taking the English language to its severe extreme. There are 100,000 families—127,240 children—of whom 27,650 families are forced to travel 16 times round the globe, or 400,000 miles, in order to access temporary accommodation. That was a figure found by Ross Kemp in his recent documentary on homelessness.
Where do we go and how do we deal with it? In the few minutes I have, I would like to point the Minister to a really interesting email that we received from the Association of Accounting Technicians, no less, only last Wednesday, which points out that the spending review confirmed that the Government would provide £254 million of additional resource funding to tackle homelessness in 2021-22, of which £103 million had already been announced. The AAT points to the issue of taxing overseas purchasers of properties in the UK.
In September 2018 the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), announced that a stamp duty surcharge of up to 3% would be imposed on overseas residential property investors, and that all the money generated would be used to tackle homelessness. It was expected to raise £140 million. Six months later, that was watered down to 1%—effectively an £80 million loss for homelessness projects. Having campaigned for the rate to be restored to 3%, the AAT was delighted when the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, announced a return to that during the 2019 general election. During the 2020 Budget, however, that was changed to 2%, meaning a £40 million loss.
Since it was announced in 2018, the rate of surcharge has been 3%, 1%, 3% and now 2%, without ever coming into force. It is due to be implemented in April 2021. The only way to deal with homelessness is with more money. This small suggestion will not resolve homelessness, but making available another £40 million by going back to a 3% tax on overseas purchases will help an awful lot of people.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
On the surface, the current picture of homelessness in the UK seems relatively positive, but the reality sits much deeper. Some £4.6 billion of non-ring-fenced funding has been given to councils to decide on their own priorities. A further £254 million was announced in the spending review for rough sleeping, which brings the total this year to £676 million. The six-month moratorium on evictions from March to September has also been extended for a further six months.
Of the several thousand households recently assessed in the veterans community, which is important to me, only 440 were officially recorded as requiring support due to serving in the armed forces—5% of veterans’ families. It is not true that veterans are mad, bad or sad, but any figure above 0% is too high. We must sort that out.
In my constituency, the rough sleepers unit does a fantastic job and has reduced homelessness from 31 people to 12 since 2019, and the remaining 12 have all been swept up and looked after. The unit aims to have referrals off the streets and into temporary accommodation within 24 hours, so I know that that is possible. The night shelters in Bracknell are run by a fantastic organisation called Pilgrim Hearts Trust. This year, due to covid, it cannot open so the situation is serious. It does a drop-in centre for meals and day care that includes a mobile doctor’s surgery. Again, it can be done.
The lived experience of those affected is what really matters. We must do more. It is a case of not just throwing more money at the problem, but effecting change through locally focused, effective measures. We know that more affordable housing is needed in the right areas. The decision in the recent spending review to freeze the value of the local housing allowance will hinder efforts to prevent homelessness. I urge the Minister to press for that decision to be overturned. If we can get homelessness relatively under control during the worst pandemic in memory, why can we not do that in 2021 and in perpetuity? Sustained Government funding, backed by good local solutions, remains the key to solving that awful problem.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Government’s current policy on homelessness and temporary accommodation is strangely perverse. In spring, Ministers marshalled all the resources at their disposal to all but end rough sleeping and to protect public health. As Dame Louise Casey, then head of the rough sleeping taskforce, said:
“We just went for it”
with the Everybody In programme. That proves what can be done when there is the political will. Now, with the harsh winter approaching and the virus still at large, the Government’s policy seems to be “everybody out”. Thousands of people have been forced back on to the street or into hostels—why?
There has been a 78% increase in the number of homeless children since 2010. I can only imagine the fear, misery and sense of danger felt by someone facing life on the streets for the first time. No wonder Crisis, Shelter, St Mungo’s, council leaders, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners and others have spoken with one voice: “We need everybody in too.” I know from working closely with groups such as SHOC—Slough Homeless Our Concern—the London and Slough Run, Slough Outreach and the many local gurdwaras, mosques, temples and churches, and from seeing the increase in homelessness casework in my office, that the crisis is getting worse. I have been contacted by an increasing number of constituents concerned about keeping a roof over their heads—some with no recourse to public funds, others unaware of the complexities of housing legislation and parents concerned about living in cramped conditions with their growing children.
Some 218 households approached Slough Borough Council for homelessness assistance between April and June 2020. On 30 June, the number of households in temporary accommodation in Slough was 379. That amounts to 314 children living in temporary accommodation. The recession will undoubtedly force many people in Slough who are already living precariously over the edge.
I ask the Minister this afternoon to address my two key concerns. Will she provide an emergency programme to get rough sleepers into covid-safe accommodation and will she commit to a major programme of housebuilding for people on low and medium incomes, such as nurses, teachers and care workers—the true heroes of the pandemic?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I cannot do justice to this subject in three minutes, so I am more than usually grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for setting out the case so well in her opening remarks.
As in other areas of public policy, we do not start from a benign position. The past 10 years of austerity has included the local housing allowance freeze, the benefit cap, a freeze on temporary accommodation subsidy, shared room rates and discretionary housing payments, and all these things have created a crisis in temporary accommodation. Even where work has been done, such as with rough sleeping and the eviction ban, when we come out of the crisis local authorities will need more assistance to cope with what will be an additional wave of homelessness.
There are 1,200 households in temporary accommodation in Hammersmith and Fulham at the moment, but I would like the Minister to address the long-term issues as well. Shelter, Crisis and other organisations say that we need at least 90,000 social homes to be built a year and the Government are building not even 10% of that. What is the issue? Is it ideological? We have heard Conservative Members say in this debate that we need more social housing in this country. Where is the recipe for providing that, because it is the only long-term solution?
I will refer to a couple of cases in my constituency, not because they are exceptional in any way, but because they exemplify the typical problems of temporary accommodation. The fact is that this is not a temporary problem—it is often a lifelong problem for people in these situations.
A mother with a five-year-old came to the attention of Hammersmith and Fulham Council five years ago. She was housed in Enfield, which may not sound that far away, but it was away from her support network, and she had to travel to get her kid to school and get to work on time, so consequently she has been late for work and was paying additional fees to after-school clubs. She was taking time off because the conditions in the property were so bad; she was dealing with infestations and sewage leaks and things of that kind. When she was rehoused in the borough, it was in a one-bedroom flat, which means they have to use the living room as a bedroom. She now has two children. Her prospects of being rehoused in adequate temporary, let alone permanent, accommodation, are very low, simply because of the lack of housing. Is that a way for anybody to live and bring up their children?
Another typical example is a young man who was thrown out of home at the age of 16, who has lived in hostels and had to give up his sixth form, was sofa surfing until he outstayed his welcome, got work but then had to leave work, was ripped off by landlords, has suffered punishing anxiety attacks and for the last year under covid has been sleeping rough. Is that any way to give a young person a start in life?
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate, Sir Edward, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who speaks with more authority than any of us on this issue.
Newham has the highest rate of homelessness in the country. We do not yet know how bad it has got this year, but last Christmas one in every 12 of Newham’s children was homeless. I am going to focus on a few typical cases today.
Let me tell hon. Members about Katie. Katie works on the frontline in our NHS. She has been frantically trying to find an affordable home, but nothing is available. Ever since the last time Katie was made homeless, she has had to rely on her family to house her and her two-year-old, but her toddler was getting older, the situation with her family became harder and this May, regardless of the eviction ban, Katie and her baby were kicked out. They are sofa-surfing to stay off the street and desperate for, in Katie’s words, “somewhere to call home.” What mum does not want that?
Katie tells me that the only temporary accommodation she was offered was in High Wycombe or Leeds, so Katie and her child have sofa-surfed and have had higher risks of infection. They have endured terrible insecurity and our local NHS faces losing a much-needed frontline worker. It is not just Katie; far from it. Many families have remained stuck in temporary accommodation without any sense of security or comfort, and they have been without a true home for horrifying lengths of time. I will give just a couple of my cases from this pandemic year.
A teaching assistant has lived with her children in a damp, noisy, polluted property, for two and half years and counting. A single mum has been living in one bedroom with her four-year-old daughter, with damp and rats, since 2015—five years and counting. A mum has been stuck in a two-bedroom flat with her three children, one of whom is disabled and with complex needs, for eight years and counting. A grandfather has been living in temporary accommodation with his adult children and his granddaughter for 14 years and counting. They are all in temporary accommodation. How much longer?
How much longer do we have to wait for a Government willing to build social housing at scale, who will not pinch pennies from the housing support that keeps our families off the streets. How much longer?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as the Chair today, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) who continues to champion the needs of the most vulnerable in our communities.
When someone comes into politics, they take the power given to them to bring about change. The Minister has the pen in her hand and has the power today to make a significant difference to all of our communities. We have to see a step change, because over the last decade we have seen homelessness and temporary accommodation use increase on such a scale. This is not about bricks and mortar; it is about people’s lives and their existence. They are challenged day by day by the system.
I call on the Minister to build those houses—not the luxury flats that are going up in my constituency that, quite frankly, nobody can afford to live in. We need to look at housing as a human right in a human rights city, such as York. That is my call today.
The Housing Minister has said that we have to evaluate the Housing First programme. It has already been evaluated by the University of York. Professor Nicholas Pleace has put that evaluation in place, so there is no excuse to delay. We need that rolling out because it makes a difference, ensuring that people have the stability of a home and the wrap-around support that is so vital. I want to focus on bringing those services together, around the individual, to meet their needs.
Some of the funding that the Government have brought forward has focused on taking people off the streets. It should be about settling people in stability in their lives and in their new homes. It is a perverse incentive because if the money is then withdrawn, because people are no longer on the streets, then there is not money to invest in people’s lives. It is absolutely crucial that we look at that to ensure that that money is ongoing.
I draw attention to the York system change network, which I met yesterday. We know that people have complex lives and needs, and that it is only when agencies come together that we can often solve those particular needs for individuals. In York we have a network of the police, mental health, community and voluntary sector organisations, the local authority and substance misuse services, that is there to break cycles in people’s lives and to work towards complex solutions. We should be championing those initiatives in order to drive down the complex issues that surround people when they are homeless.
The Minister has choices when she comes to respond to the debate, and I trust that she will, for once, give real hope that we will solve the homelessness and temporary accommodation crisis that we are facing in our country.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this important debate, her passionate speech and all the work that she does on this issue.
The work done by local authorities and voluntary sector organisations with additional funding under the Everybody In campaign at the start of the pandemic shows that homelessness is not inevitable, and that when there is the political will to end it great progress can be made. It is regrettable that the support shown at the start of the pandemic has not been sustained, and that many of those who had temporary respite are now back on the streets at a time when the weather is at its harshest and coronavirus is still circulating in the community.
I pay tribute to Crisis and the Robes Project. They work in my constituency, and will be working hard to bring people in from the cold again over the Christmas period, but I want to focus on the hidden homelessness crisis of temporary accommodation. The figures are stark. The numbers of households in temporary accommodation have been rising steadily since 2011, with 98,300 households in temporary accommodation in June this year, including 127,240 children. Those families are often in the worst accommodation available, with no stability or security, while councils pay over the odds to exploitative landlords.
The situation is a direct result of the dysfunctionality of the housing market, particularly but not exclusively in London, and the Government’s refusal to accept the reality of the gap between what the local housing allowance pays and what landlords actually charge. My constituency covers part of Lambeth and part of Southwark; I have figures from Southwark, but the situation is no different in Lambeth. The local housing allowance shared accommodation rate is £515.10 a month, but the median rent for a single room is £700—a gap of £184.90 a month.
For a one-bedroom flat, the LHA pays £1,146.86 a month compared with a median rent of £1,350—a gap of £203.14. For a three-bedroom home, the gap between what the LHA pays and median rent rises to £479.59. How does the Minister expect a family on a low income to find that additional rent? That is a very real, practical concern facing thousands of my constituents. The Government’s housing support policies simply ignore the reality of a housing market with spiralling rents.
There is much more to say, including on the dysfunctionality of our Dickensian immigration system, which traps people with no recourse to public funds for years at a time, while providing no timescale, certainty or closure on their applications. This Government, and Tory Governments for the past decade, have utterly failed to address our housing crisis, but it must be addressed. We need to build council homes and social housing at speed, but in the short term the Government must fix the affordability crisis and reform private renting to give security and stability to tenants, and stop so many people having to endure the misery of temporary accommodation.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for securing this vital debate. For many Members present, it need not be said how appalling it is that the debate needs to take place. Year on year, the number of people facing homelessness at Christmas rises, and we are yet to see any change from the Government.
More than 67,000 families and 136,000 children in England spent lockdown trapped in temporary accommodation—that is more than 100,000 children who will spend Christmas in temporary accommodation, which is often overcrowded and unfit for purpose. We spend a lot of energy talking about homelessness in terms of numbers and statistics. Yet the numbers alone are not landing, so let me interpret the data and speak about actual people. Children, friends, family members, colleagues, employees and, yes, some of my staff live in temporary accommodation. Furthermore, thousands of Erith and Thamesmead constituents are presently surviving statutory homelessness.
Let me tell Members the story of one of my constituents, a lone parent from Bexley who has been furloughed—a change of circumstances that has resulted in rent arrears, due to delays in housing benefit administration processes. She continually struggles with acute physical and mental health conditions, to the extent that she is now under the care of NHS psychiatrists and suffers from chronic pain caused by a spinal condition.
The local authority attempted to discharge its duty into the private sector. However, the property it offered was unsuitable on grounds of affordability. When I say this sentence, it sounds like it is a relatively straightforward process, with the words just sailing out of my mouth seamlessly: “the property was unsuitable on grounds of affordability”. But the lived experiences and the reality behind having to surmount such a challenge are traumatic and exhausting.
Families such as my constituent’s are really struggling. My constituent has been struggling to put food on her table as she was denied a discretionary housing payment. Her homelessness and struggles have had a surprising impact on her son, who is just eight years old. He went to school having soaked up all the stress imposed on the household by way of discharge of duties letters and eviction notices. The eviction dated 19 November was to go ahead smack in the middle of the second lockdown at a time when, according to the Government’s guidelines, evictions were not to go ahead. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and he replied:
“On 16 November we changed the law in England to ensure bailiffs do not enforce evictions”.
Why, in the midst of a global pandemic, was my constituent not supported to access increased housing benefit after being placed on furlough, which caused a 20% reduction in wages? Why was she not treated with compassion and supported to find suitable accommodation, given the needs of the family and their household finances?
I contacted Bexley council on the 17th to inform it and have yet to receive a response.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I want to start by saying to the Minister that in this room she has some of the best housing campaigners anywhere in the House. She has people with expertise, knowledge, passion and dedication—none more so than my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who has brought this debate to the Minister’s and to our attention, as she has throughout her time in this place.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham (Ms Brown) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) set out in chilling terms both the cost and the brutal reality of life in temporary accommodation. My hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Christina Rees), for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), and for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), have shown, as always, their determination and attention to detail in showing how their constituents need to be treated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who was instrumental in introducing the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, described today the spiralling rents and the impact of no recourse to public funds that still trap people in homelessness, despite that Act. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted how that is not only a problem for London, but across the country. So too did Government Members. We have heard them today calling for more social housing and for attention to rough sleeping. I respectfully say to the Minister that there is a lot of knowledge in this room, and I really hope she will commit to taking away every single suggestion and every bit of the passion and dedication shown by hon. Members across this room in order to prevent homelessness.
To prevent a crisis of the use of temporary accommodation, we have to start by saying that it is a civilised nation’s moral failing to have anyone on the streets and anyone in so-called temporary accommodation for anything other than what could genuinely be called temporary. It is a moral failing that we have misused both the words “temporary” and “affordable” to such an extent that people such as the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, who actually works in the NHS, is not able to find accommodation at a price she can afford.
Other hon. Members have given us statistics and facts and also case studies. I made a resolution when I first came to the House never to repeat what others have already said better, but the Minister needs to heed what has been said here today. By autumn 2019, despite the Homelessness Reduction Act, homeless households had increased in number to 87,410. By June 2020 there were considerably more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said, and that included 127,240 children in temporary accommodation—where they will not get anywhere decent to eat, play, do homework and study, or have anything approaching a family life. As so many Members have said, temporary does not seem to mean temporary. That is a moral failing, which I will say again at least once before the end of my remarks.
The public also need to know that despite the fact that councils are spending £1.19 billion on this temporary accommodation, people are living in the conditions hon. Members have described, with damp, roofs falling in, rodents and poor access to public services. As the National Audit Office has said, the cost to other public services of people living in such poor temporary accommodation includes the cost to the health service, admissions to hospital and admissions to out-patients. There are also the costs to the policing and justice systems when people fall into extreme difficulties through no fault of their own because they do not have the money to pay. The Department does not have a thorough system for assessing the additional costs and therefore does not currently know the full and true cost of homelessness in temporary accommodation and otherwise. It is therefore unable to quantify the benefit to us all of reducing homelessness. That must change.
The Children’s Commissioner this year concluded that living in a B&B has never been appropriate for a child but that the problems have been amplified during covid-19. We have to stop using covid-19 as any sort of cover for any of what is happening. It should have the opposite effect. Spending time in a B&B during covid-19 is bad for everyone. It is bad for health and education, and it is increasing inequality. I make no apology for speaking very much from the heart.
The Government showed earlier this year that political will makes a difference. The Everyone In call made a difference. It brought people in off the streets, and gave them somewhere warm, safe and dry to live. Then, however, things unfortunately went backwards, and councils that were told, “You will have whatever it takes,” found that that did not happen. Unfortunately—I repeatedly asked the Department for accurate figures—people who came on to the streets after Everyone In were frequently not included.
The situation for people with no recourse to public funds remained obscure and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham showed in his brilliant work on the Liaison Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee, which he so ably chairs, that affected a huge number of children and families, as well as single people. They were hard-working people who had done their best and were contributing to this country, and through no fault of their own they had a sudden catastrophic drop in income and got no help. My right hon. Friend had to explain that to the Prime Minister. I know that that is not true of the Minister, and that she understands what no recourse to public funds means. I hope that she will address the issue.
To solve the problem, as I said, we need to accept that it is a moral failing and that it is fixable. There should be some hope. We got hope today from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and I want the Minister to spread some hope as well today—I hope she will be able to do that—by saying, “Yes, it is a failing, but, yes, it is fixable,” because it has been demonstrated time and again that political will can provide answers to really difficult problems. We need to focus not just on the after-effects and what happens when people end up in temporary accommodation, but on prevention. There must be a relentless focus on increasing the supply and the true—not pretend—affordability of high-quality, warm, safe, dry, healthy net zero homes.
Ultimately, everyone in this Chamber, wherever in the country they represent and whatever political party they are in, knows that we have a chronic problem with the shortage of truly safe and affordable homes. That must be solved, and it is solvable, because in building back better—the language we are all using at the moment—there is scope to do that.
An example of where the Government could have done better was the long-awaited social housing White Paper, which was published without any commitment to building more social housing. I know that the reason for the White Paper was the Grenfell tragedy, and it was right that the Government committed to a great deal in it—to things that had to be there—but the lack of a commitment to building more social housing was duly noted.
I will write to the Minister with the questions that I have—there are a lot. However, I should like her to try to answer at least some of them now, if she can. I shall try to sum them up. How will the Minister represent to other Departments the need for additional support, such as Housing First to deal with homelessness, and other additional support, such as outlawing section 21 of the Housing Act 1988—the so-called no-fault evictions provision? Why not do that now? The Opposition have said that we would work with the Government to do that now, under emergency legislation.
Where is the renters reform Bill that the Government promised in the Queen’s Speech? When is it coming? What steps will the Minister take to reform and reduce the use of temporary accommodation, so that it is really temporary and is not used for the 14 years and more that some of my hon. Friends have talked about today? By what date does she hope to have eliminated—not reduced, but eliminated—the use of bed and breakfasts for anything other than extremely short emergencies, and never for families with children? Will she ensure that there is Housing First nationwide, as Conservative Members have asked for? Will she commit to high standards on quality and length of stay for temporary accommodation?
Will the Minister recommend to the Department for Work and Pensions that, for instance, local housing allowances increase to the average, at least for the life of this crisis, and that the mortgage interest loan scheme is brought forward earlier so that people are not waiting nine long months before they can get help? Will she consider the examples of what the Welsh Labour Government are doing to prevent homelessness during this crisis, which my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) mentioned? Will she commit to ensuring that her Department has good and accurate data on the full cost of homelessness to not only individuals and their families but public services and public health? Will the Minister explain to the constituents of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and to those of colleagues elsewhere in the Chamber, what she will do to deal with the quality of temporary accommodation, as described? Finally, will she commit to talking to her colleagues, so that they commit to ending the use of expensive, unsuitable and downright unsafe temporary accommodation, to solving the underlying problem of supply by building and retrofitting truly affordable, secure, safe homes, and to fighting to ensure that everybody has somewhere safe and affordable to live?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate on this important issue, which everybody has been pleased and willing to speak about with passion. She has spoken passionately about this topic before, including when we spoke last week about another element in this sphere. I am really grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken the time to attend and to speak on behalf of their constituents. I welcome the opportunity to address their points.
May I start by saying that I, too, am an MP who has worked hard for my constituents? I was very pleased to take on the role as Minister for homelessness, because of my involvement prior to being elected as a Member of Parliament. What I am hearing today is support for a lot of the work that the Government are doing, and a willingness and commitment in terms of the Government continuing to work to reach our objectives.
It is unacceptable that anyone should have to sleep rough. I recognise the incredible achievements in the last eight months by local councils and the homelessness sector—supported by this Government—meaning that in September we had successfully supported more than 29,000 vulnerable people during the pandemic, nearly 19,000 of whom have been provided with settled accommodation or move-on support.
I respect the hon. Member for Westminster North greatly, but I will have to disappoint her. I will outline further the funding that this Government have put into rough sleeping and homelessness. Although we say that this is not just about money, it is also about providing available funding and about what happens on the ground. We cannot ignore the unprecedented action that this Government have taken over recent months.
Our work on rough sleeping is not only world-leading, but has protected hundreds—
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We have spent an unprecedented amount of money, and we are continuing to invest in those pilots and schemes in order to tackle all parts of rough sleeping and homelessness. There is a distinction between what we have done with Everybody In and what we are doing with Housing First, with regard to our social housing pilots. We are talking about a vast landscape. We are committed to solving rough sleeping and dealing with homelessness. The funding from the Government is an incredibly important part of that, and so are the right interventions on the ground, delivered in the correct way. That is something that I have particularly focused on since I have been in this role.
The spending review demonstrates the Government’s commitment to build on the fantastic progress of Everyone In and to support rough sleepers and those at risk of homelessness during covid-19. Next year, we are going even further and will provide more than £750 million to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. That includes the additional funding to support frontline services through the rough sleeping initiative and to enable local councils to fund their statutory duties to prevent homelessness. We are also providing capital funding to continue our landmark drive to bring forward thousands of homes for rough sleepers. That will support our commitment to end rough sleeping in this Parliament and fully enforce the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.
On temporary accommodation, I am absolutely clear that we always want to see homeless individuals and families moved into settled accommodation as soon as possible and permanently. The action we are taking to increase the delivery of social housing will support that. I also recognise the important role that temporary accommodation can play in the meantime in ensuring that no family is ever without a roof over their head. Although the overall numbers of households in temporary accommodation have been rising, the number of households with children has remained relatively stable since the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act. However, I accept that we must go further. The increase in temporary accommodation numbers since the Act took effect has been almost entirely driven by single households receiving help that was previously unavailable to them. More recently, the increase has also been driven by our action to accommodate rough sleepers during the pandemic.
The Homelessness Reduction Act requires for the first time that local authorities, public services and the third sector work together actively to prevent and relieve homelessness for people at risk, irrespective of whether they are a family or a single person. That means that more single people are getting the help they need. They might otherwise have been on the streets. Since the introduction of the Act, 270,000 households have had their homelessness successfully prevented or relieved through securing accommodation for more than six months.
The hon. Member for Westminster North rightly raised the issue of the quality of temporary accommodation. In 2019, we gave £6.7 million to more than 180 local authorities to boost their enforcement in relation to quality on the ground.
Siobhain McDonagh
As the Minister will know, the code of guidance from her Department says that councils should not place families outside their borough boundaries, except in exceptional circumstances, but we know that 27,650 families were placed all over the country—most of them were from London, and some, I suspect, went to the Minister’s constituency—because of the problems. Will she consider introducing an Ofsted-style regulator to ensure that local authorities’ temporary housing practices are inspected?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and she is absolutely right. I am talking about enforcement on the ground. I appreciate and accept the issues that she is talking about—I have frontline experience of them. I am not trying to make excuses, but I have been in post for only two months. There are many issues that I want to shine a spotlight on with regard to rough sleeping and homelessness. That issue is worth investigating and looking at further. It has an impact on authorities outside London, which may be being put under pressure. I am prepared to look at that.
We have heard stories from hon. Members—they are not stories, but people’s experiences—about the quality of accommodation that people live in. It is unacceptable that people are living in damp conditions, and that they are not having their concerns and issues, which are being raised directly with housing associations or landlords, dealt with. That is why we gave tougher powers to local authorities to use. They can fine landlords up to £30,000 in penalties, issue rent repayment orders and ban landlords.
The other thing—I have seen this personally since being in this role—is that we agreed to review the housing health and safety rating system in 2019, which is the operational tool that local authorities use to assess accommodation. We have completed the first part of that, which will cover things such as fire, damp and excess cold in properties. We are commissioning some more work early next year. It is a highly technical tool, and I do not know whether Members have come across in their work with their local authorities, but I am always willing to talk further with them about it.
Where temporary accommodation is required local authorities have a duty to ensure that it is suitable for the applicant and all the members of the household who would normally reside with and who might reasonably be expected to reside with them. Consideration of whether accommodation is suitable will require an assessment of all aspects, and the location of the accommodation will always be, and should be, a relevant factor. We are clear that local authorities should, as far as possible, avoid placing households out of their boroughs. However, in some areas where there is a limited supply of suitable accommodation, we are aware that that is happening on occasion, as Members described. That is often done to place households in temporary accommodation, but that should really be a last resort. Housing authorities have a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review and to respond to any relevant changes in circumstances that may affect suitability. On request, applicants may ask for review of the housing authority’s decision that the accommodation offered to them is suitable.
Siobhain McDonagh
On that point, can I raise a small example? Councils all over south London were using a converted warehouse in my constituency. When we approached Bexley council and said, “Do you know that you are placing your families in the middle of an industrial estate?” it said, “We wouldn’t do that. We just never checked it.” It is not that councils do not want to do these things; it is that they are overwhelmed. If councils have 5,000 families in temporary accommodation, they are not doing any checking of the temporary accommodation, because they simply cannot manage it. Unless councils have a regulator that inspects them and forces them to do this, it is not going to happen.
Kelly Tolhurst
If Members have particular concerns about local authorities, such as the concern the hon. Lady has mentioned, I am more than happy to meet them and to take those concerns up personally. However, it is true that local authorities have the powers I set out, and we must all work together so that they are used on the ground.
The Government have been clear that the long-term use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families with children is both inappropriate and unlawful, and we are determined to stop this practice. To help local authorities deliver their new duties under the Homelessness Reduction Act, the Government created a team of specialist advisers with expertise in the homelessness sector to support and challenge local authorities in tackling homelessness in their area, at the same time as supporting councils to deliver a transformation in their homelessness services. This team of specialists has also helped local authorities to deliver a 28% reduction in the number of families housed in bed and breakfast accommodation for longer than six weeks.
As many hon. Members have mentioned, a key part of achieving our ambition to reduce homelessness and end rough sleeping will be building the homes this country needs, closing the opportunity gap and helping millions of young people into home ownership. We have committed to delivering 300,000 new homes every year by the mid-2020s. We will deliver that by committing at least £44 billion of funding over five years to build more homes. We have extended the current £9 billion affordable homes programme to March 2023, to secure the delivery of homes that would otherwise have been lost due to covid-19. This programme will deliver around 250,000 affordable homes.
Andy Slaughter
I am glad the Minister has come on to talk about mass house building programmes, but will she specifically address social housing? There are really good social housing estates in my constituency. Some were built by charities 150 years ago or as “homes fit for heroes”. Others were built as garden estates or through slum clearance. Some were even built by the Labour council in the 1980s and 1990s, which I can take some of the credit for. Where are the new quality estates of hundreds and thousands of units of social housing? What are her plans for that?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about social housing, but we must also accept that within the realm of affordable housing there are different categories: social rented, shared ownership and affordable rent. I know that he accepts that when we are talking about a national problem and challenge, there are different needs and drivers in different parts of the country. It is important that in our drive to deliver on those numbers, local areas can have an impact to ensure we get their needs right and deliver the properties and accommodation that are required on the ground, which may not be the same in different parts of the country. We are committed to that.
We have launched the successor programme of £11.5 billion. I will not apologise for talking about money, because it is a key part of the delivery of our objectives and being able to build more homes. The £11.5 billion affordable homes programme will deliver up to 180,000 additional affordable homes, if economic conditions allow. At least 10% of that delivery will be used to increase the supply of much-needed specialist or supported housing.
Stephen Timms
I welcome the Minister’s agreement to look at the idea of a regulator. Will she consider the idea of setting standards for temporary accommodation for that regulator to monitor?
Kelly Tolhurst
As I have outlined, we have a lot of opportunities to look at how much further we can go and for further intervention. As I have said many times since I have been in this role, I am open-minded and I will look at ways in which we can tackle the issue that we face. However, I must emphasise that I do not recognise the characterisation that this Government are not moving forward. We are taking great steps in tackling those issues. We are announcing funding and talking about the biggest house building project in decades. I believe that we are taking our responsibilities incredibly seriously.
Thangam Debbonaire
The Minister is being incredibly generous in giving way. Does she accept that whatever is ahead in future decades, her party has been in charge for the past decade, so they must take some responsibility for how we have ended up where we are today? [Interruption.]
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I remind the Minister to leave a reasonable amount of time at the end.
Kelly Tolhurst
Thank you, Sir Edward. I recognise that this Government are responsible for ensuring that we are able to develop policies and tackle some of the challenges this country faces. However, I would like to talk about what we are doing, what we have done and what we will continue to focus on. We could talk about what successive Governments have and have not done. I am speaking as Minister today about what we are doing moving forward. Throughout the pandemic, we have provided unprecedented support to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected and our communities are kept safe.
Kelly Tolhurst
I will not give way now. I take issue with the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) when he says that the Everyone In campaign has stopped—I do not recognise that. The ongoing Everyone In campaign has been a huge success and we are determined to ensure that people supported during the pandemic do not return to the streets.
The Next Steps accommodation programme provides vital funding to help people move on from emergency accommodation. In September, £91.5 million was allocated to 274 councils across England to pay for immediate support for those individuals.
In October, we announced the allocation to local partners to deliver long-term move-on accommodation. More than 3,300 new long-term homes for rough sleepers across the country have been approved, subject to the due diligence, and backed by £150 million. In response to the period of national restrictions, the Prime Minister announced last month the Protect programme—the next step in our ongoing targeted support for rough sleepers. It provides £15 million to support the areas that need it most to address housing and health challenges for rough sleepers throughout the winter months. That is on top of the £10 million cold weather fund that we are providing for all councils for covid-secure accommodation this winter.
We have supported renters to ensure that they can continue to afford their housing costs. The Government have put in place a package of support. We have quickly and effectively introduced a significant package of welfare. Those measures include increasing universal credit and working tax credit by £1,040 a year for 12 months, and significant investment in local housing allowance of nearly £1 billion at the 30th percentile of those rates. Obviously, the discretionary housing fund payments were made available and, in a short time, Ministers in DWP will be able to make those decisions.
Ms Buck
We could have had a whole day of debate on this important and wide-ranging subject. We heard a number of superb speeches. I hope that we will return to this because a number of questions remain to be answered by the Minister. The cold, brutal and inescapable fact is that we are going backwards. We are going backwards on homelessness. It has risen by 14% in a year and by half in a decade. Rough sleeping has doubled in a decade.
Everyone In showed that the rough sleeping problem can be tackled. It ended and we now have people back on the streets. Local councils should not place people out of borough, but they are. What is the Minister going to do about it? Two thirds of my homeless households are placed out of borough. Local authorities should not be placing them in temporary accommodation in the conditions that we heard about in my examples and others, but they are. We have a proposal to do something about it. Will the Minister take that up?
The Government can talk about how much they have spent. They have cut housing support, social housing, assistance for renters, and the local housing allowance. They cut the social security budget by £9 billion in 2015 alone. That is why we are in the state we are in and why 1.1 million people are on council housing waiting lists. We have not heard answers; we have just what is being done. It is clearly failing.
Can we meet the Minister? Can we return to this issue and take forward the Opposition’s positive proposals to find a way to help our desperate homeless constituents?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered homelessness and temporary accommodation.
Covid-19: Lung Cancer Pathway
(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on the lung cancer pathway.
The effect of the covid-19 outbreak on the lung cancer pathway is of real concern and has been brought into sharp focus by the UK Lung Cancer Coalition’s report, “Covid-19 Matters”. I will refer to that report as well as to discussions with Martin Grange, Professor Mick Peake OBE and Dr Robert Rintoul from the coalition.
When we discuss health matters in Parliament, we often focus on policies, funding and statistics. Of course, those are important, and I will discuss them later, but when we speak about a specific disease that most people will have little knowledge of, we should explain its impact on patients and their loved ones. In doing that, I will share a real example of a lung cancer case. The patient concerned had a persistent cough for a few weeks. After prompting from their family, they went to see the GP. The GP prescribed some medication and advised them to come back in two weeks if the cough persisted. It did. The GP sent the patient for an X-ray and, the next day, called the patient in to see him. It did not look good—there appeared to be a large tumour in the right lung, and it had spread.
The patient was given an urgent referral to the local acute hospital. Tests were done, and they confirmed stage 4 small cell lung cancer, which had also spread to the rib, liver and lymph glands. The consultant told the family as sensitively as he could that it was terminal and that, at best, the patient would have six to nine more months of life. The oncologist said he wanted the patient to try some chemotherapy, but it had risks. If a patient gets an infection, it could cause serious complications. Unfortunately, the patient developed an infection and was rushed to hospital the following day, very poorly and in great pain.
The hospital gets the pain management wrong. The patient is admitted, but it is another 24 hours before the pain management team sees the patient to get control of the situation. A “no resuscitation” form is signed, but the patient recovers from the infection and goes home. However, more infection occurs in the lung. The lung collapses and the infection gets worse, filling the lung with pus, and the smell is awful. The patient must go to another hospital to have a drain inserted into their chest, but it does not always drain the pus in the way intended, so the patient needs to return to the hospital on several occasions to have the drain looked at. As the lung has filled up with so much fluid, it occasionally needs to be drained by the brilliantly caring specialist nurse practitioners. Despite all that, the patient finds some inner strength in the final few weeks and manages a bit of travel to tick off a couple of things on their bucket list. They then give a knowing nod to the family to say, “I assured you that I could do it.”
Then there is the inevitable weight loss, loss of appetite and puffing up of the face from steroids. After being reduced by one course of chemotherapy, the cancer comes back with a vengeance and quickly spreads to many parts of the body. The family feel helpless and just want to do everything they can to help support the patient and show their love. The patient is brave and more concerned about the impact on their children than on themselves. The pain management and care from the GPs and district nursing team is exceptional. Eventually, in just 48 hours, matters take a turn for the worse. On the final day, in a matter of hours, the patient slips into unconsciousness. The end comes, just over six months from diagnosis. The family feel numb, and the intense grief and sadness take over. This is the reality of lung cancer.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of death in the UK. Approximately 35,000 people die every year with lung cancer, which is more than the figure for breast cancer and bowel cancer combined. Despite the high mortality associated with lung cancer, it is not the most common cancer in the country. Breast cancer is the most common cancer but is generally diagnosed earlier—by stage 2—resulting in a much higher survival rate. That is not the case for lung cancer. Some 49% of lung cancer patients are diagnosed at stage 4. Late diagnosis is the main reason why lung cancer is the cause of most cancer deaths in the UK. Patients present so late because symptoms do not appear until stages 3 or 4
Like other cancers, the earlier the detection, the more likely the survival. Only 19% of lung cancer patients will survive beyond one year if they are diagnosed when the disease has spread. We know that the people most likely to suffer with lung cancer are 55 and over. They are likely to live in an area with high pollution levels and to have been a smoker at some point in their life. As the lungs are so large, symptoms often become apparent only in the latter stages, which results in small tumours, cancerous or benign, having no instant impact on the person. It is only when the tumour grows larger that it begins to affect the lungs’ ability to function, which is when and why the coughing begins. Something as simple as a cough is often the first symptom when a patient sees their GP, but they might be sent away with antibiotics. As symptoms present so late, the speed of diagnosis is of the utmost importance. As we exit the pandemic, it is likely that we will see a backlog of lung cancer cases.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is giving a very powerful and articulate description of the appalling disease that is cancer. The petition that forms the basis of today’s debate comes from my constituent Andrew Jenkinson, whose wife Emma sadly died of brain cancer during the pandemic. His concern regards the ongoing issue of patients receiving cancer treatment during the difficult period that we are in. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in paying tribute to Mr Jenkinson for the tireless work he has done to bring this issue to people’s attention not only at the local level in my constituency of Bury North, but nationally?
Derek Twigg
I will of course pay tribute to Mr Jenkinson, and I offer him my condolences on his loss. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point about the impact of the pandemic on cancer treatment and survival, and I will shortly address that in more detail.
It is vital that we do not take risks with people’s health and that we ensure that a proactive approach is taken. There is widespread concern that, during the covid-19 pandemic, there have been too few face-to-face appointments. Lung cancer experts have told me that they believe that face-to-face appointments are important for referring people for urgent fast-track checks, and that they should resume as soon as possible. GPs need to see patients and patients need to know that they are receiving a full and thorough examination when they present to their doctor with problems.
My constituency has one of the highest lung cancer rates in the country. It is also a hotspot for other respiratory diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. Widnes and Runcorn are old industrial towns that are famous for their former Imperial Chemical Industries plants. Many of the older generation suffer from the pollution that they inhaled as children and young adults. Those people, who were also encouraged to smoke in the 1950s and 1960s, are most likely to suffer from lung cancer. Simply, the situation that they find themselves in, through an accident of birth, puts them at a higher risk of developing lung cancer.
It is not widely known that people who have never smoked can also be the subject of the disease. In fact, non-smoker lung cancer is the eighth biggest cancer killer in the country and is responsible for about 6,000 deaths a year—I was shocked to find that out. We have come to believe that only people who have smoked can develop lung cancer, but that is simply not the case.
In an article for the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Anand Bhopal, Michael Peake, David Gilligan and Paul Cosford discuss never-smoker lung cancer, which they note is increasing in absolute and relative terms compared with the decline in smoking. Their research shows that, although second-hand smoking is a contributing factor, it is not the main reason for that. They also note that never-smokers feel a stigma about their diagnosis. We must work to destigmatise lung cancer, particularly as the number of never-smoker patients rises. At the same time, publicity campaigns would help to raise the profile of that silent killer among never-smokers. As we know, there has been some good progress in the battle against second-hand smoking.
[Yvonne Fovargue in the Chair]
It is not only never-smoker lung cancer patients who need to be destigmatised, but smokers and ex-smokers, who can feel blamed for having lung cancer. As I said, decades ago—for a generation of people—it was acceptable to smoke. There needs to be more support and positive encouragement to quit. The message should ultimately be that it is better to be safe than sorry.
GPs need to make more referrals for chest X-rays to increase the chance of early diagnosis. They should screen patients to target those most at risk, and the Government should provide them with more resources. X-rays are relatively inexpensive and quick for the NHS to perform. They are often available in the local community, as is the case in my constituency, so they cause little if any inconvenience to the patient.
The pandemic will have adversely affected the detection of lung cancer. As we know, a new continuous cough is one of the main symptoms of covid-19. It is not unreasonable to suggest that people out there could have been suffering with, and potentially died from, lung cancer during the pandemic without any diagnosis or treatment. They could also have presented too late. It is vital that people who have had a cough for longer than three weeks see their GP.
There was a staggering 75% drop in the number of patients urgently referred to lung cancer specialists during the first wave of the pandemic. During that time, 55% of UK lung cancer specialist nurses or team members were redeployed or unable to work as a result of covid-19. It is estimated in the UK Lung Cancer Coalition’s “Covid-19 Matters” report that at least one third of lung cancer patients have already died since the beginning of the pandemic. There is also a chance that some of those deaths were labelled as covid-19 due to similar symptoms.
The Government should heed the advice of the UK Lung Cancer Coalition and pilot a “Be clear on lung cancer and covid-19” campaign to increase awareness of potential lung cancer symptoms and increase the confidence of the public across the UK to engage with the healthcare system early. The UK Lung Cancer Coalition also wants national NHS bodies to support the resumption of lung cancer screening programmes at the earliest opportunity. When will they resume? There was a report in the Health Service Journal yesterday of a shortage of equipment and staff.
The UK Lung Cancer Coalition pushed to increase the five-year survival rate from 16.2% in 2017 to 25% by 2025. It felt that target was achievable, but now believes that is unattainable by 2025 because of the pandemic. It is clear that the pandemic has had, and will continue to have, a detrimental effect on lung cancer patients.
Lung cancer patients are also at particular risk of contracting viral infections such as covid-19 because of their underlying condition and the immunosuppression associated with many lung cancer treatments. The Health Service Journal reported yesterday that, since the start of the financial year, two-week wait referrals for lung cancer stand at 18,400, down 42% from 32,000, in the same period last year.
Paula Chadwick, the chief executive of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, told me that since the start of the pandemic it has seen the requirement for support significantly increase. Calls to its Ask the Nurse helpline have risen by 93%, with patients and carers understandably anxious, with questions about shielding, diagnosis and treatments. Recognising the effect of covid on lung cancer, the foundation took action, accelerating and extending its activity for the Lung Cancer Awareness Month campaign. It also launched the Still Here campaign, with the aim of increasing awareness of the disease and symptoms—as the foundation says, for example, a cough does not just mean covid—and encouraging those with symptoms to contact their GP.
Going forward, we need a strategy that gets us back on target to achieve the five-year survival rate of 25% set by the Lung Cancer Coalition. We need campaigns to encourage people to visit their GP if they have symptoms of lung cancer, especially if they live in high-risk areas. The battle to end lung cancer will be a long and painful journey. Every year that we fail to reach the 25% target, people will be dying who would have had a longer life. Memories that could have been made will be taken away. Families that could have been spared grief will have to endure the pain of losing a loved one. That needs urgent action, before that progress turns out to have been made in vain.
In summary, lung cancer should be a top priority as we move out of the pandemic. A shocking 75% fall in urgent referrals is deeply worrying. We must ensure that urgent referrals are at the pre-pandemic level as soon as possible. We need the return of face-to-face consultations, so that patients can have confidence in the treatment they are receiving and the right diagnosis. We need to ensure that places such as Halton, which has a high prevalence of lung cancer, are prioritised for a programme of targeted screening and chest X-rays.
That would mean targeted campaigns, such as those suggested by the UK Lung Cancer Coalition, to encourage those at risk to see their GP, while also encouraging GPs to take a more cautious approach, when someone in an at-risk group presents with a cough, in the years and months to come.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on securing the debate and sharing patients’ stories, showing not only the huge care delivered by the NHS workforce but the challenges for patients, as they struggle to get a diagnosis and navigate the system. In the patient’s story that the hon. Gentleman articulated, there was already spread: not only was the disease at stage 4 but was metastatic, so affected different sites in the body.
All these things pose a challenge, and the hon. Gentleman very articulately laid out the challenges of late diagnosis and how we can improve. The UK Lung Cancer Coalition report articulated how we must not lose the progress that we have seen over the past 10 to 15 years, but must absolutely focus on the aim to extend survival up to 2025. I hope I can reassure him that the initial measures that we took at the beginning of the pandemic, because we did not know what we were dealing with, have not been the focus since June, when we began to refocus and double our efforts on trying to ensure that cancer patients can have full access to services.
There are still some challenges. I have had conversations with thoracic surgeons. There are particular challenges with the trajectory of this disease, because of where it is on the body and some of the aerosol-generating procedures that are needed in diagnosis and so on. I can say to the hon. Member frankly and honestly that we are aware of those issues and we are working hard to get back not just to where we were, but, as I think Professor Peake said, to a normal that is better than what we had at the start.
I also pay tribute to the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), Andrew Jenkinson, and add my condolences for the sad loss of his wife. I congratulate him on his energy in campaigning. It is often the biggest tribute someone can give to a person they love, to try to drive forward and make things better for others.
James Daly
I thank the Minister for those kind comments, which will mean a lot to Mr Jenkinson. His petition is titled:
“Ensure access to treatment and screening for all cancer patients during Covid-19”.
We know there have been challenges and the pandemic has thrown up things we never dreamt we would be dealing with. Will my hon. Friend offer some assurance that the issues that Mr Jenkinson highlights in his petition are being addressed and that there are positive signs going forward?
Jo Churchill
I will indeed come to that, and hopefully give him and others the reassurance that we are focusing hard on making sure that we not only deliver, but learn from the pandemic. That was highlighted in the Lung Cancer Coalition report as well. Where we can make improvements to speeding up delivery of diagnoses or treatment, we need to make sure that we do so.
Lung cancer is one of the country’s most invidious cancers and it is important that it is diagnosed as early as possible, for treatment to be successful. As the hon. Member for Halton highlighted, it is one of the worst cancers for being diagnosed too late, largely at stage 4, and it has often spread. The challenge then is that treatment options are reduced because of the grade of the cancer.
When someone does present, it is vital that they are referred swiftly for further diagnostics, remembering that we are in a pandemic with a disease that attacks the respiratory system as much as anything. I have stood here talking about teenage cancers and diagnostics and treatments already this week. Not all cancers are the same; they all need a bespoke approach. It is important to remember that.
I spoke to a thoracic surgeon at the cancer hub during the summer. He explained to me in some detail the challenges, but also the opportunities now before us. I thank the cancer workforce for all that they have done through the pandemic and their continued effort to restore services. It has been a herculean effort and they have really flexed the service, joining together in cancer hubs and ensuring that areas are covid-secure for patients. Part of the challenge is to encourage patients to come forward for tests. If someone has a persistent cough, or signs of other cancers, they need to do something about it.
I spoke in the debates yesterday and this morning, and I know only too well the devastation that Mr Jenkinson must be feeling. The particular concern with lung cancer is the overlap with covid-19 symptoms. That was highlighted in the Lung Cancer Coalition report and by a plethora of clinicians. To that end, we have updated 111 protocols. If somebody has received a negative covid test but has a persistent cough, it may indicate lung cancer and they are directed to appropriate clinical care. One challenge has been a sustained fall in people coming forward for lung checks, with the number of people seeking checks at only 76% of pre-pandemic levels. This is about ensuring that we encourage people to come forward, driving forward campaigns such as the Greater Manchester Cancer Alliance and the Northern Cancer Alliance’s campaign “Do It For Yourself”. Ensuring that people are aware of the signs and symptoms is really important, and has an impact on the number of lung cancers diagnosed and treatments started. I cannot stress enough that if individuals do not come forward, we cannot get them into the optimal pathway, which has shown real improvements in how we can help people through their cancer journey.
I was pleased with the £150 million of capital funding issued to regions in October to invest in diagnostic equipment such as MRI and CT scanners. Again, that was very much called for. I know that instant referral to a CT scan is an objective of the report, but getting the equipment so that we can start to deliver quicker routes is part of the issue. The further £325 million for new diagnostic equipment in the spending review, once we know exactly how it is going to be allocated, will, I hope, result in more delivery of diagnostics into cancer care. It is vital that we use that money to maximise equipment in as many places as possible so that individuals can be treated as rapidly as possible.
We know that access to earlier diagnostic screening improves clinical outcomes and that the late stage is really one of the challenges. That is why I am really pleased to see the hugely successful pilots of the targeted lung health check programme rolled out. Those pilots offered places such as supermarket car parks and lorries where people could easily access a check, particularly in areas of high prevalence or high inequalities, making it as simple as possible for somebody to get a check. There were dramatic improvements in those attending and huge upturns in the number of people diagnosed. The pilots were paused due to covid-19, but I am really keen that we turbo-charge them now that we have them back on track, so that they operate more broadly as soon as is safely possible. The programme will be rolled out to 23 clinical commissioning groups, focused on areas with some of the highest rates of mortality from lung cancer.
Because I am short of time, I will not repeat what the hon. Member for Halton said, but we know that we have regional variation, and we need to target more effectively for lung cancer where we have those problems. It is important that we do that geographically in the light of the need to minimise trips to the hospital, particularly for people who may be more vulnerable to covid-19. Radiotherapy services have made use of fewer fraction protocols as evidence has emerged.
The focus on recovery has been on embedding the use of hypofractionated treatment. In addition, the NHS is supporting providers to accelerate the delivery of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer and oligometastatic indications, starting with the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. In some cases, that is an alternative to surgery. Again, I think the report picked up on that. The challenge is that if someone gets covid-19 at the same time as they are having the surgery, it dramatically increases the mortality rate.
It was right to react at speed. Where clinicians say, “We need to be doing it this way,” we have tried to give the direction so that they can. Individuals can safely go to their GPs. If people have worrying symptoms that could be cancer, GPs are open for business and ready to help patients. It is about ensuring that the “Help us help you” campaign from earlier in the year delivers and gets more people coming through the door so that we can treat them quicker.
Jo Churchill
Yes, of course. Are we allowed the extra minute or two, Ms Fovargue?
Derek Twigg
Just on the issue of GPs, it is important that they see these types of patients face to face.
Jo Churchill
Indeed, and GPs stand willing and ready to see those patients and give them care. Ensuring that they can refer quickly has been part of this drive.
The cancer recovery taskforce, led by Professor Peter Johnson and involving cancer charities, clinicians and other expert stakeholders, is also driving to meet some of the objectives to which the hon. Gentleman alluded: ensuring that we get people into treatment as quickly as possible, that systems and pathways are clear and understandable for the patient and that we do see that capacity rise.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Broadband Rollout: Devon and Somerset
(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the rollout of broadband in Devon and Somerset.
I want to start by speaking about the importance of broadband. Covid-19 has accelerated the need for faster broadband connections. Whether it is for online voting in Parliament, meeting on Zoom or online shopping, we are more reliant than ever on the internet. Even I have taught myself how to use Zoom—you will not realise what that involved, Ms Fovargue. Doing Zoom meetings in the office or at home on the farm has had the added benefit of my being able to put up the Devon flag behind me.
Living on a farm, I am fortunate to have been connected through a fibre-to-the-premises connection in the last few weeks, but I want all my constituents in Tiverton and Honiton to have the same. Unfortunately, the rollout of broadband has been anything but superfast and too many people do not have access to superfast connections. Nationally, 95% of premises can receive a superfast broadband speed, but in Tiverton and Honiton the figure is just 82%. We are 627th out of constituencies in the UK, and we are 9th lowest in England for superfast availability. In Bampton, just 60% of properties have superfast broadband access. In Beer, it is just 68%. In Kilmington, Colyton and Uplyme, it is just 39%.
Two other constituencies in Devon—Torridge and West Devon, and Central Devon—have even lower superfast broadband speeds available than Tiverton and Honiton. And I expect that my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and for East Devon (Simon Jupp) will probably say that the connection there is not brilliant. It is bound to be brilliant in Totnes, of course.
I appreciate that the constituencies in Devon and Somerset are rural, but the Government have been making promises on this matter for years. In 2010, when I first became an MP, the coalition Government promised that the UK would have the best superfast broadband in Europe by 2015. The UK is currently 13th in Europe, behind Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. In 2015, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who is now the Prime Minister, arrived in Parliament and quickly became co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on broadband and digital communication. He will know more than most that the rollout of broadband has been far too slow, complicated and bureaucratic. In fairness to the Prime Minister, he has put resources in to put that right.
In Devon and Somerset, we have seen Connecting Devon and Somerset promising—again—the world for years, but consistently missing its own deadlines, avoiding scrutiny and then putting out press releases about how fantastically well everything is going. I am afraid there is very little credibility left. In 2012, £27 million of state aid funding was provided by the Government to fund the Connecting Devon and Somerset phase 2 rollout of superfast broadband, and we were all very excited by it. That was eight years ago, and there has not been a great deal of progress since.
In November 2014, Connecting Devon and Somerset launched its first invitation to tender for phase 2, but cancelled it the next month. In 2015, CDS began negotiations with BT Openreach to hand it all phase 2 contracts. Those negotiations then collapsed: BT said that CDS was not prepared to pay enough money, and CDS claimed that BT was not investing enough of its own. There was great history between both organisations. I imagine the fault was on both sides, but that is a real problem.
Further on, in December 2016, five phase 2 contracts were awarded to Gigaclear, and one in north Devon was awarded to Airband. I will put my hand on my heart and say that I was happy to bring in Gigaclear, but listen to what happened next: in September 2018, CDS suspended all five Gigaclear contracts after Gigaclear requested an extension. There is no doubt that Gigaclear overstretched and was under-capitalised, but, again, that extension request beyond the completion date of 31 December 2020. Now we would think that that date was quite close, would we not, Minister?
In December 2019, after cancelling the Gigaclear contracts, CDS launched another tendering process to award the phase 2 contracts. The announcement was meant to be made last month, but we are still waiting for it—all the time, there are delays. Instead of blaming other people for their failures, we need full transparency from those at Connecting Devon and Somerset, and we need the Minister to whip them into shape. I know that the Minister has put someone from his Department on the CDS board, but he ought to take over the board if he wants to make any difference. I do not believe in taking prisoners, as the Minister knows, and I have no intention of taking prisoners today, because I have lived through all this. I actually supported CDS in the past, but it has not delivered.
Throughout the process, there has been great concern about value for money. I am glad that we have a responsible local council in Devon that always thinks carefully about taxpayers’ money, but because of the delays over the last eight years, constituents have had no option but to pay for alternatives. Business and residents have had to pay Openreach themselves to move into the 21st century, forming community fibre partnerships. I pay great tribute to those who have done so and to the Government for putting forward the voucher system.
We have had other entrants into the market, such as Jurassic Fibre, which has connected a lot in Honiton and Axminster and has done a good job. Great companies such as Jurassic Fibre are trying to connect people with faster broadband because the local government scheme is failing to act quickly enough. Of course, as we connect all those industrial states and take out the bigger sections, we are also making it more expensive to deliver the whole project. Every year, as we delay, it basically gets more expensive.
Even if CDS did manage to announce new phase 2 contracts this side of Christmas, we have already been told that there is a six-month implementation period. How much longer an implementation period do we need, Minister? We have had eight years already! Then, the contracts will take at least four years to complete, taking us to 2024. Is that acceptable, Minister? Was the whole point of cancelling the Gigaclear contracts not that December 2020 was too late? Now we are talking about 2024.
Surely, the system is far too bureaucratic and slow. I know that this is very politically incorrect, but was it not George Bernard Shaw who said, “If you lose one wife, that’s acceptable. If you lose two, that’s careless”? How many contracts does CDS need to lose before it is considered careless? Like I say, it is all terribly politically incorrect, but hon. Members can see the point I am making.
What more can be done to bring CDS to heel and speed up the entire process? We need to build in the more rural and disadvantaged areas of the UK, where the commercial market will not build without subsidy. That is what the Minister and the Government have been doing.
I understand that we have set £5 billion of funding to deliver broadband to the final 20% of properties that will not be reached by the commercial networks, but in the 2020 spending review last week the Chancellor allocated just £1.2 billion of that funding for the years 2020 to 2025. Will the Minister please explain why that funding seems to have been cut? Will it be replaced? The Government have also downgraded their ambitions in the national infrastructure strategy to 85% gigabit-capable coverage by 2025, instead of 100%. Again, why has that happened?
The danger is that broadband companies will concentrate on building their networks in areas where they can make a commercial return—who can blame them for that?—and put their plans for rural Britain on the backburner. When the other companies that are building in my constituency are asked about the Blackdown hills, all of a sudden they go very quiet and say, “That may take a little longer.”
I thank the Minister for being here today—I am sure he is enjoying it. We all want to get broadband to our constituents. I have made light of it, but far too many mistakes have been made over the past 10 years and I want to avoid that happening again. What reassurances can the Minister give my constituents today that the Government, through Connecting Devon and Somerset, have a workable plan that will deliver, change lives for the better and connect them and the constituents of my fellow MPs from Devon and Somerset? Joking aside, it has been too long. A lot of public money has been put into it and it has not delivered. Not all the problems are with Connecting Devon and Somerset, but it has been a very sorry story. I do not want to come here in a few years’ time to make the same speech and say, “We’ve wasted more years.” Please, Minister, can we have some answers today?
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). As ever, he is dauntless in his defence of and support for our rural communities. I congratulate him on securing this debate.
I seem to be the only representative of Somerset here, so I will fly the flag as best I can. I do not disagree with anything that my hon. Friend said, but Connecting Devon and Somerset, Somerset County Council and the Government have achieved some things in improving connectivity for us. They have connected more premises than any other English programme. Coverage is now 90%, and more than 300,000 homes and businesses have decent broadband. CDS has nearly 5,700 broadband vouchers out on the streets, which is 7% of all UK vouchers, I understand.
Despite all that has been achieved so far, there is still a great deal more to be done. The mistakes that my hon. Friend highlighted are all too apparent. It is still the case that too many homes and businesses across our counties do not have access to decent broadband speeds, and the pandemic has shown even more clearly that digital connectivity is like being connected to water or electricity—it is an essential utility and a vital service.
Sadly, I see people’s frustrations—particularly those from rural and very rural areas, like much of my patch—weighing heavily in my inbox every day. I am sure Openreach is sick of my letters and emails, but tackling those frustrations is crucial for the communities that I am proud to represent.
Rural communities throughout the UK—Somerset is no exception—suffer from a productivity gap with urban areas and, as I said in last month’s debate on the rural productivity gap, the answer lies in technology and infrastructure. Even before lockdown, a quarter of the rural population worked from home, and that will only increase, but Somerset is sprinkled with areas that have unreliable, intermittent or very slow connectivity—including my own house. If small and medium-sized enterprises are the engine of the rural economy, how can we get that engine started and running smoothly?
Investment in those rural dead zones is of course great news. The shared rural network agreement is another step forward, but there is still the idea that the rural economy is all based around agriculture. Actually, alongside agriculture, there are huge numbers of blossoming, blooming, burgeoning start-ups and growing businesses. For example, the logistics and supply-chain company Vallis Commodities in my own Frome utterly depends on Somerset’s digital infrastructure. We must stoke those businesses’ fires and feed them the nutrients they need—if I am not mixing my metaphors.
The Government were elected on a promise to level up the UK, and I hugely welcome the investment in physical infrastructure that the south-west is beginning to see, with the dualling of the A303—finally—being a great example and a huge relief. In my constituency, I am delighted that we have got the Restore Your Railways feasibility funding for a new station between Somerton and Langport. We are starting to bridge the physical divide in the country, which will pay great dividends, but our counties have vast untapped economic potential, and it is the digital divide that needs to be bridged for that to be truly unlocked. With every passing day, the divide grows and becomes more and more impassable. So my message to the Minister is: come on folks, let’s get building.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I thank my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for securing the debate. I hope he will not mind me highlighting his personal interest in the issue: on weekly calls among Devon MPs, we often miss his contributions because his internet falls down. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the challenges we face as a region and highlight the need to improve connections across our two counties.
We must deliver superfast broadband across East Devon, not least because many more people are working from home and—let us face it—some will not return to the office. For far too long, East Devon has suffered from delayed contracts and patchy upgrades. It is not acceptable for anyone in Sidmouth, Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton, Topsham, Ottery St Mary, Cranbrook, St Loyes, Whimple, Clyst St Mary or any village in East Devon to be unable to make a video call or watch a TV programme using a decent internet connection in 2020. Feniton and Whimple, for instance, have only 63% superfast availability with download speeds of at least 30 megabits per second as defined by Ofcom. That compares with 97% for Exmouth.
Given the failures of Gigaclear, covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, to roll out superfast broadband under the Connecting Devon and Somerset programme, Jurassic Fibre is plugging some of the gap successfully for a large part of East Devon, stretching from Clyst St George to Exmouth. I commend Jurassic Fibre for cracking on and connecting more of East Devon, but in the village of Farringdon, internet download speeds have been less than 5 megabits per second. One of the village’s first upgrades earlier this year was LittlePod, who manufacture and export around the world a special kind of vanilla paste, as the International Trade Secretary saw at first hand this time last year. It now has a 500 megabits per second business connection—and I am extremely envious.
The reason I talk about that private sector involvement —ostensibly just one commercial provider in a portion of Devon and Somerset—is because it has made a real difference. Connecting Devon and Somerset, working with Devon County Council, will have to plug the gaps in commercially funded networks. Clearly, as has been highlighted in the debate, there is more to do on all fronts.
Connecting Devon and Somerset is working to solve the issues and listening to concerns raised by MPs on behalf of constituents. It will need to be held to account and be transparent on public reporting processes, so that it can clearly demonstrate the progress it makes. It must crack on and get our counties connected.
The last Budget contained a commitment to spend £5 billion on connecting hard-to-reach premises. I know the Minister is committed to exploring every opportunity to get fibre broadband rolled out across East Devon and our county. We must work together to deliver for Devon and ensure that no community is left behind.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. It is also a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp), who name-checked every part of his constituency with great confidence and remains a strong champion for his patch, and for digital connectivity. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing the debate. It is pleasing to hear that he has managed to learn the delights of Zoom and I suspect that the whole House will be waiting to see how he gets on with Google Connect, Skype and Microsoft Teams. Perhaps we can have another debate about how he does with those.
As has already been raised in weekly calls with Devon MPs, the problem of connectivity is profound in the south-west, as was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton). That issue has been readily addressed and identified by those who have been sent home to work from home over the past 11 months, and who have seen the need to interact with colleagues and businesses, and find investment and opportunity through their digital connectivity. Failing to identify and address the issue is only likely to see that gap and gulf in the south-west expand beyond where it is already, and to see a lack of opportunity presenting itself compared with some cities.
Investment was mentioned. The south-west needs investment. It is a big policy of this Government to make sure that we are levelling up across all regions. Well, the south-west needs that. In Bristol and Exeter we have seen the benefits that investment can bring, but unless we can ensure that we have a robust digital telecommunications network that not only allows people to work from home, but attracts businesses to operate from across the peninsula, we cannot hope to see the investment and opportunity that we seek to provide for younger generations in years to come.
While I do not have the historical knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton about Connecting Devon and Somerset, I do have a sense that CDS has failed to deliver in the short time since I was elected. In my constituency there are 52,000 premises, of which 10,000 residential and non-residential properties are still outstanding to be connected. The failure to connect them has been an ongoing issue for over five years. That makes it impossible for many of my constituents to launch their businesses, work from home or do any of the things that they might have been expected to do this year.
As has been mentioned, CDS has collaborated with Openreach and it is welcome that there is a £6 million programme and vouchers, and that Airband is being promoted across the area. Unfortunately, unless CDS’s phase 2 contracts are issued there will be no opportunity to build on what we have tried to suggest in our manifesto and in the Budget, in terms of levelling up in the south-west. The delay has come at a significant cost to residents, who have had to shoulder the burden themselves rather than expecting a service that is widespread across the country to be delivered. We have promised it and it is our duty to be able to deliver it for them.
If we look at our opportunities in terms of the businesses that we have, whether it is the great Salcombe, Brixham and Dartmouth gin distillers who wish to sell their produce across the world—and they do, by the way—or the photonics industry, a £13.5 billion industry that relies on digital connectivity even to function, we need to make sure that we have robust connectivity. Our fishermen and farmers also need to make sure they have strong access, to fill in their quota forms or report back to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that they are fulfilling the environmental land management programme in future years. Those are all things that allow our society and our communities to function better. I hope that the Minister will address those issues and really assume the leadership that we need in the south-west. The south-west MPs are united on the issue. Digital and transport connectivity are essential, and we will keep knocking on his door about the issue until it is addressed. I hope that we will not need to have another debate like this.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
My constituency’s connectivity means it is ranked 634th of the 650 UK constituencies.
Selaine Saxby
I did beat you.
Almost a fifth of residents still do not receive the universal service obligation’s 10 megabits per second. Our average download speed is less than 37 megabits per second, compared with a UK average of 61. The only thing slower than our broadband speed is attempts to connect properties by CDS. I am delighted that things are now progressing, and I recognise the complexities of procurement in this area, but an alarming amount of time seems to have been taken, still to be selecting suppliers.
I note that major players in the sector are not participating in the current procurement process, because we are a whole technology behind in Devon and Somerset. I am determined that North Devon will not continue to languish at the bottom of the broadband league, and have taken it upon myself to connect my own community to fibre broadband through a community fibre partnership, in conjunction with Openreach. Using our Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport vouchers and working directly with the industry seems to be the most likely method of connecting up my rural constituency; but the continuation of the Government’s voucher schemes is key to enabling communities to get connected. I hope that the Minister will be in a position to confirm that today.
Last week’s announcement that only 85% of the country will be connected by 2025 rather fills me with dread, as there seems to be an inevitability about hard-to-reach rural constituencies such as mine continuing to be left behind. Without the 100% target and full £5 billion commitment, will the industry be able to commit the resources and train the army of new engineers needed for even 85% to be reached? Given that CDS is still so busy with the previous technology, I ask that someone else manage the procurement and delivery of high-speed fibre in North Devon, and that that should be rapidly instigated, as the most commercially viable parts of my constituency are now being over-fibred by competing fibre companies, leaving harder-to-reach communities even less likely to see fibre.
When we talk about levelling up North Devon we are not expecting a new railway or motorway. We desperately need broadband to enable our businesses, young people and communities to have access to what other parts of the country take for granted. I spend far too long lobbying the Minister for better broadband, and I shamelessly do the same today. Please speed up everything to do with broadband in North Devon.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. I want to thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for calling the debate. It has been a huge pleasure for me to listen to so many excellent and well-informed contributions. As a north-east MP, who is not allowed to travel far at the moment, I feel that I have been on a tour of Somerset and Devon and I very much appreciated it. I feel for the Members who have eloquently expressed concern about the impact of the lack of the digital infrastructure they need and deserve on the people of Devon and Somerset. I do not know whether the Minister has enjoyed the debate quite as much, but I shall briefly summarise some of what was said.
I was amazed to learn that Tiverton and Honiton’s ranking was as low as 627th, but then I found that North Devon is even further down. Obviously there are comparisons to be made, and someone has to come top and bottom. Even so, despite Devon and Somerset having 1.5% of households in the country, 5% of homes there are located in notspots. In Somerset West, one in 20 households are unable to receive the minimum 10 megabits, which is the Government’s definition of decent broadband. That figure increases to nearly 12% of households in east and west Devon. The hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), for East Devon (Simon Jupp), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for North Devon, and for Tiverton and Honiton all emphasised how the pandemic had truly brought home to us the importance of connectivity at this time.
Every Member referenced the Connecting Devon and Somerset broadband scheme, which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton described as too slow. However, the scheme exceeds the UK’s superfast broadband roll-out target set by the coalition Government, which called for 90% coverage by 2015. Unfortunately, mismanagement under the coalition Government meant that, nationally, the target was not reached and was missed by a year. If a local scheme that outperforms the Government’s is too slow and needs to be reviewed, the Government’s own position on broadband has been lacklustre and should also be up for review. [Interruption.] I do have mobile coverage here.
Anthony Mangnall
The hon. Lady started her speech by saying that she felt the experience of our lack of connectivity in the south-west. She is more than welcome to come and experience it at any time.
Chi Onwurah
I really am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that timely intervention. I meant to say that I felt for the experience, but I am keen to feel the actual experience in the gorgeous surroundings that he has so well described. The products and services sound so very attractive.
We have had 10 wasted years for telecoms infrastructure under this Government. I was a chartered engineer who worked in telecoms for 20 years before coming into Parliament, which I mention from time to time, and the decade that I have been in Parliament has coincided with a rapid relative decline in the quality of our telecommunications infrastructure. Labour made great strides in building a digital economy. Our Communications Act 2003 set out the strategy and vision for a decade. Our office of the internet was a world leader, and we oversaw the roll-out of the first generation of broadband to more than 50% of households by 2009.
Labour’s plans would have seen two-thirds of UK households have access to services of up to 40 megabits by 2015. Unfortunately, that is now not the case, consecutive Tory Governments having squandered that world-leading position. Several Members mentioned the need for effective competition and not the over-building of fibre to one home, and not the absence of any competition or a monopoly provider. Under Labour, we had competitive infrastructure competitions, including the local loop, but since then we have seen U-turns, dither and delay in infrastructure roll-out, including the BDUK scheme, which re-emphasised Openreach—indeed, BT—effectively as a monopoly provider. All phase 1 contracts and funding under the scheme went to British Telecom, and the Public Accounts Committee warned that that restricted the Department’s ability to insist on value for money. Will the Minister set out his strategy for encouraging effective competition, particularly in rural broadband? It is concerning to see that as a country that invented the fibre-optic cable—
Neil Parish
I shared the hon. Lady’s concern that Openreach had too much of a monopoly, but I have to say that since Openreach has stepped back from connecting Devon and Somerset, the situation has actually got worse, not better. Openreach is training 5,000 engineers every year, so there is a real need for it. Now that it has been split away reasonably successfully from BT, we can use Openreach much more.
Chi Onwurah
The hon. Gentleman shows an understanding of network competition that I rarely find in this House. I can only agree with him that it is necessary to have effective separation. If Openreach is effectively separated and open to different over-the-top providers, having a monopoly position does not lead to monopolistic behaviours such as raising rents or offering low customer service, but it is necessary for that separation to occur. As I think has been said, it is also the case that BT responded to many of the Building Digital UK bids and ended up having a monopoly position. That was BT, not simply Openreach.
I want to focus for a couple of minutes on the economic importance of rolling out broadband. In 2018, the Conservative-run Somerset County Council highlighted the worry about regional productivity in its economic development strategy, which said:
“We are not as productive a District as we could be. Evidence shows a relative lack of dynamism in our economy with productivity levels below our potential and lower than those of the South-West and national levels.”
Across the country, only 8% to 10% of premises are connected to full-fibre broadband, compared with 97% in Japan. We are an innovative nation, but our innovation needs the digital platform to allow our small businesses to grow, particularly as our economy shifts online and we face the challenges and opportunities of the fourth industrial revolution, with its implications for everything from manufacturing to smart cities and addressing climate change.
I do not want to reiterate the Prime Minister’s sad history of flip-flopping over promises on delivering full fibre, but I will summarise it. Full fibre was supposed to be delivered by 2025, but that was then downgraded to gigabit-capable broadband to every home by 2019. As we have heard, only last week the Government sneaked out the Chancellor’s spending review plans to water down their broadband promise instead of keeping that manifesto commitment, and a smaller proportion of money has been made available.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton cited George Bernard Shaw. My recollection is that it was Oscar Wilde who wrote:
“To lose one parent…may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”
That quote is absolutely appropriate in this case, because although we might understand one change in the Government’s commitment to broadband, a series of changes is either carelessness—which is negligent, given the importance of digital infrastructure to our economy—or, I am afraid, deliberately misleading.
I hope the Minister can set out how we will achieve in Devon and Somerset the digital infrastructure that is so richly deserved. I also hope he will talk a bit about the divide in digital skills, because as well as having the infrastructure, we need to ensure that everyone has access to the digital skills that mean they can use the infrastructure and reap the economic benefits. I am particularly concerned about access to infrastructure at home, which enables Zoom meetings and online education. Some 50% of rural premises have patchy and unreliable mobile reception, so I hope the Minister will say a word about 5G roll-out and the delays in coverage. We cannot allow the digital divide to exacerbate the current rural divides. I hope that the Minister will mention the universal service obligation, which the Government launched in March to great fanfare and which allows rural households to demand connectivity from BT. As I am aware from the north-east, however, an estimated 60,000 households across the country may be charged up to £100,000 for installation under that initiative. Does that count as a universal service obligation? How much does the Minister believe is too much to pay for the internet?
Digital is now at the heart of almost every policy area and online access is integral to people’s lives. I thank the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome, for East Devon, for Totnes and for North Devon—and, of course, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton—for their considered contributions to the debate, which represent their constituents’ interests now and in future. We must ensure that, as we build back better and level up, there is no rural digital divide that holds back parts of our country and a significant number of our constituencies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for securing this debate; I do not think that anyone has ever tried to duff up the Government in such a good-natured way. That spirit was shared by all hon. Members, for better or worse.
I have had these conversations with all hon. Members present and other MPs across Devon and Somerset, because broadband now matters more than any other utility. Over the last year or so, we have learned how important digital connectivity is. It is not that useful for me to talk about how extensive the superfast programme has been or how 96% of the country is covered, because if people do not have it, they do not have it. I understand why hon. Members want to go back with good answers to parents trying to educate their children and to farmers trying to deal with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—a whole host of people from every aspect of society. Digital is what we now rely on, and what we will continue to rely on for economic growth and for essential parts of everyday life.
I completely understand why the debacle of the 13% of houses that Connecting Devon and Somerset has not managed to get connected is important to all hon. Members present. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) generously pointed out, 87% of the programme has been delivered, but the fact remains that not far off 50,000 premises will be, at worst, nearly five years late. For what it is worth, I am sorry. It is important that, whether we blame Carillion for letting down Gigaclear, or Gigaclear for overpromising, the Government are sorry that we are in this position. That is an important starting point.
Neil Parish
I thank the Minister for taking my comments in such good part. The Government have put people in from the Department to look at Connecting Devon and Somerset and to sit on its board, but that needs to be strengthened. These mistakes cannot go on being made time and time again. My plea to him is to pick it up. I understand that the Government may not want to run the scheme themselves, but, for goodness’ sake, they cannot let Connecting Devon and Somerset behave in that way any longer.
Matt Warman
I thank my hon. Friend for that. I want to try to look to the future. There are some bits of good news. I cannot remember his precise phrase—I am not sure if he literally asked me to grab Connecting Devon and Somerset by the throat—but we have certainly worked closely with it. He mentioned that we have made an appointment to the board. That is a signal of how closely and intensively we have worked with CDS to get these forthcoming procurements to a much better place.
I will talk about Devon and Somerset specifically, but it is also important to bear in mind that nationally, we are doing things to ensure that every barrier to a nationwide roll-out is removed; we are legislating for improved connectivity in blocks of flats and new builds; we are making it easier to dig up the roads and easier to repair the roads in a way that makes all of the nationwide roll-out go that bit faster. In Devon and Somerset, CDS is now in the final phase of that £38 million procurement that will deliver those final connections. Working with us in DCMS, what it has done—as is already public knowledge—is divide the remaining 50,000 premises into six lots to cover all parts of the region not currently addressed by the live Airband contract. The reason for taking that approach is to maximise competition, speed, and speed of roll-out wherever we possibly can.
We have teams in Building Digital UK that have covered commercial interest, state aid, value for money and delivery, all working intensively with CDS throughout the procurement process and supporting it at every stage. We could not have worked more closely, and that is in part because of the commitments that I made to Members when I came to the area to talk about CDS and we first made the decision that Gigaclear was not going to be in a position to revise its contract. We worked very closely with Gigaclear to try and get it to a point where we did not have to restart the process but, ultimately, I believe that restarting the process was the best way to secure the speed of connections that we need.
It is this close management that has ensured that the procurement is on the very shortest path to delivery that we could possibly have envisaged. To give my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton an idea, one procurement might routinely take nine months. Those six lots—those six procurements—will have been completed in around 10 months. He rightly highlighted the fact that we had aimed to get them done by the end of November. I think he would accept that quite a lot has happened this year that we were not expecting, but it is my expectation that they will be done by Christmas.
Matt Warman
If my hon. Friend will let me continue. I know everyone says it will be done by Christmas, but I mean this Christmas. That procurement process, as he can imagine, is very much ongoing now. I ask him gently not to tempt me to say anything that might derail that procurement process in the last three weeks, but that is where we are at.
Neil Parish
I understand the point that the Minister is making about the six contracts, but he should not forget it was Connecting Devon and Somerset that decided to split it up into six contracts. I am not necessarily against that, but I do not think it can be broadly said it has managed to deliver six contracts in 10 months. Previously, it was one contract; CDS decided to split it up, so it is taking more time. Yes, it will be at Christmas, all being well, but the contracts are going out to 2025. In this great new spirit of transparency, how much is going to be announced so that people can actually get connected well before 2025? We have had no transparency.
Matt Warman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A crucial part of the future programme will be much greater communication with Members of Parliament, which is important up to a point, but also with the public. One of the most important things we can do is say to people, as he said, yes, the whole procurement will take several years, but there will be many shovels in the ground and many connections made well before the end of that period. We need to give people as much transparency as we possibly can, so that the entirely legitimate criticism that my hon. Friend made of the previous contract is not the case for the future contract.
It was right that CDS gave Gigaclear the opportunity to make things work, because it could speed things up, but we are where we are. It also important from a national perspective to say that Gigaclear has delivered in large swathes of the country: in Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Essex, Herefordshire and Gloucestershire. There are many problems, given the situation we are in today, but part of this is that we cannot lay them all at the door of any one entity.
On the new procurement, while some may think it easier to award the contracts to a larger supplier, the fair and open process across six lots was intended to promote speed and competition. When my hon. Friend gets his Christmas present, I hope he will be able to greet that, and we will give him some of the transparency that we have talked about.
I thank CDS for working with DCMS as closely as it has. That is why we have got to the position of doing six procurements in ten months or thereabouts, taking the people of Devon and Somerset to a significantly better place. The overall delivery, in stages between 2021 and 2024, and 2024 and 2025, is the right approach but it needs to be as transparent as possible, and should go as fast as possible. It should be communicated as quickly as possible. I have made that point to DCMS and CDS because, once awarded, these new contracts will deliver the balance of the connectivity that should have been delivered by Gigaclear. It is worth remembering the UK Government target of 95% for superfast coverage. The latest figures in my hon. Friend’s constituency show that 84.35% of his constituents have superfast connectivity —slightly up from the figures that he has given. The bad news is that the other two constituencies that he mentioned have gone up slightly faster. Tiverton and Homerton now has the lowest connectivity in Devon and Somerset, and I know that he is not going to let up until that is at a significantly higher level. We will pick up the superfast connections with these remaining procurements, we will be more transparent and we will go as fast as we possibly can.
It is also important to talk about the forthcoming UK gigabit programme that my hon. Friend mentioned and be absolutely clear that this remains a £5 billion programme with a 100% target. The judgment of industry and the Government is that the initial phasing of the spending reflects the maximum that can be delivered in the period up to 2025, but we will continue to work with industry so that if we can go any faster at all, then we will. If we can exceed that 85%, then we will. It is not an 85% maximum—it is a 100% ambition and we will go as far and as fast as we can.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) mentioned vouchers. They will be a key part, but not the only part by any means, of that future procurement, because it is horses for courses, as we know. Some communities are able to work together, but in some areas that is simply not the right approach. A host of different approaches will inform how we spend that £5 billion because that is how we will make it go as fast as possible and how, with an eye on value for money, we will manage to make sure that we spend it as quickly as possible. I know what matters to hon. Members in the Chamber is getting those connections done as quickly as possible. In the period to 2025, we will focus that funding, wherever possible, on premises that do not have access to superfast broadband. That means that the focus will be disproportionally on constituencies such as Somerton and Frome, and Tiverton and Homerton, where an 80-something per cent. of people have it. I obviously cannot make promises about any individual connection, although I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) has recently been upgraded and I have hopes for my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, but it is important that the Government are clear that we will focus the £5 billion gigabit programme on getting as many people connected as possible. We will focus on those who need it most, and we will continue to work with the industry to refine the programme and maximise coverage.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for the good-natured way in which he is addressing our concerns, but I want to ask him about the commitment to universal gigabit broadband. Does it remain, and if so when will it be achieved?
Matt Warman
As I said, we think we will get to 85% or thereabouts by 2025. We will go as fast as we possibly can and we will get to 100% as quickly as we possibly can. I know the hon. Lady wants me to put a date on that, but the point is that we will go as fast as we possibly can. We will talk more about what the phasing looks like as we talk more about the gigabit programme. We will release some details this side of Christmas and some more in the new year. If the hon. Lady will be slightly patient, we will be able to release some more details. One of the key factors for the gigabit programme has to be providing people with transparency about what happens when.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton for securing this debate. It is a hugely important issue for everyone across Devon and Somerset. I understand and share the frustration. I would be very happy to have another one of these debates, but I really hope we will not need one.
Neil Parish
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) for his contribution to the debate. I like the way he managed to get roads and rail into a broadband debate—excellent. As my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp), went through all his villages, he stole one of mine. Feniton belongs to me—will he take his troops away? He made a very good point about how we need to get everybody connected. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) very much for his contribution. He was able to talk about gin distillers, farmers and fisherman all in the same breath—excellent. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) said that she has less connection than me, but the Minister told me that I have the worst in Devon, so that should definitely cheer me up.
At the end of the day, this is very much about connecting our constituents. I made the point that it does not matter who does it or how we do it, but they must be connected. Over the years, I have been concerned about Openreach and BT and their monopolies, but they are training 5,000 engineers a year. They are the big players out there, so we have to make sure we use them with the outside-in programme and the voucher scheme. There has been a history of antagonism between Connecting Devon and Somerset and Openreach, and I do not want that to hold back the delivery of broadband. This is not only about our businesses; we talked about children’s education and the health service—most doctors’ surgeries are now being done online because of the pandemic. There is lots of serious stuff that we need to sort out.
I do not apologise for being very forthright because I think it was necessary, but I accept what the Minister said. We really need to do better. The last comment that I will make, Ms Fovargue, is that if you think this is bad, if I have to come back a second time it may be even worse.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the rollout of broadband in Devon and Somerset.
Written Statement
Lifetime Skills Guarantee
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
The lifetime skills guarantee announced by the Prime Minister in September promises to help people across the country get the skills they need at every stage of their life as we build back better from the coronavirus pandemic.
As part of the lifetime skills guarantee, the Prime Minister announced the expansion of skills bootcamps, which are currently available in the west midlands, Greater Manchester, and the Liverpool city region. These flexible courses last approximately 12-16 weeks, and give participants the opportunity to build up sector-specific skills and fast-track to an interview with a local employer.
I am now pleased to announce that Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, the heart of the south west, and the Leeds city region have today opened course registrations ahead of beginning delivery in January. These bootcamps will expand to cover not only digital skills like software development, digital marketing, and data analytics but also technical skills training such as welding, engineering, and construction.
This is only the start for this innovative approach to adult training. I can confirm that we will invest £43 million through the national skills fund to extend skills bootcamps further across the country in 2021 increasing the national coverage of this new offer and trailblazing new skills to support our labour market and develop this model further.
We will continue to build on our wider plans for adult skills and I will update the House on our progress in due course. In the meantime, we will continue to engage closely with stakeholders as we progress and develop detailed plans for the national skills fund.
[HCWS616]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe their desk, chair and other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety precautions are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, the matters in the four instruments are closely related, and I hope that it will help your Lordships if I speak to them all together. These instruments list the EU to enable imports from EU and EEA member states to continue. We have taken the decision to list the EU to import live animals and animal products because, following an assessment of the EU’s sanitary and phytosanitary regime, we do not believe that its risk status will change on 1 January.
The instruments will allow for decisions to be made about a country’s certification processes for plant reproductive material and whether they are equivalent to our own. We have amended our legislation so that, by the end of the transition period, the EU will become Part 1 listed for the non-commercial movement of pets into Great Britain. Practically, this means no change for EU travellers. We are maintaining the current health requirements on pet movements from the EU based on the unchanging disease risk from 1 January, and to ensure that there is minimal impact on pet owners and users of assistance dogs travelling with their pets into Great Britain under the EU pet travel scheme. I emphasise that these instruments are minor and technical in nature. They do not make new policy or change existing policy; instead, they will make existing policy and legislation operable at the end of the transition period.
The Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 amend retained EU regulations governing official controls on imports to Great Britain of animals and animal products, and plants and plant products, including food and other imports relevant to the agri-food chain—collectively known as sanitary and phytosanitary checks. The amendments make these regulations operable in UK legislation after 1 January—for example, by replacing references to powers exercised by the Commission with the same powers exercised by the Secretary of State or other appropriate authority. The intention is to continue to ensure delivery of a robust import controls mechanism for all sanitary and phytosanitary imports to the UK, while maintaining or improving biosecurity and welfare standards.
The Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 make amendments to ensure the continuing operability of provisions related to the import of live animals, including horses, animal products and reproductive material used for animal breeding, and the non-commercial movement of pets. They confer functions previously exercised by EU institutions on to the appropriate domestic authorities and treat EU member states as a third country.
This instrument also amends references to EU laws and systems to ensure that law continues to function after the transition period. It introduces transitional arrangements for imports from the EU and EEA states, maintaining an effective sanitary and phytosanitary regime, while allowing businesses time to prepare for our new import requirements.
The Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture, Animals, and Marketing of Seed, Plant and Propagating Material (Legislative Functions and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 cover seven policy areas: aquatic animal health, transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and animal by-products, livestock, zoonotic diseases, pet travel, alien and locally absent species in aquaculture, and seed, plants and propagating material.
These regulations make provision for legislative functions that are currently carried out by the EU to be made instead by appropriate authorities in Great Britain after the transition period. They also amend previously made EU exit statutory instruments to reflect the changes needed to implement the Northern Ireland protocol, specifically replacing “United Kingdom” with “Great Britain”. Furthermore, they make amendments to EU exit statutory instruments to reflect changes made to EU regulations. They also make minor corrections to previously made EU exit statutory instruments.
The regulations will also allow for the continued movement of pet animals into Great Britain from all third countries, including EU member states. They guarantee the minimum amount of disruption possible to enable these movements to continue in a manner that protects our biosecurity, as well as the health and welfare of the animals being moved.
I turn finally to the Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The existing UK Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 set out requirements for the manufacture, authorisation, supply, possession and administration of veterinary medicines in the UK. The regulations before your Lordships address technical deficiencies in our legislation to ensure that it continues to operate effectively after the transition period. For example, minor corrections have been made to the text to address references concerning EU membership that are no longer accurate.
They also make changes that are necessary to reflect the Northern Ireland protocol, as well as implementing the Government’s commitment to ensuring unfettered market access for Northern Ireland businesses in relation to veterinary medicines. This will mean that the current legislative basis for approving veterinary medicines will be split into separate Great Britain and Northern Ireland regulations. Northern Ireland will continue to follow the EU acquis. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate will continue to operate on behalf of the United Kingdom, and pharmaceutical companies will continue to be able to market veterinary medicines across the whole of the United Kingdom.
These instruments introduce parts of the previously announced phasing-in of border controls on imports from the EU, beginning in January. This will prioritise flow at the border and give both businesses and industry longer to prepare for the introduction of full controls. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend for bringing these four instruments before us today and for his very comprehensive introduction. I have a few comments and questions that I know my noble friend will answer as fully as he can.
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 helpfully sets out the purpose of this instrument:
“These controls are integral to the protection of human health and biosecurity in the UK, as they deliver a risk-based and closely defined regime for checking the provenance, health and lack of contamination of SPS goods before they are allowed to pass beyond the control points at the UK border.”
If my reading is correct, some of these may take place internally as well. So I ask my noble friend the fairly obvious question: will we have enough agents? Will customs officers or Food Standards Agency agents perform this? I know that Defra has had an enormous campaign to put enough in place, so I would be interested to hear. Will the controls be actually at the UK border or will some of them be done internally? Will it create a lot of extra work, because we will effectively be a third country, so an import from an EU country will be considered as if from a third country, and we will therefore be asking them to do the checks that would otherwise have been done in other EU countries and that we would have accepted. Will this increase the workload in any way, and do we have the resources, agents, or FSA or customs officers to cover it?
On the second instrument, the Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, I am most grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its work. I understand that the new arrangements are being phased in, in time to come into place and allow businesses to adjust by 1 January 2021. Do we think we have given them enough time?
I accept that the new IPAFFS—import of products, animals, food and feed system—will replace TRACES, but is there any benefit to our remaining part of TRACES or will we drop that completely? There are also issues of resources. Do we have enough staff involved? Will a new computer system be involved and is it already up and running? Is my noble friend convinced that that will suffice?
I think it is this instrument that relates to the trade in horses. I was very keen, as I know were a number of noble Lords and honourable and right honourable Members next door, to continue the agreement that relates to the movement of horses—I have forgotten what it is called—that France, Britain and Ireland were members of. Have we managed to read that across and will it remain in place, at least with those countries, or have we lost it completely?
The third instrument relates to aquatic animal health and alien species. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised a number of interesting questions. As its 34th report was published in mid-November, the situation may have changed. Paragraph 56 states:
“We note that it is not clear at this stage what the process and requirements will be for moving pets from GB to Ireland via NI after the end of the TP.”
Has that now been resolved?
It was good to know that there are no additional processes, paperwork or restrictions in Northern Ireland, as noted in paragraph 57, but that there will be a requirement for export health certification. My noble friend will be aware that a number of us have concerns. I declare that I am an associate fellow of the British Veterinary Association—the BVA. There is concern about whether there will be a sufficient number of qualified vets in place to consider all these issues at the point of entry, presumably, with products moving across to Great Britain, delivering unfettered access. Does my noble friend share my concern or is he able to put my mind at rest in that regard? I welcome the fact that, I think, 600 new places have been found at veterinary schools this year—that is good news indeed—but, if we are losing the expertise of the European Union vets, many of whom have voted with their feet to leave the United Kingdom, will that be a problem as of 1 January?
Paragraph 57, quoting the department, states:
“A new Trader Support Service, available to all traders at no cost, will be established”.
We took evidence on this in the EU Environment Sub-Committee, and it is a source of concern. My question is simple: when does my noble friend expect that the trader support service will be open for business and to give advice as required?
On the last instrument, on veterinary medicines and residues, the 34th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee helpfully looked at this. In paragraph 60, Defra confirms that if the conditions set out are met and an application has been made to a,
“dedicated place of establishment … and has provided the same application dossier and supporting information to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate as they would have provided to the European Medicines Agency or the relevant authority in an EU Member State”—
there are no safety concerns and a certificate will be issued to allow the products to be marketed in Great Britain. Again, my question is simple: does my noble friend expect any initial delays in coming to terms with the possible volume of applications or the setting up of the new system? Does he expect any costs to apply?
I understand that Friends of the Earth raised a number of concerns, in particular about one requirement from EU law which does not come into effect until November 2022, after we have left and after the end of the transition period. Are there any possible measures that may have been agreed to by the United Kingdom, relating to draft veterinary medicines and residues or the other instruments before us this afternoon, that will not have been implemented before 31 December? If that were to be case, what would be the legal position? My noble friend may not have that information at his fingertips, and I would be grateful if he could write to me.
I am very grateful to have the opportunity to consider the instruments before us today and I thank my noble friend and his department for all their work in putting these in place and making us ready for 1 January.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his outline of this very complex and rather packed schedule for the hour, and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I will do my best not to repeat any of her questions, because I will cover some similar ground.
I will start where she left off, with the Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The Minister in his introduction—and the Government right through this whole process—stressed that this is a straight transfer over. But, like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I have relied heavily on the work of Friends of the Earth, which retains significant concerns, having looked at this in great detail.
One specific question that it has raised concerns Regulation 5 of this SI, which deletes Regulation 18 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015, which set out the EU-authorised methods of analysis. Defra has said that this is covered under article 7 of the EU regulation 2019, but that refers to a different EU regulation, so a significant part of Regulation 18 has been omitted. This suggests that there is a disapplication of the requirements within the context, despite claims to the contrary. I appreciate that this is very complex, and if the Minister is unable to respond now, perhaps he might write on this. I would be happy to put it in writing if that would be easier.
Also, Regulation 7(8) omits an update to reference points for action that are set out in retained EU law, in Article 8 of regulation 2019/1871. That refers to things such as chloramphenicol, malachite green and nitro- furans. This appears to be a weakening of the previous intent, so do the Government plan to put in place RPAs on or before 28 November 2022 that are as strong as or stronger than those that will exist up until 31 December?
Finally in this section, I come to Regulation 8(3), which removes references to MRL levels, as previously agreed at EU level and set out in regulation 37/2010, and replaces them with references to regulation 470/2009. It has been suggested that administrative processes will be the way this will be achieved, but it has not been clarified when this will happen, and whether the EU levels will be used as a baseline. Can the Minister set out what the Government’s immediate plans are for setting out relevant MRLs and other restrictions relating to the use of veterinary medicines in food-producing animals, and say whether this process will be complete before the end of the transition period?
I will move on to something that is perhaps a little simpler. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, referred to the issue of pet passports. We know that, certainly before Covid, around 300,000 pets were moving into the UK every year through the pet travel scheme. The report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that much will depend on the category of third country that Great Britain falls in after the transition period—which in turn, of course, will depend on what happens in the talks that are still going on, with less than a month to go. On the practicalities, and putting this in everyday language, it may be that, despite Covid, some people are thinking of travelling with their pets over the Christmas period. What advice would the Minister give—what security and certainty can he provide—to people travelling with their pets on the circumstances that will prevail when they return to the UK after 1 January?
Finally, I will move on to the Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations. Here I am again relying heavily on Friends of the Earth, to whom I pay tribute for the huge amount of work it has done on this. Again, we have had reassurances that things are not changing, but there appear to be some very clear changes. For example, Regulation 16 omits Regulation 21 of the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011, covering in particular where a consignment is regarded as a serious threat to animal or human health and the official veterinary surgeon or fish inspector must immediately place the consignment under official detention and order that the person responsible for it should destroy it or arrange for the appropriate treatment. This has now been deleted, which could result in consignments being released from border control posts without detention. Can the Minister clarify whether this change illustrates a difference in government intent regarding the way in which goods that may endanger human or animal health are dealt with at border posts? If not, what future legislative or regulatory changes are planned to deal with this apparent gap?
I will refer also to Regulation 17, which amends Regulation 22 of the TARP regulation, covering situations where products entering the UK have been the subject of serious contraventions of an import requirement, or contraventions that form part of a series, or where checks reveal that maximum residue levels have been exceeded. That regulation states that a person
“must carry out a physical check”—
but it seems that this is now being removed. Perhaps the Minister could clarify in what circumstances it would be acceptable for the appropriate person to refrain from carrying out a physical check on goods suspected of being non-compliant with UK import standards. How do the Government envisage that physical checks will be guaranteed in the light of this legislative change?
I move on to Regulation 29(a) to (d), which deletes references to a number of offences. Will the Minister clarify whether it is the intention that activities such as consigning an animal without a health certificate will no longer be considered offences under the TARP regulation? If so, why is enforcement effectively being abandoned? If this provision is seen to be duplicative of provisions elsewhere in legislation or regulations, can the Minister clarify where they are?
I had a question about equine health certificates, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, covered, so I will skip that. I now come to Regulation 40(4), which amends Commission decision 2000/572. I will boil this down, as I am aware of the time. This is all about EU forms. Do the Government intend to replicate EU forms, are they in the process of developing new forms, and how will they ensure ongoing consistency in this area?
I have two final points. The first is on official controls on composite products at the border. This refers to Regulation 49, which adds a new article 3. Will the Minister clarify whether future UK controls on composite products at the border will cover these products, as set out in the annexes of Commission decision 2007/275? Will a complete list be published by the end of the transition period? If not, do the Government expect to be able to clarify which composite products will be subject to controls at the border?
Finally—noble Lords will probably be pleased to hear—I come to Regulation 53(26)(a)(i)(bb), which amends annexe 8 of the Commission’s regulation that refers to poultry and eggs sourced from establishments with conditions
“as strict as those laid down”
in the EU. This appears to be an opportunity for equivalence to be applied in ways that will allow imports that do not meet standards as strict as those laid down in EU legislation. Will the Minister clarify whether there is any significance in the change from reference to standards “laid down” to those described in the regulation? What processes or criteria do the Government plan to use to determine equivalence of standards in future, and how will the Government ensure that, where direct references to standards are replaced with references to equivalence, this does not lead to a weakening of standards in practice?
I can only say at this point that I thank the Committee for its patience.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his extensive introduction and for his time and that of his officials in a briefing on these four statutory instruments—quite a number to be taking in a one-hour debate.
The Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations deal with the operability of import controls, border controls and checking, with easements between January and July. The instrument is Great Britain-wide and consistent with EU regulations. It deals with a range of important changes to the agri-food chain, known as “sanitary and phytosanitary”—SPS—products. The SI does not change SPS import control policy but ensures that a robust import control mechanism is in place for imports into the UK, maintaining and improving biosecurity and welfare standards.
In annexe 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, under paragraph 3, “Regulations revoked in this instrument”, at bullet point 4 the heading is “Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/530 designating European Reference laboratories for pests of plants on insects and mites, nematodes, bacteria, fungi and oomycetes, viruses, viroids and phytoplasmas”. Can the Minister say, as this regulation is revoked, where, if anywhere, the insects and plant life will be listed and covered? Is there another SI that covers this area? I am particularly interested in nematodes. Perhaps the Minister can provide clarification.
Turning to the second instrument, the draft Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, consent has been received from Scotland and Wales to implement an identical SI. The SI was previously used for third countries. Products of animal origin—POAO—can pose a risk, including African swine fever. However, outside the transition period the country can have better control, including over importation of olive trees and preventing the importation of Xylella, which we debated last year.
From January 2021, importers of animal by-products and live animals will be required to pre-notify via GB’s new system for notification of imports: IPAFFS. From April 2021, importers of POAO will also be required to pre-notify via IPAFFS. This is likely to add to staffing costs in 21,600 firms. Can the Minister say whether there is an estimate of what those staffing costs are likely to be?
The Secondary Legislation and Scrutiny Committee noted:
“While the instrument proposes extensive amendments in this policy area over more than 18 pages … the Explanatory Memorandum provides limited explanation of the proposed changes”.
The SI itself is extremely complex and refers to numerous other statutory instruments which are being amended or deleted, as we have heard from other speakers. The Explanatory Memorandum really does not make any detailed comment about those. As I am not an expert in these matters, I feel somewhat at a disadvantage on this instrument, which does not provide legal clarity. The Government’s legislation website does not yet reflect all changes made. It is unclear in many cases if any errors or weakening have been introduced through combined changes. Can the Minister say at what point the Government expect the GOV.UK website to be bought up to date to reflect changes made by Brexit statutory instruments?
The third statutory instrument, the Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture, Animals, and Marketing of Seed, Plant and Propagating Material (Legislative Functions and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 sounds very much like a catch-all statutory instrument. This SI takes account of the Northern Ireland protocol and the movement of animals into Great Britain. This is an important SI as it covers several policy areas: seed, plant and plant propagating materials; aquatic animal health; transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and animal by-products; livestock zoonotic diseases; pet travel; and the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture, as the Minister already listed. From my previous contributions in Defra SI debates over the last 18 months, I understand something of most items on that list. I understand the use of alien species in aquaculture, which will include American crayfish. But I am afraid I do not understand what is covered by “locally absent species”. Are these species which are not alien to Great Britain but which may be alien to a particular area of Great Britain, as they usually live in a specific region? Can the Minister give an example of what this might mean?
I have questions on several paragraphs in the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 2.7 talks about the transfer of zoonotic diseases from animals to humans. Presumably, this also works the other way around. Mink in Denmark spring to mind as an example of Covid moving from humans to animals. Paragraph 7.8 refers to pet passports, which allow UK-based owners of dogs, cats and ferrets to travel between EU member states and certain listed third countries. Given the similarity between mink and ferrets, does the Minister think it is currently safe for ferrets to travel out of the UK into an EU country and then return to the UK? Is there a restriction for those travelling with ferrets on visiting certain areas of Denmark?
The last SI, the draft Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, includes provision for the Northern Ireland protocol. The instrument protects animals, people handling the medicines, consumers of produce from treated animals, and the environment. It is essential that animal welfare is high on the agenda, and the treatment of animals with veterinary medicines to relieve suffering and discomfort is important. However, this must be balanced with the impact and effect on the public consuming animal products.
During the pandemic we have become especially conscious of the effect of antibiotics. For some time, we have been aware that that overconsumption of antibiotics for minor ailments which easily heal themselves in a short time should be avoided. Overuse of antibiotics for minor conditions can harm our chances of relying on these drugs when we are seriously ill and desperately need their intervention.
Ensuring that antibiotics are not overpresent in animal products for human consumption is all part of essential management of veterinary medicines. Can the Minister give reassurance that this SI will indeed ensure that the maximum residue limits are not reached in foodstuffs? Can he also give reassurance that non-allowed pharmacologically active substances will not be found in foodstuffs? Can he clarify whether future UK rules on MRL levels will be as strong as or stronger than the current EU baseline as set out in the annexes of regulation 37/2010? Can he provide an update on the process of setting out relevant MRLs and other restrictions relating to the use of veterinary medicines in food-producing animals, and say whether this process will be complete before the end of the transition period?
These are varied and complex statutory instruments, but I am happy for them to be approved so that Great Britain and Northern Ireland can continue to operate effectively at the end of the transition period. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions raised and points made in this debate.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these SIs and for the helpful briefing he organised beforehand. I accept that a number of technical and operational updates have been included, which makes sense. It is of course important that we have a functioning import system once the transition is over. However, I have a few questions that it would be helpful if the Minister could address.
First, as a minor point, I note that paragraph 7.1 of the EM for the first SI states that the intention is to continue delivery of robust import controls for all sanitary and phytosanitary imports while
“maintaining or improving biosecurity and welfare standards.”
Perhaps the Minister could explain what these improvements might be, as I could find no clear explanation of the Government’s intention in this regard.
The second SI has been substantially rewritten, based on the earlier SIs, as a result of the substantial amendments needed, and I agree that that approach makes sense and allows for easier scrutiny of the proposed text. There are obvious sanitary and phytosanitary risks from animal and animal product imports. Paragraph 2.2 of the EM refers to the need for
“appropriate safeguard actions to be taken in case of a reported non-compliance with official controls or disease outbreak in exporting countries.”
What do these actions include? Do they include banning imports from specific individual countries? Would we be able to target individual countries, or would there need to be an EU-wide ban for certain products if a particular section within the EU was involved?
Paragraph 7.2 explains that a new approach to managing biosecurity risk will be introduced from 1 April 2021. What arrangements are in place between 1 January and 1 April, and can we be confident that the new arrangements will be in place from 1 April? Paragraph 12.3 refers to importers of animals and animal products having to pre-notify the Government of imports from 1 January using the new technical system, IPAFFS, which replaces TRACES. Can the Minister confirm that IPAFFS has been fully tested, is a secure and reliable system and is able to deal with the volume of import trade which will come its way? Can he also clarify whether the devolved nations will be using IPAFFS as a pre-notification system so that all that information can be shared?
Turning to the third SI, on aquatic animal health et cetera, there are a number of technical changes to maintain control of aquatic animal diseases and to continue biosecurity standards which seem to make sense. However, all noble Baronesses have raised the issue, covered in the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of pet passports for the 300,000 pets moving across the border annually. As it points out, the SI allows pets travelling from the EU to the UK to continue to use the EU-issued pet passport. However, that does not yet mean that pets travelling the other way, from the UK to the EU, will have equivalent rights. When will we hear whether the EU has granted us part 1 listed status, which would allow this mutual benefit of travel both ways to continue? Is that part of the current Brexit negotiations, or a completely separate process? If part 1 listed status is denied by the EU, will we also review our attitude to the status of pets coming the other way, into the UK?
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also asked about the impact of separate zoonotic and biosecurity disease requirements for GB and Northern Ireland. It was told that goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland would need export health certification and that a trader support service will be available to support businesses. This issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who asked whether the trader support scheme was already up and functioning and, if not, when it will be. The EM goes on to say that there will be no significant impact on businesses. May I ask the Minister to reflect on that statement, given the cost and potential complexities of providing export health certification to businesses that will be exporting to both Northern Ireland and the EU?
Turning to the fourth SI, which deals with veterinary medicines and residues, there is clearly concern about the potential risks to human health and the environment, as well as to animal welfare—issues echoed by the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Bennett and Lady Bakewell. For example, we have made considerable progress in the UK on cutting back on the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry. However, I read recently that over the same period, the US has doubled its use of antibiotics. There are similar concerns about the use of hormone-injected beef in the US, which is currently banned in the UK. So, there is a need to be vigilant about our protections for the future.
In a submission to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Friends of the Earth referred to the forthcoming EU regulation, due to be enacted in November 2022, which will update the reference action points for antibiotics and antimicrobials. There will not be an equivalent update in the UK. May I ask the Minister to assure the House that a regulation at least equivalent to the latest scientific evidence and safeguards in the EU will be introduced in the UK, and can he explain whether that will be on a timely basis?
The EM also refers to the provision of a surveillance programme for residues of veterinary medicines in foodstuffs. What will be the nature of this surveillance? Will it include visiting the country of origin to check on animal welfare and potential contamination of animal products? What measures are contained in the SI for countries and export businesses that do not comply with our high food quality standards? Does the SI also apply to manufacturers of insecticide flea products for pets, which have been shown recently to be contaminating our watercourses?
Finally, these SIs have not been consulted on because the changes they make are relatively minor. What will be the formal consultation process for changes in policy post transition? A number of them have been flagged up in the SIs as coming on stream in the future. Will those future policy consultations meet the Cabinet guidelines for consultation?
I look forward to the Minister’s response to these questions.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I hope that all noble Baronesses will appreciate that a very considerable number of detailed questions have been posed, and I think it would be helpful to us all if I write in some detail on some of the more technical matters.
I will open by saying that none of these statutory instruments is about a change in policy. There is absolutely no weakening of the very high bar of security for this country that we all want. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that if there were any potential changes in this area, there would need to be, and we would want, consultations with the devolved Administrations and interested parties as we seek to enhance and strengthen our arrangements.
I turn, in no particular order, to the points that were made. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the revoking of regulations covered in the official controls instrument. All revocations in this instrument relate to designation of European reference centres. These EU designations will no longer be applicable in Great Britain after 31 December.
The noble Baroness also referred to the African swine fever outbreak in parts of Europe. Obviously, we are keeping these matters under close scrutiny. Pork products, for instance, are products of animal origin that are at high risk of being contaminated with African swine fever. Specific safeguard measures are already in place to prevent the introduction of such diseases. We do not expect the biosecurity risk from EU imports to change after 1 January, but I emphasise again that this a matter on which I have regular discussions with the Chief Veterinary Officer, because we clearly need to watch the profile of this disease and be ready to act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about checks on products of animal origin coming into force on 1 April, rather than 1 January. We are introducing import controls for EU countries in a phased approach in order to give businesses, many impacted by Covid, time to adjust, while maintaining effective biosecurity controls. As I have said, we do not expect there to be changes in biosecurity risk in that period. From 1 April, there will be new requirements for products of animal origin to be pre-notified, and all goods must be accompanied by a British health certificate and will undergo remote documentary checks. From July, products of animal origin imported from the EU will be subject to risk-based identity and physical checks. Some commodities, such as shellfish, will be subject to higher check levels. This will allow us to maintain the highly effective sanitary and phytosanitary regime, while allowing businesses time to prepare for our new import requirements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about safeguard measures. If there is a disease outbreak in a country approved to export to Great Britain, the Secretary of State, with agreement from the devolved Administrations, may publish a written declaration banning all restricted imports from the affected area. The legislation allows us to regionalise a country where an outbreak has occurred, so that imports can continue from those parts of the country that are free of disease.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones, asked about IPAFFS. Non-EU countries were able to use IPAFFS for live animals from 23 November and can use it from 7 December for products of animal origin and high-risk food of non-animal origin. EU countries can currently use IPAFFS for live animals and germinal products, and from April 2021 will be able, as I have described, to use it for products of animal origin and high-risk food of non-animal origin. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that, yes, the devolved Administrations will use IPAFFS.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked how it was going. The system is working well and has received positive feedback from border control posts. We have been supporting countdown communications and webinars, and are working very closely on that matter with all concerned. On the creation of additional BCPs, we are working with ports and airports to develop a delivery programme that will be supported by the investment fund of £705 million announced in July of this year.
On pet travel, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that continuous guidance has been put out to pet owners. I understand and appreciate that pet owners want to know about this. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about Part 1 listed status. We will continue to press the Commission on this as we are confident that the United Kingdom fulfils all the criteria and obligations required of a Part 1 listed third country as a minimum. We operate one of the most rigorous pet-checking regimes in Europe to protect our biosecurity. As I said, we have announced our plans. That is because we have respect for the EU’s checking regimes. I think we deserve Part 1 listed status. I know that many will wish to have further updates on this, and if I have any further information I will of course provide it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about locally absent species and alien species in aquaculture. I have an example: warm-water prawn. An alien and locally absent species is a species or subspecies of an aquatic organism occurring outside its known natural range, or any artificially modified species irrespective of its natural range or dispersal potential. What a form of words, my Lords.
The issue of ferrets is historical: ferrets were included in the non-commercial pet travel scheme following discussions between EU member states when the regulations were made. I reassure all noble Lords that the Chief Veterinary Officer keeps these matters under constant review. We will risk assess individual applications made for imports. We are not banning the importation of ferrets at this time as there is no evidence to suggest that pets can directly transmit the virus to humans. That is a different context from the issue of large mink farms in certain parts of Europe, where there are very large concentrations of numbers. As I said, I would not want anyone to think anything other than that we will keep all these matters under close review.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones, asked about the position on antimicrobial resistance. The UK has always played a key role on this, and indeed in the revision of the EU veterinary medicines legislation. The Government intend, like the EU, to strengthen significantly our national law on the use of antibiotics in animals, including restricting the use of antibiotics for prevention of disease. The UK’s unique model of collaborative working between government, farmers and the veterinary profession has halved antibiotic use in livestock, and we now have one of the lowest usages of veterinary antibiotics in Europe—and this must continue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about surveillance. A new expert body is being developed, co-ordinated with Defra, to assess and inspect trading partners that apply for market access to the UK. We will repatriate audit and inspection functions from the EU to ensure that trading partners continue to meet our very important import conditions.
On flea products, I will just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate has commissioned the University of Sussex to carry out additional research to determine the extent—if any—to which these treatments have an impact on the aquatic environment. The results as yet are not available, but it is obviously very important.
On unfettered access, my noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about certificates. They are intended to be tough. The VMD has considerable expertise on a UK national basis and previously as part of the EU regulatory network.
I should say to the noble Baronesses that all current EU maximum residue levels will continue to apply in the UK from the end of the transition period. In Great Britain, these will be set out in the maximum residue limits register. The amendments do not change the scientific methodology used to establish individual limits. This will remain unchanged.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about resources. We have been working in the department to ensure that there are sufficient resources, in all respects, on the very important issue of vets. We have been working to ensure that there are sufficient numbers. We have also introduced a new certification support officer to help carry out administrative aspects of that process.
I am conscious that I have many more questions to answer, some of which are technical. I hope the noble Baronesses will understand that I have made a very careful note of all the detailed points that have been made and I will ensure that they are attended to in the form of a letter. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 33rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture, Animals, and Marketing of Seed, Plant and Propagating Material (Legislative Functions and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture, Animals, and Marketing of Seed, Plant and Propagating Material (Legislative Functions and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 32nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I hope it will be helpful to your Lordships if I speak to both regulations on the Order Paper, given the close connection between them.
These two instruments cover all four nations of the United Kingdom. We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations and they have given their consent to the instruments. This ensures an approach that is consistent with both the devolution settlements and the existing system of fisheries management.
The common fisheries policy imposes a common approach to the sustainable management of fisheries across the European Union and its waters. Under Annexe 2 to the Northern Ireland protocol, several provisions of the CFP will continue to be directly applicable in Northern Ireland from the end of the transition period.
The first instrument is needed to make operability amendments to retained EU law, update changes made by previous fisheries SIs and remove elements of retained EU law that are not relevant to the UK. It makes technical amendments to retained EU law in three policy areas: discards, quota and data collection.
This instrument amends the EU’s 2019-21 discard plans, as amended by the EU in 2020, to take account of the latest scientific advice regulations, which set out scientifically justified exemptions to the landing obligation. The amendments replace references to EU bodies with references to the relevant UK ones and remove the requirement to report data to the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, or STECF. We have removed this requirement because the UK, not the EU, will now take the decision on discards exemption and our future catching policy. This is in line with our approach taken throughout our EU exit SIs.
The UK will still continue to collect and review data, guided by the scientific evidence objective in the Fisheries Act. We have been very clear throughout the parliamentary debates on the new Act that future fisheries decisions will be based on scientifically robust evidence. We are working closely with our world-class scientists in Cefas, our partners around the UK and their scientists, many of whom previously advised STECF.
In the longer term, we expect that the process of reviewing any new exemptions we propose to bring forward will be undertaken by a replacement scientific body, which will provide UK-wide independent reviews. We will continue to ensure that any new exemptions are subject to robust scientific review. We are currently developing options for how to deliver authoritative UK-wide independent advice, with an expectation that it will be in place later in 2021.
This instrument amends the 2020 total allowable catch and quota regulations in retained EU law, amending references to ensure that the rules continue to apply effectively to UK vessels once they cease to be within the scope of the CFP. The instrument also makes amendments to the Data Collection Framework, which requires EU member states’ vessels to conduct certain surveys at sea. The list of surveys is being replaced with a reference to the UK’s national data collection work plan to avoid UK vessels being required to conduct surveys in areas not relevant to the United Kingdom.
Moving on, the second instrument is needed to enable the enforcement of EU law where it is directly applicable in Northern Ireland. This will also help the UK to play its part in ensuring sustainable and traceable fishing practices, and enable the UK to meet its obligations under the withdrawal agreement and accede to the UN’s Agreement on Port State Measures—PSMA—at the end of the transition period.
This regulation also contains provisions implementing our obligations to a number of regional fisheries management organisations—RFMOs—to which the UK is in the process of acceding as an independent contracting party. These international organisations are ones of which we were previously members by virtue of our EU membership.
This instrument makes technical amendments in three policy areas: enforceability; sustainable and traceable fishing; and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
This instrument amends the Fisheries (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 in order to equip the Northern Ireland and UK Governments with powers to enforce EU legislation that will apply in Northern Ireland. It will also amend regulations concerning sustainable and traceable fishing to reflect the direct application of EU law in Northern Ireland and allow the UK to fulfil its obligations under the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas—ICCAT—and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, or CCAMLR. To clarify, these changes do not reflect a change in policy. The UK will continue to submit the same level of information to the ICCAT and CCAMLR secretariats required by these international agreements, to which the UK is an independent contracting party.
This statutory instrument applies certain aspects of retained EU law relating to IUU fishing to Northern Ireland, which is necessary to ensure the UK is able to comply with its obligations under the PSMA once it accedes to that agreement after the transition period. The PSMA requires the UK to apply controls to non-UK vessels; this legislation serves to implement that requirement in relation to EU vessels landing in Northern Ireland. The PSMA does not require the UK to apply controls to vessels registered in the UK.
The instruments make amendments that remove previous amendments to the retained EU law versions of regulations implementing the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund—the EMFF. I should say that ClientEarth expressed a concern about a gap in legislative powers. However, I assure your Lordships that this is not the case. The withdrawal agreement contains specific rules that will apply to the EMFF during the period when the fund will be wound up and closed, ensuring that there are consistent rules in place to manage payments to the sector. Furthermore, the Fisheries Act 2020 includes a financial assistance power that will govern any future domestic scheme. A further statutory instrument will be brought forward in spring 2021 to detail any domestic plans.
These instruments also make other minor operability and clarifying amendments to retained EU law, ensuring that the law can function effectively in the United Kingdom after the end of the transition period. These instruments do not make amendments that represent any changes in fisheries management policy. I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am once again grateful to my noble friend for these important regulations, which, as he will recall, cover a lot of the ground we debated at the time of the Fisheries Act, but put meat on the bones. Taking the fisheries regulations in turn and looking at the first set in the order in which my noble friend took them, it is obviously a matter of note that we will no longer be part of and therefore cannot request or receive advice from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries. Will there be a gap between our receiving that advice and the new regime to which he referred coming into place?
I am sure that my noble friend will expect me to ask the question that I ask on every occasion we discuss fisheries. He has said on many occasions that we will continue to support the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Has the memorandum of understanding with ICES been signed? If so, that is great, but on what date? If not, when does he expect it to be signed? Can he confirm that the resources and budget that the Government will allocate matches what we are already paying? I understand that we are one of the major contributors to ICES: we contribute between 13% and 16% of its total budget. What is more important to me is that my noble friend stated—I welcome this—that, going forward, all our proposals will be based on scientifically robust evidence. I can think of no better body to subscribe to than that one. It would be very helpful if he could confirm that.
I know that ClientEarth and others have expressed concern about the first set of regulations, saying that it might weaken requirements in relation to scientific information and research surveys, sustainability of stocks and reporting. I hope that my noble friend will take this opportunity to put our minds at rest by saying that that is not the case. He went on to say that there will be a new form of financial assistance coming forward from the Government—I presume in relation to both regulations. Can he say in outline what he thinks that financial assistance will look like and who will pay for it? Are the Government considering moving towards an industry-paying basis? If that is the case, I make a plea that is in the form of a levy into a central fund so that there is some distance between industry paying and the resources being taken out at the other end.
It would also be helpful to know the type of activities and schemes that will be funded and, once again to put my mind at rest, to know that there will not be a gap between the level of funding to date and the new funding schemes coming into place. We reach the end of the transition period at the end of this month and my noble friend said that the plans will not come forward until the first quarter of next year. I would be most grateful for any illumination on that.
If I have understood correctly, the second instrument may remove our requirements under and support for certain international agreements. My noble friend will recall that, on many occasions during the passage of the Fisheries Act, I asked the Government to repeat their commitment to international obligations, most of which seemed to stem from the Johannesburg convention in 2002. It would be helpful to know that that co-operation with other countries on marine and fisheries post Brexit—post the end of the transition period on 31 December—will continue. It is obvious that fish do not respect boundaries; we need a commitment to international co-operation in that regard.
I share the concern expressed by many environmental groups that the instrument removes our membership of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries. To what extent will discards have a role to play? I quite understand that fishermen were keen to be rid of the landing obligation; during the passage of the then Fisheries Bill, my noble friend confirmed that it would be removed. I refer to paragraph 42 of the 33rd report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has been most helpful in preparing for today’s debate. It states that there will be a requirement for the UK
“to impose controls on all non-UK vessels, including those flying the flag of EU Member States. According to Defra, these controls include requirements to use designated ports, to obtain authorisation prior to using ports and to submit certain documents in advance of using ports as well as a regime of inspection.”
Will discards feature here or have we lost the landing obligation completely? Who will be required to enforce those controls? Concern was expressed during the Bill’s passage that we were losing access. It would be interesting to know how many fisheries vessels and other vessels of marine organisations will be on standby to implement completely the new policy to which the Government have committed.
If the landing obligation has gone, can my noble friend put my mind at rest that the replacement will offer an equivalent level of environmental protection to prevent illegal by-catch and overfishing? Will Regulation 7(7) of the first instrument ensure the sustainable management of fish stocks and that it is not threatened? Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the total allowable catches will be set in line with sustainable levels at the end of the transition period this month? Also, under Regulation 11(5), can he confirm that any future UK financial assistance will be given only to operators that comply with fisheries management rules, including those on sustainability under existing EU law?
On both instruments, we will have the opportunity to ensure that any EU flag state that flies into our ports will meet all the obligations required of them. If we are losing the landing obligation, it is important to know that illegal discharges will be stopped and that by-catch will be monitored in the most efficient way possible. With those remarks, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to discuss the two regulations before us.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a regular occurrence that I follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Her knowledge of this area is absolutely excellent. I thank the Minister and his officials for having offered to meet before this session; regrettably, I could not do so because of other parliamentary business.
One of the general points to make first, coming back to what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was saying, is that we are only 29 days away from the common fisheries policy regime and all the regulations around it ending. I realise that most of those will continue, but one of the great occasions of Brussels was the Fisheries Ministers’ bun-fight before Christmas, when they all sorted out TACs and quotas, and did deals around the scientific evidence. We have got better in recent years at recognising the scientific evidence. I do not understand what quotas UK fishers will be operating to from 1 January. The fishing industry does not cease operating for a new year, so I would be interested to hear from the Minister exactly what the rules will be for quotas by species and how they will be distributed. This is an immediate problem.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is not correct about the landing obligation and discards ban. I understand that the Government will keep to their undertaking. The first of these regulations changes the demersal discard plans slightly in terms of some of the exemptions, but I would be very concerned if the discard ban did not continue. The Government have very much promoted it within the European Union and the common fisheries policy, through correct pressure from the public, and I hope that it will continue. I will come back to the discard ban in a while.
The sub-committee that I chair has always been pleased to hear that the Government intend to continue their relationship with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. This is an important body and it would make no sense for us to operate a separate system from those that fish in the same waters and fish the same stocks as we do. I welcome that, but I look forward to the clarifications on detail that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked of the Minister.
I entirely understand why the Government will remove references to the European Union Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries from the legislation, as we are clearly out of the common fisheries policy now. But I would be interested to understand in more detail from the Minister how or if that is likely to be replaced. Does ICES give enough information and scientific advice for decisions to be made? I suspect that it does not. I would be concerned if Cefas, which the Minister mentioned, took on this role because, although I greatly admire the work that Cefas does, it is not an independent body; it is part of the Defra family. Therefore, like all Defra bodies and other public bodies, it is financed directly by a department and is not necessarily completely independent in its views.
Although I understand that the Government must, rightly, come out of that organisation, I would be very concerned if we did not still swap data on a voluntary basis. Not to do so would seem to show a rather dog-in-the-manger attitude. So I ask the Minister whether he and his officials will open a dialogue, so that we can still share that scientific debate and information, as many of the fish discussed by that committee are shared stocks. We would hope to have a reciprocal basis as well. It would be a great shame if that relationship did not continue, at least on an informal and voluntary basis. Needless to say, if you want to solve the data issue, remote electronic monitoring is the way to do it. Data is one of the key pluses of that technology.
I move back now to the landing obligation. There is some change to the demersal regulations or exemptions in terms of the ban. Apart from the Government’s commitment to this, which I hope the Minister will confirm, I ask whether it is working at all. In the two reports that my committee did, we found that it had made very little difference to either the EU 27 members—and certainly those in the littoral states of the North Sea and the Channel—or the United Kingdom. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the department feels that the landing obligation and discards ban has made any difference yet to the working practices of the industry.
I very much welcome the Government’s call for evidence on remote electronic monitoring. That call ended at the beginning of this month. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how many people or organisations submitted evidence to it and when he anticipates the next consultation on REM will start.
One of the things that will happen with single market rules, with us coming out of the common fisheries policy—although we have built a framework in the Fisheries Act—is that we can have divergence between the nations of the United Kingdom. I would be interested in how quickly the Minister feels there will be divergence and how it will be treated or worked around by the Government and the devolved authorities.
I welcome how the Government have, on a number of occasions, reconfirmed to the committee that they will operate a similar scheme to the EMFF, but when will it start? It is very important to the industry. The EMFF is not a large fund—it is small in comparison with many other EU structural funds—but it is well targeted and focused on making a difference, particularly to smaller fishing communities and fleets. So when will that fund be up and running?
Lastly, I admit that I find Northern Ireland fisheries incredibly difficult to understand, but I would like to understand from the Minister whether, when a Northern Ireland fishing vessel lands in the Republic of Ireland or back in Great Britain, its catch is treated as a UK or an EU catch. What are the implications of that for any future tariffs, quotas or phytosanitary regulations? Those questions take me through everything I need to say.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his helpful briefing beforehand. It felt very strange reading the first SI, as I felt transported to a bygone age, long before all our efforts to produce the Fisheries Act and before an anticipated announcement with the EU on post-transition trade, which will of course have a major impact on future fisheries provision.
The first SI refers to a targeted consultation with key stakeholders on the Fisheries White Paper that took place in 2018, as though the last couple of years had not happened. I know from our briefing that this SI has been in development for some time and is necessary partly to incorporate changes to EU regulations that have occurred this year. So, given that some of the references in the SI are rather out of date, could the Minister clarify when exactly it was drafted, why it was not introduced before now and why it makes no reference to the impact of the Fisheries Act? We would have thought that would have had at least some impact on the details enclosed in it. It would help—to echo points raised by other noble Lords—if the Minister could clarify when he sees our legislative framework fully transitioning from the common fisheries policy to our ambition as an independent coastal state, as set out in the Fisheries Act. We seem to be treading water rather at the current time.
The Minister referred to ClientEarth’s submission to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about the potential weakening of requirements in relation to scientific information and research surveys, sustainability of stocks and reporting. Again, his point was echoed by other noble Lords. It suggests that the detailed reporting requirements contained in EU law have not been replicated in this SI. I would be grateful if the Minister could address this.
In the Defra response to ClientEarth, the department says that it
“will comply with all of its reporting and data sharing requirements under the CCAMLR Scheme.”
Are these reporting requirements indeed equivalent to those in the EU? Are the mechanisms to begin that reporting from 1 January in place? Is the information published in a publicly available format? Will the Government continue to exchange information with EU colleagues, at least on an informal basis, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson?
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee talked about a lack of clarity around the direction of future policy. Can the Minister give an indication of when the department intends to make more detailed policy announcements and when we will see the legislation to back that up? The SLSC drew particular attention to the issue of
“financial assistance for rewarding or deterring behaviour related to sustainability.”
I echo the specific questions of detail asked by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in this regard. How will the application of financial assistance work in practice? Defra says that this will be included in a separate SI. To clarify: is that the regulation that the Minister referred to in his opening remarks—the one to be published in the spring—or a separate one? He is looking at me quizzically so perhaps it is the latter.
The second SI focuses on the application of the Northern Ireland protocol. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I have struggled somewhat with some of the fishing implications of the protocol, but we are beginning to work our way through them. The SI explains that the UK intends to accede to the multilateral Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing—the PSMA. Once the UK joins the PSMA, it will be required to impose controls on all non-UK vessels. The Explanatory Note states:
“The controls include: a requirement to use designated ports; a requirement to obtain authorisation prior to using ports; requirements to submit certain documents in advance of using ports; and a regime of inspection.”
What will be the practical difference in the implementation of the PSMA rules on Northern Ireland and GB fishers? How will it differ for each of those groups? Does a list of designated ports already exist? If so, where is it published? Who will be responsible for imposing the regime of inspection and controls? Will it include the British Navy?
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“There is no, or no significant, impact on business”.
However, the regulations significantly alter the fishing rights of and controls on Northern Ireland and GB fishers. Were they consulted on the new requirements? If so, are they content with them? Do those in the different categories understand the different rights and responsibilities that they will have in future? Would the Minister like to comment on what he sees as being the consequences in real terms? In our earlier briefing, the Minister said, rather colloquially, that he thought that it meant that Northern Ireland fishers will be able to “face both ways”. Can he clarify what he meant by that? This may be a rare occasion when Northern Ireland actually benefits from the Northern Ireland protocol in terms of trade provision.
I do not know whether the Minister saw the recent press report that Scottish fishers on the western coast of Scotland are considering re-registering their boats in Northern Ireland ports. This would enable them to land their shellfish, most of which is destined for European markets, without paying any EU tariffs or taxes. Can the Minister that this would be perfectly legal, provided that it represented a genuine move in the place of operation? Has any further thought been given to the consequences of this? Is there a concern that it might spark a wider practice of companies switching their base of operation to Northern Ireland to avoid tariffs?
I look forward to the Minister’s response to these questions.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ comments. A number of key questions were asked.
The first question concerns science. I stress to the noble Lords who spoke—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh—that this is the basis of what we need to do going forward. The UK will continue to ensure that relevant data is collected and reviewed by a replacement scientific body. The replacement UK advisory structure is in development; in the meantime, as I said in my opening remarks, we retain access. Let me also say—although I will embellish this—that our discards policy will continue to be scientifically justified. The UK fisheries administrations will also need to comply with obligations under all other legislation to ensure that our discards policy is scientifically justified, including the Fisheries Act with its scientific evidence objective.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh referred specifically to ICES. The UK has been an independent member of ICES since it was established in 1902 and will continue to play a strong role in its future. The UK will continue to set the gold standard for sustainable fishing and the protection of the marine environment around the world after the transition period ends. The MoU will be signed, ready for it to come into force on 1 January.
On funding, I repeat that the Government made a manifesto commitment to maintain funding for the sector and will replace the EMFF with new domestic schemes from 2021. The devolved Administrations will lead on their own schemes. In addition to the EMFF, we committed an additional £2 million to support health and safety projects and a further £10 million to establish the Seafood Innovation Fund; that will run until 2022.
The important issues of discard plans and the landing obligation were raised. From next year, we can, for the first time, develop a discards policy that is tailored to our marine environment and industry. In our 2018 fisheries White Paper, we were clear that the UK Government will
“continue to work towards ending the wasteful practice of fish discards”,
but challenges stemming from the EU-implemented landing obligation are widely recognised. In future, we will have the opportunity to be creative and adopt new measures outside of the current CFP toolkit to implement a workable discard ban. Sections in the Fisheries Act set out provisions that will allow us to introduce one such measure: a discard prevention charging scheme. This will provide a mechanism allowing fishers to pay for additional quota to cover any excess catch that would otherwise push them into illegal fishing.
On who is responsible for enforcing discard rules, I can reaffirm for the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that no changes are intended. Enforcement will continue via the MMO and the relevant devolved Administration enforcement authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned quotas. Under Section 24 of the Fisheries Act, the Secretary of State may make a determination of the UK quotas. This would usually occur in accordance with any obligations resulting from negotiations with other coastal states, but the Secretary of State could make a determination that did not flow from negotiations. Such a determination may cover fishing effort as well as quota.
On the Maritime and Fisheries Fund, while the devolved Administrations will lead on their own schemes, as I said, in England, the Government’s objectives include innovation, improving port infrastructure, boosting coastal communities and supporting the sector in adjusting to the new arrangements. As I said, England has also repurposed £5 million from its MFF scheme for Covid support in that regard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised timing and whether we were dealing with an out of date SI. It is a moot point. Changes we are making to the EU regulations that will form part of retained law will come into effect only at the end of the year, when that retained EU law begins to function. We thought that there would be no advantage in fixing these earlier. In fact, we felt that two SIs now would be appropriate, rather than perhaps multiple SIs throughout the year, particularly given the fact that parliamentary time was limited.
We had a good discussion about REM throughout the passage of what was then the Fisheries Bill. We were all on the same page. I will reply in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. There were 45 responses to the consultation. I think we all agree that the basis for REM is that it will provide many advantages, which will help us ensure that we have more sustainability.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the TAC and sustainability. Achieving healthy fish stocks is the first step to vibrant commercial and recreational fishing industries. The Fisheries Act sets out our commitments to sustainable fishing. The joint fisheries statement, which will be drafted and adopted by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, will set out our policies to achieve the fisheries objectives set out in Section 1 of the Act. As an independent coastal state, we are committed to working closely with our partners, including the EU, Norway and the Faroe Islands, to manage shared fish stocks sustainably. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in particular raised that. Of course all of us in these waters need to be responsible. The UK will work with others to have vibrant fish stocks in all our waters and shared waters.
On Northern Ireland, yes, this is technical, and it took me a few readings to get what I understand to be correct. The Northern Ireland protocol recognises that a technical exercise is required to ensure that Northern Ireland fishing vessels landing into Northern Ireland are exempt from custom duties. The UK Government fully recognise the importance of the fishing industry to Northern Ireland and are clear that there should be no unacceptable new requirements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about reporting requirements and our international obligations. They will remain the same. We will continue to report, as we have done before, as an independent coastal state, while being mindful that we can make some proper decisions from the data we all supply. PSMA requirements would be enforced by the ports into which foreign vessels land, as they are now.
I should also refer to a point that I think addresses the ClientEarth issue. As explained in the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the instrument, Article 138 of the withdrawal agreement provides for EU legislation relating to the 2014-20 EMFF to apply in the UK directly. By virtue of the wording of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, legislation that applies in this way is not replicated in retained EU law. As such, our amendments are simply to remove previous deficiency corrections made before the withdrawal agreement was entered into, in recognition of the fact this legislation will no longer form part of EU law.
A number of points came up on this issue, but I absolutely confirm that we have been working with interested parties and businesses to ensure that arrangements are in place across the nation and in Northern Ireland for 1 January. As I said, we are working to ensure that all is in order for 1 January. There are bound to be some further points that I will relate in more detail in a written reply. The issue of the designation of ports was raised. I am pretty confident that we will set out the list of designated ports vis-à-vis Northern Ireland by 16 December, which is a key part of that preparedness. On that basis, and with the promise of further correspondence, I beg to move.
Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 33rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4.30 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing; others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Members’ microphones will no longer be turned on at all times in order to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same. The time limit is one hour.
Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel
That the Grand Committee do consider the Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 32nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to open this debate. These regulations, which were laid before the House on 15 October, are necessary to ensure a functioning export control regime at the end of the transition period on 31 December this year. Their aim is to complete the process of transposing the existing system, which is reliant on European Union law, into purely UK law. At the same time, they implement certain EU regulations in Northern Ireland to the extent required by the Northern Ireland protocol. They do not make any change in export control policy.
As noble Lords know, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 enables a functioning statute book at the end of the transition period by providing Ministers with the tools to deal with deficiencies in domestic law arising because of our exit from the European Union. Noble Lords with good memories will remember that this House has already debated and approved legislation to ensure the continued functioning of retained EU law in the UK in respect of export controls. The Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were debated here on 26 March 2019 and the Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 were debated here on 8 May 2019.
These new regulations are necessary because under the Northern Ireland protocol, which forms part of the withdrawal agreement, the EU regulations and directives relating to export control of dual-use items, civilian firearms and goods usable for capital punishment or torture will continue to apply directly to and in Northern Ireland. The provisions of the EU directive on the intra-community transfer of defence-related products will also continue to apply to the movement of military goods between Northern Ireland and the EU. Therefore, these regulations amend provisions of retained EU law to accommodate the Northern Ireland protocol.
Let me explain in more detail how this will work. Beginning at 11 pm on 31 December 2020, the export control rules applying in Great Britain will be derived solely from domestic law, which will include retained EU law. In contrast, the export control rules applying in Northern Ireland will continue to be derived from EU law as required by the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the European Union withdrawal agreement. My department will continue to be the licensing authority for strategic exports from the whole of the United Kingdom, but items exported from Northern Ireland will do so technically under a licence issued under European Union regulations.
To make this work these regulations, the Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, amend existing legislation. First, they amend the Export Control Order 2008, which has been the centrepiece of domestic export control legislation since April 2009. Next, they amend two instruments, the Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Trade etc. in Dual-Use items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were made last year in preparation for EU exit. In addition, they amend the Trade in Torture etc. Goods (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. These regulations were debated and approved by both Houses but have not yet been made. It is necessary to amend them to remove a dependency on the now non-existent Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Let me be clear: these regulations do no more than is necessary to ensure the continued functioning of export control law, and therefore the continued effective operation of our export control system, in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Without them, our ability to control the export of these goods would be undermined. This legislation will enable the Secretary of State to continue to control exports from all parts of the United Kingdom of dual-use items, firearms and goods that could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.
The Government believe that the procedures for assessing licence applications and our decision-making processes are robust, and will remain so following the end of the transition period. The eight criteria used to assess export licence applications, as set out in the consolidated criteria, will remain the same. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence will continue to provide my department with advice and analysis of the relevant foreign, defence and international development policy aspects of each licence application. A licence would not be granted if to do so would be inconsistent with any of the criteria. My department will also continue to provide detailed advice and guidance about export controls and the end of the transition period in order to support legitimate exporters.
I take this opportunity to remind the Committee that these regulations are solely about preparing for the end of transition and ensuring that we have a functioning statute book after the end of the year. These amendments must happen, and Parliament needs to ensure that these controls remain in place. Negotiations about the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union or the wider world are of course a separate matter, and I hope I may say to noble Lords that they play no part in this debate today. I hope that the House will work in the interests of the nation to ensure the passage of this legislation, which is essential to ensuring that we are prepared for the end of transition and continue to control the trade in strategic exports.
This legislation is necessary to ensure that we are prepared for the end of transition and continue to have a fully functioning export control regime on 31 December this year. I commend the Motion to the Committee and I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for taking us through this statutory instrument this afternoon, and I am delighted to see him back in his place.
Rather than comment on what is set out in the regulations, I will first comment on what is not set out. In preparing for today, I am grateful to the House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the conclusions in its 32nd report, on which I will rely heavily.
In particular, I will quote two paragraphs and how the conclusions were reached. In paragraph 5.4, the committee concludes:
“The Committee accordingly reports regulation 7(9) for defective drafting, acknowledged by the Department.”
This could have been put right. The committee states that
“it would have been open to the Department to withdraw the instrument and re-lay it before Parliament with the defect in article 42N(2) corrected”.
Apparently, the department chose not to do this because it intends to include the correction in amending legislation to be made early in 2021. It considers the likelihood of the defect in the legislation having any practical impact before the correcting legislation in 2021 to be very low.
The Joint Committee in its 32nd report states:
“The Committee is not convinced by this explanation. In the view of the Committee, the Government should not make legislation which it knows will have an effect which is significantly different from what is intended, unless doing so cannot reasonably be avoided. Nothing is said in the Department’s memorandum to indicate that laying a corrected draft would not have been practicable.”
So, with regret, I argue that the statutory instrument before us today will not lead to a fully functioning customs and excise move. Why did the Secretary of State for Trade choose not to submit a corrected statutory instrument for today’s purposes? Why was the procedure open to the department in this regard not used?
I understand that the department entirely acknowledges the error. Paragraph 5.3 of the 32nd report of the Joint Committee states:
“It appeared to the Committee that the exception in article 42N(2) may have been drawn too narrowly in requiring both the conditions in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) to be met. It is inconsistent with the position under article 12 of the 2008 Order as it currently has effect before IP completion day. The current position is that a transfer to a destination within the EU customs territory is allowed if either the final destination for the transfer is within the EU customs territory, or the software or technology will be subject to processing or working within the EU customs territory.”
So we seem to be in the very unhappy situation where there will be a hiatus between what is currently on the statute book and what will be on the statute book early in 2021, which is highly regrettable. Will my noble friend explain why we are in this unhappy position and why the Secretary of State and the department chose to go down this particular path?
Equally, paragraph 5.7 of the 32nd report states:
“The Committee is not convinced by the Department’s explanation. It seems to the Committee that Government should as a matter of general principle avoid making legislation which it knows to be defective. In this case, the Trade in Torture Regulations were approved in draft by both Houses more than 18 months ago. Since that time there has been a significant change in circumstances in that the EU withdrawal agreement has been entered into, including the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. The amendments made by Part 5 include amendments in regulation 15 which are needed to take account of the effect of the Protocol. Accordingly, the Committee reports Part 5 of the Regulations as making an unusual or unexpected use of the enabling powers.”
In a previous paragraph of the report, paragraph 5.5, the Committee states why that is the case:
“Part 5 of the draft Regulations amends the Trade in Torture etc. Goods (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (‘Trade in Torture Regulations”). The Trade in Torture Regulations have not yet been made and accordingly the Committee asked the Department to explain why Part 5 of these Regulations is being used to amend another statutory instrument which has not yet been made, rather than making that other instrument with the necessary changes incorporated in it.”
So, for the reasons set out in the report, with which I entirely agree, I ask my noble friend to explain why the department has drafted a defective instrument. Why has it opted for an unexpected use of enabling powers which have been overtaken for the reasons I have given, as set out in the 32nd report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, with which I entirely concur. We seem to find ourselves in an extremely unfortunate position. I repeat my question: why have the department and the Secretary of State put us in the position that we find ourselves in today? With those few remarks, I ask him to explain the circumstances in which we find ourselves today.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this statutory instrument has been prepared by the Department for International Trade. It will make the necessary changes to maintain the United Kingdom’s robust export control regime at the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020.
The export control regulations in Northern Ireland will continue to be EU law; in Great Britain, export control regulations will be domestic law at the end of the transition period. The domestic law needs to be amended before the end of the transition period so that it continues to function effectively in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The SI will also amend the Export Control Order 2020 to correct the existing reference to EU law. It will ensure that EU regulations relating to export control and listed in Annexe 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol will continue to operate effectively in Northern Ireland after 31 December 2020. It will also make major amendments to the Export Control Order 2008 and amend the trade in torture goods regulations.
From 1 January 2021, part of the law controlling strategic exports in Northern Ireland will be EU law, which in accordance with Section 7A of the withdrawal Act is
“without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom”.
From 1 January 2021, the control of strategic exports in Great Britain will be through domestic laws, which include retained EU law at the end of the transition period.
This instrument is being made in part to address deficiencies in retained EU law and to accommodate the NI protocol. It relates to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. In my view, exports from the UK to the world over will be important when we have exited from the EU. I would like to ask the Minister what plans are being made to reach agreement with countries all over the world, including the USA and the those in the EU.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this is a short debate on necessary measures, as the Minister indicated, and I am grateful for the clarity with which he outlined them. We cannot have gaps, uncertainties or confusions in the issuing of export licences and in the interaction between UK law and European law. I need not refer to the 32nd report, because the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, outlined the issue so clearly; I look forward to the Minister’s response to her questions.
As the Minister indicated, we have debated dual use and export control in the past—I took part in some of those debates. Given that dual use potentially applies to the civil and military use of goods and intermediary goods, this could be a delicate and controversial area. It is delicate because sometimes it is not easy to draw lines for component goods that can be exported for civil purposes but where the recipient country does not share the same high standards in its approach to human rights as the United Kingdom and can use those goods for different ends. It is not always easy for the Government, when issuing licences, to have a clear understanding of all the potential uses of some of these goods. I sit on the International Relations and Defence Committee, where we have debated areas of controversy around export licences. We know that the Government have changed their position on certain export licences and have paused licences when human rights abuses have been raised. Ensuring that there are no gaps or uncertainties is vital, as the Minister said.
This is even more complex because, for the first time in our country’s history, I think, the licensing system will operate under two systems of law: European Union law and United Kingdom law. That adds a greater burden on those businesses that are seeking a licence for export from the United Kingdom, whether from GB or from Northern Ireland. We know that there is a huge amount of trade between Northern Ireland and GB in intermediary goods, so there is complexity around component parts.
That leads to the wider issue that I wish to raise with the Minister, with which he will be familiar from our discussions on the Trade Bill and other measures. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and others have also raised this issue. Businesses and people in Northern Ireland will be operating under continuing EU law, without democratic accountability for those who are making the decisions, while the United Kingdom Government will operate for GB, so in this area there will need to be good communication between the European Union and the United Kingdom and clear ways of working between the Minister’s department and the European Commission.
A situation that will almost inevitably arise in the future, although not necessarily under the measures that the Minister has indicated are being reformed, is when there are differences of approach between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Almost by definition that will happen, because one of the motives for leaving the European Union is for the United Kingdom to be able to make its own decisions. I would like the agreement with the European Union, which we hope will be signed this weekend, to ensure close working on how the licensing system will operate and on definitions for goods relating to torture or execution or goods with a civil or military use. I hope that there will be specific ways of working between the European Union and the United Kingdom so that a situation does not arise where the Government are operating a licensing system in which there are two different sets of policy purpose. As the Explanatory Notes indicate, some of these measures fall under UN obligations that we have adopted, so I hope that that will not arise, but I would be grateful if the Minister could offer that reassurance.
My second question is linked to the movement of goods—they could be component parts or intermediary goods under the licensing regime—between Northern Ireland and GB before they are then exported. We do not need in this short debate to rehearse the export procedures from Northern Ireland to GB, but it is likely that some of the goods for which export licences will be sought for export from Northern Ireland and/or Great Britain will contain components manufactured in different parts of the United Kingdom. The original source of a component could be Northern Ireland; when that component is moved to GB, it would be exported from there under UK law—or, vice versa, it would be exported under a licence under EU law. If we are to have unfettered access, which is the Government’s policy, and there are no checks, will the Minister say whether specific mechanisms are in place to ensure that there is no unintended loophole with regard to component parts?
My final question is on a point of clarity. If the Minister cannot answer it today, I would be happy for him to write to me. We still do not know what the border operating model for Northern Ireland will be. We hope that we will get a degree of clarity from the European trade agreement. We know what the border operating model is for Great Britain, but we are still waiting for that information for Northern Ireland. What role will the European Union have in checks on goods leaving exit ports in Northern Ireland? We need clarity so that exporters know with a high degree of certainty what the procedures will be. What has been beneficial in the past is that NGOs, human rights organisations and others have been able to observe and monitor the trade and know that proper rules are being followed and that there is a degree of accountability. I am aware that that is probably broader than what these proposals aim to correct and amend, but if the Minister can reassure me that there will not be loopholes in this area, I would be most grateful.
There may be a period after January next year when we can review the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom in the interaction of legislation on export licensing. We have raised these questions in the past, so I know that the Government always say that they keep the licensing regime under constant review—that is the terminology the Government always use. I hope that part of that constant review will be an ability to come back to Parliament within a set period to ensure that this is one area where there is no benefit for either the European Union or the UK in not having close working relationships. I do not need to remind colleagues that the licensing of these goods is to protect people from the worst excesses of human rights abuses from Governments in countries that we do not wish to have these products. If the Minister could respond to those points, I would be grateful.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I always know I am in good company when I am on the same speakers’ list as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Their eye for detail and content is almost a legend in the House.
These regulations make amendments to legislation relating to the export and transfer—including other trade controls—of military and, more importantly for the purposes of this debate, dual-use goods. The Government have estimated that, on a rolling 10-year basis, the UK is the second-largest global defence exporter and a major exporter of arms, so it is extremely important that the UK must have a robust export control regime now and after the transition period ends. Any steps taken to guarantee its robustness are obviously welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made the point well: we must not have gaps and holes in this regulatory system. That is extremely important.
This instrument will make changes at the end of the transition period, when export control regulations will be domestic law in Britain while export control regulations in Northern Ireland will, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out, continue to follow EU law. Although the changes are mainly technical, I have some broader questions for the Minister on the specifics of the regulations.
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Regulation 7(4) provides for an exception to certain prohibitions to continue in relation to a certified person who is a part of the armed forces, a police force, or a public authority … who is a hunter or sport shooter, or who holds a Manx firearms certificate.”
How many people is this in total? How many people will it affect?
The Explanatory Memorandum also states that Regulation 9 amends the Secretary of State’s
“regulation-making powers in the Export Control Act 2002”.
I want to find out from the Minister whether these regulations are made under the affirmative or negative procedure. Also, who will the Secretary of State consult before using the powers?
The Explanatory Memorandum also states:
“Regulation 15 provides for certain authorisations granted by the Secretary of State under the Torture Regulation that have effect before the end of the transition period to continue to have effect after”
the end of the year. How many authorisations does the Minister expect to be granted between now and 31 December?
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has already gone through the report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and raised serious concerns about the SI. As she said, the committee says in its report that the regulations are defectively drafted. The noble Baroness also pointed to Regulation 7(9), which has the effect of inserting new Part 6A into the Export Control Order 2008. That part includes new Article 42N(2), concerning the transfer by non-electronic means of software or technology intended for weapons of mass destruction purposes, which, the committee says, has been too narrowly drafted. The Government say that they recognise this mistake, so, along with the noble Baroness, I have to ask: why have these draft regulations not be withdrawn and relaid if they are defective? Surely this cannot be right.
The committee also said that the Government must
“not make legislation which it knows will have an effect which is significantly different from what is intended, unless doing so cannot reasonably be avoided.”
I appreciate that we are coming to the end of the transition period, but what is the urgency with these regulations? Why can they not be corrected in time? I must ask when these errors will be put right. When will they be corrected in amending legislation? If we are told “early in 2021”, frankly, that is not good enough as an answer. We must have a more specific date because we need certainty in the process. Certainty and clarity are what people in the export markets want at the forefront.
The committee also highlighted that Part 5 of the draft regulations amends the trade in torture regulations. These regulations have not yet been made, as far as I am aware. Perhaps the Minister can explain why. As I understand it, they are currently approved in draft only and do not yet take account of the Northern Ireland protocol. That seems a significant failing and gap. Again, the committee said this was “defective” and reported that Part 5 of the regulations makes an
“unusual or unexpected use of enabling powers”.
We need an explanation for that. Why are Ministers using powers in this way and when will the trade in torture regulations be published, so that they can be considered by both Houses?
We recognise that we have left the EU and have a domestic export control regime in Great Britain, but these regulations, especially in how they relate to Northern Ireland, are interesting in the context of developments with our European friends. In November, the German presidency of the EU Council and Parliament agreed to new rules for the trade of dual-use items. This could lead to stricter export controls, including in Northern Ireland, on cyber surveillance technology and items, and cryptographic items. Such items could include facial recognition and spyware. This could introduce greater safeguards to minimise the risk of human rights violations. Do the Government want to expand controls to cover new and emerging technologies, as part of the UK’s export control regime? Will they hold a consultation on this?
We also have to put our export control regime in the context of the Government’s actions concerning arms sales to Saudi Arabia, where the true robustness of the UK’s regime has often been called into question. Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Government had acted unlawfully by approving arms sales to Saudi Arabia without any assessment of whether the coalition had breached international law. The ruling was dismissed by the Government in July, when the International Trade Secretary said that more than 500 alleged incidents of war crimes by the coalition in Yemen were “isolated” and showed no pattern or trend.
I know that noble Lords are aware that the UN has described the war in Yemen as the largest humanitarian crisis in the world, with more than 100,000 people being killed. The Campaign Against the Arms Trade said that
“the government has provided very little information on how it reached the conclusions it did, including how it decided there was no ‘pattern’ of violations.”
Will the Government now provide detailed information relating to their decision-making process? The public need answers on this and we, as Members of the Lords, do too. It was also reported recently that the Government approved a backlog of hundreds of applications to export arms to Saudi Arabia. How many has the DIT approved since July?
As the transition period ends, we need to make sure our export control regime is fit for purpose in recognising human rights violations and new technology. These technical changes do little to reassure on these points. That the Joint Committee has described the SI as “defective” in several regards worries me more. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to these questions.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It is always a pleasure to respond to these debates when noble Lords speak with the expertise displayed today. I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for drawing our attention particularly to the comments made by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in this regard. I say without reservation that it was regrettable that a situation arose in which this will have to be corrected in due course.
As we have heard, at its meeting on 25 November, the JCSI scrutinised the instrument in accordance with Standing Orders, and it was, rightly and properly, agreed that the special attention of both Houses should be drawn to this instrument on two grounds. These are that the instrument in one respect is defectively drafted and makes unusual or unexpected use of the enabling powers in another. Of course, for the former point, I apologise unreservedly.
Let me go into more detail about the drafting error, its impact and what the Government intend to do about it. It is a drafting error in new Article 42N(2) of the Export Control Order 2008. The purpose of that new article is to re-enact in relation to transfers from Northern Ireland an existing exception that allows the transfer of software or technology for WMD purposes from the United Kingdom by non-electronic means if: the final destination of the software or technology is the customs territory of the European Union; or processing or working is to be performed on the software or technology in the customs territory of the European Union—in which case the law of the destination member state will be responsible for the control of any subsequent transfer.
The problem is that re-enactment is necessary because the existing exception, which applies in relation to the United Kingdom, is to be removed at the end of the transition period. The error was the insertion of the incorrect conjunction in new Article 42N(2)—an “and” was inserted instead of an “or” between sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). This makes the exception less permissive in relation to transfer from Northern Ireland after the transition period than the existing exception. Nothing is weakened by this error; indeed, the situation is strengthened for this particular category of software that might be used for weapons of mass destruction.
The department thought about this carefully—I have discussed it with officials—and does not consider the error to have sufficient impact to warrant the withdrawal, correction, and re-laying of the draft regulations. That is because it could not have been done in time for the regulations to be effective by the end of this year. I think all noble Lords want to avoid a gap between the existing and future systems. The department has assessed very carefully the consequences of that, and I reassure my noble friend that we believe there is a very low likelihood that a person would wish in early 2021 to transfer software or technology from Northern Ireland to the customs territory of the European Union by non-electronic means despite awareness that that software is, or may be intended, in entirety or in part, for WMD purposes.
I hope that if noble Lords take a step back from the regrettableness of the error, they will realise that the chances of that happening early in 2021 are very low. We undertake—I do so unreservedly—to correct this error in early 2021, when we will be making routine amendments to the Export Control Order 2008. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, talked about urgency and the importance of there being no gap. I am sure that noble Lords will monitor this situation very carefully to make sure that we live up to our undertaking to correct it early in 2021. Again, I apologise to noble Lords and the House that the error arose. Regrettably, these things sometimes happen, and we took the view that the lesser of the two evils was to continue in this way with this very small error so as to avoid a gap, and to correct that very small error early in 2021.
The second point raised by my noble friend and drawn attention to by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was what was described by the JCSI as the
“unusual or unexpected use of enabling powers.”
Part 5 of the draft regulations contains amendments to an instrument that has not been made: the draft Trade in Torture etc. Goods (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations. These regulations have been debated in the House; they were ready to be laid but they have not yet been laid, so they have been through the normal scrutiny processes.
Our intention is for the unmade instrument to be made the same day, so that instrument will be made before this instrument is made, which will mean it will come into effect before these regulations come into effect. The making of the instruments in this sequence will allow the draft regulations to correct the deficient commencement regulation in the Trade in Torture etc. Goods (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations before it comes into force.
This was not an error; it was done deliberately, but it came about because those regulations were approved by Parliament in April 2019—noble Lords will know how long ago that seems in the history of negotiations with the European Union—before ratification of the agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. I assure noble Lords that there are precedents for a draft instrument requiring affirmative approval to correct a deficient commencement clause in an earlier draft instrument that has been approved by Parliament but not made by making both instruments on the same day and in sequence.
I humbly submit that Part 5 of the draft regulations is appropriate considering the precedent and, more importantly, the additional parliamentary time that would be required if the Trade in Torture etc. Goods (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations had to be relaid following, I stress, technical but not substantive amendment and debated again in their entirety by each House of Parliament. I am the first to admit that this is a messy situation. It would have been far better if it had not arisen, but we believe that the path we are taking is the best way to correct it.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, raised the important question of dual use. I absolutely agree with him on this. He made the comment that the underlying importance of the regulations is to protect excesses of human rights abuse. I am sure that every noble Lord would agree with his sentiments on that matter.
We are right that, at the moment, on 1 January the same laws will apply in Northern Ireland and GB, but there is of course a theoretical risk that divergence will occur. I stress that this is how it will operate: there will have to be close co-operation between the European Union and the United Kingdom on this matter. It would be far preferable if there was no divergence, but because the matters to which these regulations obtain often come about due to wider considerations in the United Nations context, or others, the risk of divergence is low. However, we will do all we can to ensure that divergence does not occur between these two sets of regulations. The protocol is, of course, subject to the continued consent of the people of Northern Ireland, who must approve its continued application every four years.
I will quickly refer to the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, made. I assure him that promoting trade is an important feature of our new free trade agreements.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked about intercept and cybersurveillance equipment. All cyber, cryptographic and intercept exports are subject to the same thorough risk assessment against the consolidated criteria as other controlled exports.
I appreciate that I have not answered a couple of the detailed points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Purvis. I commit to answering those by letter as soon as I possibly can. On that basis, I hope that these matters find favour with the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 5.30 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Conflict Minerals (Compliance) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Conflict Minerals (Compliance) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations, laid on 15 October, are necessary for the application
“to and in the UK in respect of Northern Ireland”
of the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation, which is listed in Annexe 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol. The regulation establishes the due diligence obligations of the largest importers of tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold, or “3TG”. Supply chain due diligence here is absolutely crucial. A large proportion of these so-called conflict minerals originate from conflict-affected and high-risk areas. The EU regulation makes voluntary guidance set by the OECD mandatory. It aims to break the link between armed conflict and the exploitation of 3TG and to put an end to abuses of local communities, including mine workers, which are often linked to violations of human rights.
Parts of the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation have applied in the UK since 2017. However, its key operative provisions do not apply until 1 January, after the end of the transition period. These include the relevant obligations on business and member state competent authorities to ensure its effective implementation throughout the EU. Those key provisions will not take effect in Great Britain and will not form part of retained EU law. The regulations we laid before Parliament make that provision for Northern Ireland, as required under the protocol, and establish an enforcement framework for non-compliance.
This means that from the 1 January 2021, the largest importers into Northern Ireland of tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold will need to demonstrate due diligence to ensure that their imports have been mined and processed responsibly. They will have to demonstrate that they are managing any risks that their supply chains are linked to human rights violations or to the fuelling of conflict.
To enforce this in Northern Ireland, we are proposing powers for the Secretary of State to require businesses to report on their due diligence systems. The regulations also make provision for inspectors to enter business premises to inspect documents, data and records. These powers are necessary to ensure that the largest importers of “conflict minerals” into Northern Ireland do so in a way that is fair to everyone in the supply chain.
The regime follows a civil sanctions route and provides for a power to issue civil compliance notices and financial penalties where businesses do not comply. The decision to impose a financial penalty may be appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. The regime does not impose penalties for substantive breaches of due diligence obligations, as this is considered outside the scope of the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation. As required by the regulations, we will publish guidance at the earliest opportunity on how the civil sanctions will be used.
We accept the comments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments that Regulation 8, which enables the Secretary of State to serve a notice requiring “a person” to produce information, is only enforceable against “Union importers”—importers into Northern Ireland—and that the regulations do not make provision for enforcing a requirement under Regulation 8 that is imposed on a person who is not a “Union importer”. We also accept as a point of principle that the imposition of obligations in statutory instruments should be accompanied by enforcement measures with equivalent scope.
It is necessary for these regulations to be made before the end of the transition period to meet the UK’s obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. We are proceeding with the regulations as currently drafted but will bring forward as soon as possible amending legislation to amend Regulation 8, as I said.
This amendment will make explicit that the power to require the production of information can be exercised only in relation to a “Union importer”—an importer into Northern Ireland. In the meantime, the Secretary of State undertakes not to exercise the power to require production of information under Regulation 8 against persons other than “Union importers”. When the amending regulations are laid, they will also implement some minor administrative and clarifying corrections.
Our intention through these regulations is to allow businesses to operate responsibly in conflict-affected and high-risk areas. 3TG minerals are key components for much of our technology and our view is that, under the right conditions, their mining can build prosperity and security for local communities. Conducting due diligence, in accordance with OECD guidance, is key to managing the risks and to ensuring that businesses along the supply chains behave responsibly.
Our proposed regime for Northern Ireland is in line with the spirit of OECD guidance, incentivising businesses to continually improve their due diligence processes. The approach taken in the regulations, including the financial penalties for failure to co-operate with procedural requirements, corresponds with the European Commission’s stance on the scope of the EU regulation. We consider that this approach to the implementation of the EU conflict minerals regulations in Northern Ireland will meet our obligations under the protocol. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction. I do not think we need to detain the Committee long, as I have only two questions, about how these regulations are enforced. First, in his introduction, the Minister referred to inspectors employed by the Secretary of State. Can he be more explicit on who these inspectors are, and whether they are acting in Northern Ireland on behalf of the European Union or the Northern Ireland Executive? Secondly, can he please tell us what parallel arrangements will be in force in the rest of the country when we have left the European Union?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. Could the noble Baroness please unmute?
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My apologies—I was finding it quite difficult to hear the Minister, but I caught most of what he said and I thank him for introducing this SI. I declare my interests as in the register.
The Minister is right that the global attempts to tackle the association of minerals with conflict must be supported. We have long known about the resource curse which has afflicted countries with weak development and poor governance. I saw that clearly in Angola, where oil helped to fuel a 30-year civil war and then untold corruption—a situation which is at last being tackled.
The Kimberley process was brought in to try to ensure that diamonds were sourced in a transparent way, unsullied by conflict. The minerals needed for our mobile phones and electric batteries are sourced from some of the most conflict-affected countries in the world and we cannot turn a blind eye. The whole supply chain is rightly coming under increased spotlight.
The OECD emphasises that companies in the minerals supply chain must be more than simply reactive in this area; they need to be proactive in making sure that they respect human rights and do not contribute to conflict. We have seen many examples of this. We see it still in Latin America, and certainly in Africa. The DRC is blessed with substantial mineral reserves but the people living there are currently condemned to suffer violence from those fighting over extracting them.
The OECD published guidance in 2016 to assist companies in adhering to these guidelines. The EU followed suit in 2017 but strengthened it, so that the guidelines became mandatory. This is therefore yet another change that we need to address because of leaving the EU. The regulations relate to one part of those EU arrangements for certain minerals, which were due to come into force on 1 January, as the Minister has laid out. The regulations ensure that this is in place in Northern Ireland from 1 January.
Northern Ireland has the charmed status, as government Ministers have said, of being in the internal market of the UK and the internal market of the EU— just as we used to be. Therefore, under the Northern Ireland protocol, this needs to go into place. Can the Minister tell me whether the rest of the United Kingdom will also adhere to these rules, as my noble friend Lord Bradshaw asked? The Government are always saying that we will meet the highest of standards, outclassing the EU. Are we doing so here? What will happen to companies in the rest of the UK after the transition period ends?
I note that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments said that these SIs were “defectively drafted” and the Minister’s department acknowledged this. In its report discussing the draft regulations, the committee stated:
“Regulation 8 enables the Secretary of State to serve a notice requiring a person to provide information”
on imports, where necessary, and that this may be imposed on, but is not limited to, EU importers. It goes on:
“Regulations 14 and 15, and the Schedule to the Regulations, contain provision for enforcing obligations imposed by the Regulations. However, this is limited to enforcing obligations imposed on Union importers.”
Therefore, the committee argued,
“the Regulations contain no provision for enforcing a requirement under regulation 8 imposed on a person who is not a Union importer.”
The Minister’s department has acknowledged that Regulation 8 was enforceable against EU importers only. Consequently, it said that it would
“bring forward amending legislation as soon as possible and that … the Secretary of State will not exercise the power to require production of information under regulation 8 against persons other than Union importers.”
Can the Minister tell us when this amending legislation will be brought forward? He does not have much time. Is this not a reflection of the overburdened department, for which he is now the single Minister in the Lords? It is in a state of reorganisation, at the same time as the country battles Covid and the Government have decided to take the United Kingdom out of both the single market and the customs union. My sympathies here are with the civil servants who drew up these regulations.
Can he also say when these regulations will be considered in the House of Commons, given that we have very little time before the transition period ends? There may well be one particularly large piece of business to get through before the Commons rises for Christmas—of course, if there is not, heaven preserve us. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I echo many of the comments that have already been made in this short debate. I, too, welcome the regulations and their need to address some important issues. When one looks at the title of the SI, it seems rather dry, but think about its impact. If, when people used their mobile phones, they realised the impact they have on certain conflict-afflicted countries, they may think twice about the need for such regulations.
I will pick up on a couple of points. The Minister mentioned defects and the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in relation to Regulation 8. The department has acknowledged this defect and said—the Minister repeated this—that it will
“bring forward amending legislation as soon as possible and that … the Secretary of State will not exercise the power to require production of information under regulation 8”.
What does “as soon as possible” mean? What is the timeframe for that? The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, made the point that this is a time-constrained issue. These regulations should be in force once the transition period ends, so can the noble Lord give us a clear assurance that we will not be in breach of the protocol and that these regulations will be properly enforced, as required by that? I would like that reassurance.
The other thing that was mentioned—the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in particular focused on this—was the question of who is responsible for the people required to enforce. The powers are designated to the Secretary of State rather than to the devolved Administration. Can the Minister confirm whether it is in line with precedent that such issues are reserved competencies and not ordinarily devolved to the Northern Ireland Administration?
The other point raised was on what we are doing. The Minister referred to the fact that parts of the requirement, the guidance and the statutory decision of the EU have applied in the rest of the UK. However, what are we doing to ensure that the spirit and letter of this requirement covers all parts of the United Kingdom? I am sure that all parties across the House would support this, because we know how important it is in terms of addressing conflict, which is often financed by the extraction of these minerals or caused by people wanting to extract them. It is therefore important that we get a clear indication that this policy will not be confined simply to the requirements of implementing the protocol.
My final point—I think that the Minister mentioned this—is that as an independent department DfID was a world leader in many of the developmental projects central to conflict minerals, including through support of the World Bank’s mineral sector reform programme, PROMINES. Can the Minister detail whether UK aid is today supporting similar programmes and whether any will be cut in the coming year? As we mentioned earlier in the House today, not many people realise how important ODA is for securing a safer and more secure world.
According to Global Witness, $3 billion in high-risk gold, including conflict gold from east and central Africa, flows to Dubai annually. Can the Minister confirm whether the UK is making any representations to other Governments regarding responsible importing of conflict materials, in particular those we are seeking agreements with on trade?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, I am grateful to all three noble Lords for their participation; I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, can hear me clearly. As all noble Lords have acknowledged and as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation comes into full force on 1 January 2021 and imposes a legal obligation on EU importers over the 3TG. We will also, in accordance with OECD guidance, issue further guidance in this respect in the early part of 2021 to ensure adherence.
Various questions were raised and I will seek to answer them as specifically as I can. First, on the report and the regulations mentioned, in particular the additional amendments we will seek to make in line with the committee’s report on Regulation 8, I do not have a specific date but I will of course endeavour to ensure that noble Lords are updated at the earliest opportunity to ensure that we are fully compliant in this respect. However, to answer the specific questions from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, these regulations will ensure we comply fully with our obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised the competent authority that will operate for the Northern Ireland inspectors, who will be appointed on behalf of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to exercise his powers with respect to entry and inspection. For the purposes of the regulations, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Secretary will take the role of the competent authority. This is also part and parcel of our fulfilling our obligations in this respect.
The noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, also rightly raised the issue of other parts of the UK, since we are taking these regulations forward only in Northern Ireland, in line with the Northern Ireland protocol. They asked specific questions on this. Outside of the EU, the UK is not obliged to enforce the substantive provisions of the EU conflict minerals regulation. However, the UK will continue to be an active member of the OECD and to promote the OECD’s due diligence guidance. In this respect, the UK Government fully expect all UK businesses to adhere to the OECD guidance. Since the EU minerals regulation is listed in Annexe 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement, the UK Government, in introducing the SI, are taking the necessary steps to ensure that the regulation is implemented and enforced in Northern Ireland. We will in due course consider what, if any, further regulatory framework might be appropriate for Great Britain.
In this regard, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, also asked about our work elsewhere in the world. We have of course been very effective in bringing regimes across the world to the fore regarding this issue. In particular, the UK is committed to addressing risks around conflict minerals through promoting and encouraging compliance with the OECD’s due diligence guidance, which has been issued for responsible mineral supply chains for conflict-affected and high-risk areas. We will of course continue to be a member of the OECD outside of the EU and we expect all businesses to take appropriate steps.
The UK is also a founding member of the European Partnership for Responsible Minerals. This initiative aims to increase the proportion of responsibly sourced minerals by working across the whole of the supply chain. In this regard, the UK Government funded projects, including in the African Great Lakes region, and supported the development of a due diligence hub to provide information for businesses to progress their supply chain due diligence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, specifically flagged the importance of the Kimberley process. I have worked directly on this so I can reassure her. The Kimberley process, as noble Lords know, groups 55 like-minded participants, covering 82 states, with framework regulations designed to prevent the flow of conflict diamonds, which is also pertinent to our debate. We have been part of the Kimberley process since 2002. The UK remain committed to the policies and principles of the Kimberley process. We will become an independent participant at the end of the transition period.
I trust that I have answered most if not all of the questions raised. As I said, I will come back to noble Lords on the specific timetabling of the related amendments under Regulation 8. We seek to do that as soon as practicable and possible. I am sure that we will update noble Lords through the usual channels. With that, I once again thank all noble Lords for their participation. This is another important step forward in the passing of these regulations to ensure our compliance with the obligations under the withdrawal agreement as we prepare for the end of the transition period.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
Death of a Member: Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, on Tuesday 1 December. On behalf of the House, I extend our very sincere condolences to the noble and learned Lord’s family and friends.
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them sensibly short and confined to just two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Belfast International Airport
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the operation of Belfast International Airport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the measures taken in response to Covid-19 have been unprecedented, enabling airlines, airports and ground handlers to benefit from a very significant amount of taxpayer support. This includes, but is not limited to, the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and financing facilities. In Northern Ireland, airports have also benefited from business rates relief.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Belfast International Airport is the largest airport in Northern Ireland, with 70% of all Northern Ireland travellers passing through it. It is an easyJet hub for the whole of Europe, and it is open throughout the night, with extensive essential flights for Royal Mail, the air ambulance, the military, security and freight. Yet, despite opening throughout the pandemic, it has not received any Department for Transport money or Northern Ireland finance support, even though a tiny Londonderry airport was allocated £1.2 million last week, and Aer Lingus at Belfast City Airport was supported for three months through the public service obligation. Can the Minister look into this and see what more the Department for Transport can do to ensure equal treatment for Aldergrove?
Can she also tell Northern Ireland passengers why, as it stands at the moment with the protocol, from 1 January, duty-free and tax-free goods will be available on all flights from GB airports to the EU, except from Belfast—and yet when flying from Dublin to London, you will be able to purchase duty-free? Will the Minister take this up as a matter of urgency with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who sits on the joint committee, as this is just not fair?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, a number of issues were brought up there, and perhaps I will take away the last issue and write to the noble Baroness. Financial support for airports is of course a devolved matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, but it is the case that all of the airports—Belfast International Airport, Belfast City Airport and the City of Derry Airport—have benefited from the business rates relief. It was also the case that, for a very short period, there was an additional PSO in place, which operated from Belfast City Airport. This was put in place because that was the last remaining flight and therefore it needed to be protected, but that support was needed only for a very short period.
Baroness Pidding (Con)
My Lords, our regional airports, such as those in Tees Valley, Newquay and Exeter, play an essential role in aiding regional connectivity. They are vital for both business and leisure and contribute to local economies. Would my noble friend the Minister agree with me that the business rates relief announced by the Government would help to ensure that, with this support, our aviation industry has a fighting chance of survival in these turbulent times?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is quite right, and my department was delighted to be able to support the announcement of the business rates relief, which will be open for applications shortly. It is the case that up to a maximum of £8 million will be available per eligible site, and this will help support our commercial airports and ground handlers.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, the connectivity of travel between the four nations within the United Kingdom is essential. The people in Great Britain have the option of rail and road connections, as well as air travel; in Northern Ireland, we have no such options. Will the Minister please pass on to the department responsible the request that air passenger duty is removed from domestic flights from the three Northern Ireland airports—not from the international flights from Northern Ireland but from the domestic flights from Northern Ireland to Great Britain?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the Government have committed to consult on the future of APD. This consultation has been slightly delayed by the Covid pandemic, but we expect it to be issued soon.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I back the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney. Those of us who live in Great Britain can get around by train and by car, but people in Northern Ireland can get over here only by air—at least until the Prime Minister builds his bridge, which may take some time. So will the UK Government now treat this as a special case and put some UK Government money into helping Belfast airport?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I have already addressed this point. It should be pointed out that Belfast International Airport is owned and operated by VINCI Airports, which owns and operates 45 airports worldwide and is a very large company. There are various interventions that Belfast International Airport is able to avail itself of at the moment.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, there has been a lot of focus on potential disruption at ports after 1 January but very little on the impact on airports and, in particular, Belfast airport. Can the Minister explain what the Government expect the situation to be, both with and without a deal with the EU?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, conversations around a deal or otherwise are ongoing, but trade with Northern Ireland will of course continue according to the “unfettered access” under the Northern Ireland protocol. It is worth noting that Belfast International Airport is a significant freight airport, and while it suffered a 79% reduction in passengers in October, it has seen an 8% increase in freight, so that is good news.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
During the pandemic, smaller airports such as Belfast International Airport have suffered most, as airlines have consolidated their operations to the larger hubs. Am I to take it from the Government’s responses to this Question so far that they actually think they have done enough to ensure that no further smaller airports in the United Kingdom will face the financial pressures that Belfast International Airport has?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I apologise if I have given the noble Lord that impression; that was not my intention at all. The Government are well aware that both large and small airports are experiencing significant difficulties at the moment, which is why the expert steering group has been established. It is working on a strategic framework for the medium and long-term recovery of the aviation sector in the form of a recovery plan. This group does engage with the DAs.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister look again at air passenger duty and provide us with a specific timetable for when that consultation will begin? Aviation is central not only to our transportation strategy but to our economic strategy through jobs in aircraft building and associated businesses.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am not able to provide any further details of the timing of the APD consultation. However, I recognise the noble Baroness’s point that aviation connectivity is important. That is why it will be an important part of the union connectivity review, which was announced on 30 June and will be led by Sir Peter Hendy. This will look at connectivity across all modes, including aviation, across the four parts of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the measures they have introduced, such as business rates relief and the other facilities that my noble friend mentioned, of which small airports can avail themselves. Will my noble friend tell the House what impact the Government expect on Belfast International Airport if we were to leave the EU without a deal at the end of December?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not aware that the Government have done any specific assessment of Belfast International Airport. It may be the case that the Northern Ireland Executive have, and perhaps I will ask them to be in touch if they have any further details.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
[Inaudible]—Belfast International Airport to Dublin, because of the abolition of air passenger duty in the Republic. Therefore, Belfast International Airport was facing an uphill battle competing with Dublin Airport. The airport is the hub for international travel in Northern Ireland. In March, the Government announced a recovery plan for aviation. What specific financial assistance has been forthcoming to ensure the survival of Belfast International Airport?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I have outlined the support that Belfast International Airport and various airports in Northern Ireland have already had, but I can give a little more detail. For example, the business rates relief which was offered by the Northern Ireland Executive totalled £2.2 million, of which Belfast International Airport received the lion’s share, at £1.7 million. The City of Derry Airport received £1.23 million from the NIE, but the reason behind that is that it is owned by the council, and local authority airports cannot access the same support as private airports, such as CBILS, the CJRS and so on.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Children: Online Grooming
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to protect children online who have been groomed into filming their own abuse.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as a champion of the Internet Watch Foundation and a vice-president of Barnardo’s.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the rise in self-generated indecent images of children is extremely concerning. These images can have devastating impacts on young people, putting them at risk of blackmail, coercion and, of course, further abuse. Through the online harms Bill we intend to publish a new duty of care for online companies towards their users, overseen by an independent regulator. Our response during the pandemic includes amplifying messages to stakeholders to help children to stay safe online.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, professionals working in child protection, such as those at Barnardo’s and the NSPCC, have been raising concerns about the impact of the lockdown on children, which has created a perfect storm that has led to an increase in online child abuse. The Internet Watch Foundation has warned of a rise in self-generated illegal images of young children which it has had to take down, up almost 50% on last year. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that there is a renewed focus on prevention and the protection of children, who are spending more time online, to guarantee that they are properly supported with high-quality online safety advice, funding and resources?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree whole- heartedly with the noble Baroness: she is absolutely right that the figures she quotes are staggering and worrying. I commend the Internet Watch Foundation for the work it is doing. I know that officials are engaging very closely with the IWF to explore what more we can do to tackle this sort of online grooming. I also know that RSE in schools is another area through which we can engage with children to prevent this sort of thing happening in the first place.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the UK Safer Internet Centre recently reported that in one week alone earlier this year 700 young girls, most of them between 11 and 13 years old, were coerced into filming their own abuse and posting it online, where it is easily shared, repeating the trauma and victimisation time and again. What progress have the Government made in getting social media companies to take down all such images, including those that have been shared, as they are reported? Which companies are not complying with this process? Can the Minister also confirm that funding for the UK Safer Internet Centre has been secured as a result of the Chancellor’s Statement last week?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I cannot confirm the answer to the noble Lord’s question about the funding for the UK Safer Internet Centre, but I will confirm it to him in writing. The figure that he quoted of 700 girls in one week is just staggering in its magnitude. Of course, this is a problem of this generation: my children were certainly not subjected to this type of coercion, either by their peers or by groomers online. This is the double concern. I know that Five Eyes are working together with some of the internet providers and social media sites and that the Home Secretary has been engaged in this work, specifically with Facebook.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in April 2017, three and a half years ago, the Digital Economy Act included measures to protect children online. In 2019, the Government decided not to commence these measures, wanting instead to wait for the online harms Bill. A year on, we are still waiting for that Bill. When will it be published, and can the Minister explain to the House how this three and a half year-delay is the Government seeking to protect children online?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I cannot disagree with the noble Baroness that the sooner the online harms Bill comes our way, the better. I certainly know that the response to the consultation will be published very shortly. The sooner we can get on with this, the absolute better for our children.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, is there any way for the authorities to monitor communications with children who are in local authority care and particularly vulnerable to the offer of a relationship, and in this way prevent the grooming altogether?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I have to say to my noble and learned friend that in local authorities, particularly when local authority systems are being used, there are firewalls to prevent some types of abuse, but if a child has a smart phone with such things as Messenger or Snapchat on it, it is incredibly difficult for local authorities to keep tabs on children who are at the end of such coercive behaviour. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, talked about the online harms Bill next year: that is going to be crucial, because it will place a duty of care on service providers and social media platforms to actually protect vulnerable people from this sort of thing.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, following up on the Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, she may be aware that industry compliance in taking down child abuse images fell by 89% in the first month of lockdown. What tools are the Government using, or threatening to use, to ensure that social media companies such as Facebook design and deliver platforms and services that put child protection front and centre?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can guess at several of the factors, but one might be the ever-increasing use of encryption, so that not only can parents not see what their children are doing, but nor can the local authority or, actually, the internet providers themselves. This is at the heart of what the Home Secretary and Five Eyes partners are trying to discourage going forward.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, following up on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, my noble friend may be aware that Facebook and Facebook-owned apps such as Instagram and WhatsApp account for more than 50% of online abuse. What conversations are specifically taking place with Facebook in relation to its platforms being the preferred method and platform for this kind of abuse?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Well, Messenger, which is a Facebook app, had not to date been encrypted, but Facebook has announced its intention to encrypt Messenger from, I think, next year. This is precisely the type of discussion that the Home Secretary and Five Eyes partners are having with Facebook, because not only will law enforcement bodies and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in the US not be able to look at what is going on there, but nor will Facebook itself, and that is the crucial thing here.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, these are horrific crimes. Frankly, is it not time to give the directors of the companies that are hosting these images legal civil and criminal responsibility for the content they host? I suspect we would see much swifter action if this were the case, and nothing short of this will do to deal with this abuse.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, although I cannot give the actual details of the online harms Bill, that duty of care will push that responsibility on to those internet service providers and platforms to do just that, to protect our children.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
The question we really want answered is whether the Home Office is pressing for, and the Government are going to provide parliamentarians with, the opportunity to vote in Parliament to create criminal sanctions against the internet companies that are failing to deal with this depravity.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I certainly look forward to having those discussions with parliamentarians in your Lordships’ House, many of whom have such expertise in this area.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Security Co-operation
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, we will continue to work closely with our European partners to tackle shared security threats, promoting the safety and security of all our citizens. We also continue to work closely with operational partners to ensure that we are ready for a range of possible outcomes at the end of the year. The UK will continue to be a global leader on security and one of the safest countries in the world.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are threatened by cybercrime, other forms of serious crime, violent extremism and terrorism and that, if we leave the EU without a sensible deal on security co-operation, we will lose access to data, the European arrest warrant and Europol? On access to data, will she confirm that we use the Schengen Information System 600 million times a year? Surely our membership of the European Court of Justice, which is a government red line, is trivial compared to the need to keep our people safe and save lives in this country.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
We have always said that there would be a mutual loss of capability in the event that the UK no longer had access to SIS II. That is why we have offered to reach an agreement with the EU that delivers a similar capability. The Commission has stated its view that it is not legally possible for a non-Schengen third country to co-operate through SIS II and that a future agreement between the UK and the EU need not provide similar capabilities. We regret this and have maintained our offer to the EU.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the sharing of intelligence and the importance of close co-operation between the UK and our friends throughout Europe is well proven. I could cite several examples clearly showing that it keeps us all safe and has prevented terrorist attacks throughout the continent. What assurance can the Minister give your Lordships’ House that there will be no lessening of this close partnership after the end of the implementation period on 1 January 2021?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that the UK will continue to work with our European partners to counter, as he said, the terrorist threats we face in Europe and beyond. We have world-leading expertise on counterterrorism and countering violent extremism, which we will continue to share with EU member states as appropriate.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, how much of our data exchange with EU member states now takes place through Europol? Does my noble friend agree that, having left the EU, we should rebuild our security and intelligence exchange arrangements on a bilateral basis with member states rather than exchanging sensitive intelligence through Europol, and that our security will be enhanced rather than diminished as a result?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the UK is not seeking membership of Europol or Eurojust. That is not how third-country arrangements with these agencies work. We have not sought membership of either agency, but we are negotiating at what is clearly a very sensitive and late stage. In general, there is a good degree of convergence between what the UK and the EU have been seeking to negotiate.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister give a clear assurance that, from 1 January, the police will continue to have unfettered access to the various EU databases which help them track and prevent transnational crime such as the trafficking of drugs, arms and people? Over 50 million requests are made of these databases every year from UK police forces. National security would clearly be at risk without access to them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness about our capabilities. We are in the very late stages of negotiating an agreement on law enforcement, criminal justice and, as she says, those data exchanges that are so important. I cannot say more than that, but we have had some very useful discussions in this area and I am hopeful of a good deal.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister assure us that, once we are no longer part of the EU’s common security and defence policy, UK defence companies will not be disadvantaged in participating in and supplying to European defence projects?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness strays slightly into the area of defence, but I can say that the foundation of European security since 1949 has been the NATO alliance. Our intelligence services already have highly effective co-operation to build on outside those EU structures. We also have the Five Eyes group and the Counter-Terrorism Group. We are well placed going forward.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is it not the case that, without access to EU databases and the European arrest warrant, in terms of security we are leaving the European Union on a wing and a prayer?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The European arrest warrant is used exclusively by EU members, obviously. We have proposed that an agreement with the EU should provide for fast-track extradition arrangements, based on the EU’s arrangements with Norway and Iceland but with appropriate further safeguards for individuals.
Lord Polak (Con)
My noble friend has rightly stated that the safety and security of our citizens is the top priority and that the UK will continue to be a global leader in security. One therefore hopes that our European friends will continue to work closely with us to ensure the safety of all our citizens. In the unlikely event that we leave without a deal, can my noble friend confirm that there are well-developed and well-rehearsed plans in place to ensure the safety and security of the British people?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can confirm that for my noble friend. I also reiterate his point that the safety and security of our citizens is the Government’s top priority. We are negotiating an agreement on law enforcement and criminal justice with the EU to equip our operational partners on both sides with the capabilities to protect citizens and bring criminals to justice.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The National Police Chiefs’ Council has warned that, post Brexit, with the loss of access to EU databases,
“even with contingencies in place, the fallback systems will be slower, provide less visibility of information/intelligence and make joined up working with European partners more cumbersome.”
The National Crime Agency has said that, in both a negotiated outcome and a non-negotiated scenario,
“the alternative measures are less automated and more unwieldy to use.”
Do the Government agree with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the National Crime Agency? If so, what do they intend to do about it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I reiterate that there will be a mutual loss of capabilities for the UK and the EU in a non-negotiated outcome. I do not think I have made any secret of that in this House. We are therefore working very hard—I know it is late in the day—to secure a negotiated outcome.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has confirmed that the security of their citizens is the number one priority of the Government. If that is the case, are we going to have access to the European Criminal Records Information System, which we make almost 200,000 requests to in a year? Are we going to have access to the Schengen Information System II, which, as noble Lords have said, has required access of up to 500 million times a year? What about Europol, which was mentioned? What about the European arrest warrant? Does the Minister agree that, deal or no deal, if we do not have these things, they represent a risk to public safety and security?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can only admire the noble Lord’s ability to get about seven questions in his one question. Going back to SIS II, which we spoke about earlier, the Commission has stated its view that it is not legally possible for us, as a non-Schengen country, to co-operate through SIS II. As set out in the UK’s published approach to negotiations, we believe an agreement should provide for the fast and effective exchange of criminal records data between the UK and EU individual member states.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I do not admire the noble Lord’s ability to get more than two questions in, because that is meant to be the requirement of Question Time. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Ethiopia: Northern Tigray Region
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the announcement by the government of Ethiopia on 30 November that military operations in the northern Tigray region are complete, what assessment they have made of the situation in that region; and what access they have (1) requested, and (2) been granted, to the region to establish (a) humanitarian needs, and (b) any evidence of war crimes.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interest as the vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Eritrea.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, an initial Tigray humanitarian preparedness plan has been prepared by the United Nations. A comprehensive assessment of the humanitarian needs across Tigray has not yet been possible. We are encouraged that an assessment mission co-ordinated by the UN is scheduled to commence later this week, and this follows efforts by the UK and others to press for implementation of the assessment. We have also contributed to the UN guiding principles presented to the Government of Ethiopia on humanitarian access, with a view to the delivery of assistance for civilians.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can I press him further on the issue of the humanitarian corridor? Will this conform to United Nations principles of neutrality, and will access be granted to our diplomats to visit Tigray? Secondly, how do we intend to hold to account those who have been responsible for the torture of refugees, the forced reform of refugees and some pretty barbaric acts which have been carried out against some of those who have escaped from Tigray?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, of course the situation at the moment does not allow for a full assessment. But let me assure him of this: we will certainly continue to press that any perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice. On his point about humanitarian corridors, we are liaising closely with the UN humanitarian organisations to establish what, if any, additional support is needed to press for diplomatic channels in particular—which we have been doing—to allow for the principles that he has articulated. It is integral to the principles laid down by OCHA, which the UK supported the development of.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a real prospect of the Ethiopian conflict getting right out of control, especially given the Horn of Africa’s strategic importance, with Gulf countries, China, the US and others jockeying for influence, or even becoming a Libyan nightmare of war crimes, war lords and ethnic cleansing? Can the Government redouble efforts to broker negotiations through the United Nations, the African Union and the EU?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first let me assure the noble Lord that I share his concern, when we see the challenges faced in neighbouring countries, about the importance of containing this and seeking a peaceful settlement. On the channels he has mentioned, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary discussed co-ordination with our EU partners on 23 November, and we are in discussions with key African partners, including Uganda, Somalia, Kenya and, importantly, South Africa. At the UN, we also participated in the Security Council debate on 24 November.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, given the risk to stability in the region, does the Minister agree with former US ambassador Carson when he said yesterday that the battle cannot be won militarily, and that it is vital that neighbours do not become embroiled through the use of their bases or airspace? Could he spell out which EU countries the United Kingdom is working with to secure these aims via the UN?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the noble Baroness’s two questions, I can say yes and yes. We are working specifically with the likes of Germany and France in this respect, which also have important equities in that area.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, all too often, women and children are the greatest victims of conflict. The UK is leading the way in the implementation of UN Resolution 1325, which recognises the importance of women’s involvement in peacekeeping. I visited and saw first-hand the UK contribution to the Peace Support Training Centre in Addis but, in light of recent events, is now the time to increase our commitment to that centre?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend speaks with some insight and, of course, great expertise. I share his view that one of the real successes has been the women, peace and security programme run by the Ministry of Defence and the FCDO. On his specific question on whether we increase capacity, obviously the situation at the moment is very fluid on the ground, but he makes a very important suggestion, which I will certainly take back and update him on accordingly.
Baroness Cox (CB) [V]
My Lords, what assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the Ethiopian premier’s assertion in Parliament on 30 November that his forces “have not killed a single civilian” during the conflict in the Tigray region? That followed a statement by the International Committee of the Red Cross on 29 November that Ayder Referral Hospital in the Tigrayan capital was “running dangerously low” on stocks and body bags due to an influx of wounded people, and that 80% of them had suffered unspecified trauma injuries. What can be done to help the supply of medical equipment much needed for that hospital?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that I have been speaking directly to UN agencies, as have other colleagues within the FCDO. I share the important point she raised right at the end of her question, and we are pressing for unfettered humanitarian access. The number of fatalities is unclear, but there is clearly also a high level of internally displaced people. I assure her that we are using all good offices and lobbying directly with the country, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has done, to ensure unfettered humanitarian access to the region.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Picking up the last point the Minister mentioned, on the number of internally displaced people, has there been an assessment of how many there are? Have conversations taken place with the Governments of Sudan and Eritrea over the support that could be given to refugees at the border as well?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, the short answer is yes. We have raised it on a bilateral basis, as have international agencies. One figure I can share with him is that we now estimate that more than 45,449 people have fled Ethiopia for neighbouring Sudan—that is the latest figure I have. That is an example of the figures we have been able to make an assessment on.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, given that this is, in essence, a political and economic conflict, and given also that the Chinese Government are the biggest economic investor in Ethiopia, are Her Majesty’s Government working with the Chinese Government to see what influence they can bring to bear to calm matters and to bring about a potential negotiation between Ethiopia and Eritrea?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. We too are one of the leading international donors to the country, and I assure her that we are using, in particular, our discussions at the UN in pursuit of that aim.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
Prior to the conflict, Tigray was a safe haven for Eritrean refugees afraid to return home because of fear of persecution. With Eritrea’s rumoured involvement in the conflict against the TPLF, what assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the validity of claims that the Eritrean military are forcing refugees into trucks and abducting them back to Eritrea?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right to raise those concerns. This too is part of the conversations that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has had with the Eritrean Government. They, of course, refute any such programmes or policy, but we continue to raise our concerns directly with them.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I first visited Ethiopia with the Commons International Development Committee. We had a long meeting with Meles Zenawi, who was very impressive, and was often described as Tony Blair’s favourite African dictator. He, of course, has been gone for many years. However, when I visited last year, although there was greater prosperity there was still grinding poverty. Can my noble friend assure me that henceforth, when we pour in billions and billions of pounds in aid, as we have done in Ethiopia, for humanitarian reasons and for education and health, we will also look at what is happening to the defence budgets of such countries? I am afraid that what has been happening is fungibility. We have been giving aid for education and health—they have been spending money on arms.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend raises an important point about transparency in development spending. That is why the new structure at the FCDO will pursue that very point, ensuring that development support is intended for those who are suffering, and gets directly to them.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
In answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the Minister said that the Government were in touch with France and Germany. Are the Government in touch with any power in the region itself that might be an influence for good, and what response have they had from the African Union about the role that it might play?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Let me assure the noble and right reverend Lord that yes, we are in touch with some of the countries I have already listed, such as Kenya, Uganda, Somalia and South Africa. We are dealing with those countries in the region at the most senior levels of government.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, may I ask the Minister about local women being asked to be at the peace table, on both sides, from now on? It is only with local women at the peace table that we will get real peace.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I totally agree with the noble Baroness. The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of involving women peace mediators. Indeed, we have launched several initiatives, and I agree that when women are involved in bringing about peace and sustaining it, peace agreements last much longer. The evidence is there for all to see.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and that brings Question Time to an end.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Conduct Committee Report
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
That the Report from the Select Committee Registration of members’ foreign interests (7th Report, HL Paper 182) be agreed to.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we are ready to start if the noble and learned Lord could unmute. I do not think that he can hear.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB) [V]
I have not been linked up. Can anybody hear?
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB) [V]
My Lords, I should start by explaining that I am moving this Motion as a member of the Conduct Committee on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Mance, because this particular report raises matters in which he personally has interests and has therefore recused himself from deliberations upon it.
This report builds upon an earlier report that the House approved in July about Members’ dealings with foreign Governments. It is, indeed, the latest in a series of changes that we are proposing to the House in order to increase transparency around Members’ overseas interests, reflecting increasing levels of concern about foreign state influence on our politics. Not least, your Lordships will recall, such concerns were raised by the long-awaited ISC report in July. After a good deal of deliberation, the committee is now proposing that Members should be required on an annual basis to disclose their earnings—I quote paragraph 9 of the report —from
“governments of foreign states (including departments and agencies), organisations which may be thought by a reasonable member of the public to be foreign state-owned or controlled, and individuals with official status (whether executive, legislative or judicial) in foreign states when acting in that capacity”.
One of our key challenges was to find such a definition that properly caught all that we wanted and thought we needed to capture.
Although the registrar may be consulted, Members will be responsible for judging whether an organisation or individual in fact meets that definition. In case of doubt, they should err on the side of registration. Members will be able to disclose the exact amount that they have been paid or simply indicate into which of the several bands set out in paragraph 12 of the report their earnings fall.
The committee is aware that in some professions there is a clear duty of confidentiality that would prevent some Members from disclosing all the information required. Obviously, they may include doctors, arbitrators or perhaps other lawyers. Rather than try now to come up with a definitive list of such professions in the code, we propose that Members should apply for an exemption as far as necessary. To do that, they will be asked to consult the registrar, who will provide advice on the basis of detailed guidance, which we, the Conduct Committee, shall give him. The committee is currently drawing up such guidance, with a view to publishing it early next year.
If the House agrees this report, the registrar will email Members to explain these changes, which will then take effect from 1 January 2021. Registerable earnings between then and the end of the financial year, 5 April 2021, would need to be disclosed no later than 31 January 2022. Registerable earnings in the next financial year would then need to be disclosed by 31 January 2023, and so on. All that is set out in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the report.
Finally, we propose also to add to the guide some cautionary wording for Members with regard to their dealings with foreign Governments and entities. Paragraph 17 deals with that. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I will call the following to speak: the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My view is that all money received by Members of the House of Lords should be declared. This report tries to do what is virtually impossible, which is to lay down a code of conduct that, by its own nature, is vague. I have a number of questions.
As regards the guidance on dealing with lobbyists, the report states:
“Members should be especially cautious when coming into contact with representatives of corrupt or repressive regimes”.
The noble and learned Lord who introduced the report is a lawyer. He will know that the word “representatives” is certainly capable of challenge. What is a representative? What is a corrupt regime? What is a repressive regime? Is Hungary a repressive regime? If someone is in contact with a representative of the Hungarian Government, at what level does the rule apply? Is the ambassador of Hungary a representative of a repressive regime? This report is shot through with problems.
The next page covers the level of remuneration in respect of the interests falling within this category that need to be disclosed only where they are received from the Governments of foreign states. What do we mean by “foreign states” or “controlled by”? Is Huawei controlled by the Chinese Government, as is alleged by some, or is it not controlled by them, as is said by the Chinese Government? What about what I would call “parastatal” regimes—in other words, bodies that are set up at arm’s length by Governments such as the British Government to provide services? Is Serco a parastatal regime and company, or is it not? This is just not good enough.
On applying for exemptions, how will we explain to the British public that Members of the House of Lords can take earnings from organisations and not declare them? That is what this says: earnings do not have to be declared because of confidentiality. We can have confidential agreements made by legislators who can subsequently intervene on legislation, but there is no public record of that. It is not good enough.
My final point is about
“disposing once in respect of each financial year.”
If I visit Turkey, which I did not so long ago, I have to declare that within two months. Why, if we have this system, could someone earn money in May 2021 and not have to declare it until January 2023? Why the sudden difference? I do not think that this is acceptable.
I will not vote against the report because that is not the done thing, but I do not think that it answers the question that was put before it, which is to make the proceedings of this House and the activities of its Members more transparent. I am sorry to rock the boat again, but these things need to be said.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I have two points: both have been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, but in a slightly different way. I have a query about paragraph 16 of the report which states:
“Members should be especially cautious when coming into contact with representatives of corrupt or repressive regimes, ensuring that they uphold the integrity of the parliamentary process and the reputation of the House of Lords at all times.”
That is a bit unclear—I am not sure what it means or who would make that decision.
My other point is on the paragraph about confidentiality, which might more appropriately be called exemptions. The noble and learned Lord might be able to help me to understand this. The report states:
“We are aware that in a small number of professions there is a duty of confidentiality”—
I can think of only one, which is the medical profession, and I am not sure whether the others might possibly be to do with the legal profession. The report goes on
“which would make it difficult for members to disclose the identity of the government”
but then proposes that
“members … would be able to apply for an exemption from the registration requirement.”
Does that mean that they would not have to register anything at all, not even having received any money if that was the case? I can understand that there might be an element of confidentiality, although I struggle to understand whether that is essential, but I do not see why that should completely exempt Members from the registration requirement.
I also have concerns about the personal services company element because I am not clear about how it will work. The report states that Members
“need to register the type of client involved but without naming the particular client in question.”
I am not convinced that that is 100% helpful to the House or to those looking at this, but my main question is who makes the decision. In paragraph 9 under definitions, it states:
“Although the Registrar may be consulted, members will be responsible for judging whether an organisation or individual meets this definition, and in case of doubt they should err on the side of registration.”
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, helpfully said that the Conduct Committee will issue guidance for the registrar, but I am not clear who will make the decision that an exemption is appropriate. Given that exemption brings with it the opportunity not to make any form of registration at all or to provide any information, I would like some clarity on who will make the decision. If it is the same as in paragraph 9, which states that the individual Member can make that decision, that seems somewhat unhelpful to this House and to the issue of transparency.
I will not seek to divide the House or to vote against the Motion because it is an important step forward and there are a lot of areas in which the report is helpful, but I would like clarity on those points if the noble and learned Lord is able to give them to me.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and the noble Baroness Lady Smith, not least because, if I may say so, they have effectively confirmed that there are real difficulties in reaching the necessary degree of definition in this highly complex area of our code—[Inaudible.]
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lord, I am sorry, but we cannot hear you again. Could you try and press your unmute button? They are working on trying to get the audio back so we can hear you.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB) [V]
I apologise, although I do not believe it to have been my fault. As I was saying, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, have established what we have long felt—that this is an extremely problematic area of our code on which we have deliberated long and hard to try to achieve these definitions.
On the main question raised by both speakers, of course there are difficulties in deciding whether a particular organisation is controlled by the Government. These matters are dealt with in Paragraph 9 of the report. But as the report is at pains to show, there are two guiding principles. The first is that what reasonable members of the public might suppose to be the position here, along the lines of Huawei and so forth. If it may be thought by the public that an organisation is foreign state-owned or state-controlled, there is a clear and categoric obligation to disclose that fact. However, there is always the power of consulting the registrar, so there is help from that quarter. There is also the enduring obligation that in case of doubt, a Member should err on the side of registration.
We have not felt able to be more specific than that. If anyone feels that they have a clear solution to this riddle, we would be delighted to hear it. In the meantime, we feel that this is the best that we can offer.
With regard to corrupt and repressive regimes, your Lordships will see that this was dealt with in an earlier report. Paragraph 1 of the report points that out. We are trying to help further, in paragraph 17. Of course, these are highly difficult concepts, but this is open to Members—and one hopes that they will avail themselves of this—to consult the registrar and, if in doubt, an obvious course would be to effect the registration. As to the date of earnings, we have tried to be helpful and to minimise the administrative burden on Members by taking the same date and concept for declaration of earnings as one uses for one’s tax returns annually, to 31 January—to do one’s earnings in relation to the tax year. That is why the first proposed registration is for 1 January to 5 April 2021.
I hope that deals with most points. Your Lordships will have seen that we continue to consult on this and deliberate in this field. On the question of guidance for the registrar, it is the registrar whose decision ultimately rules on the question of exemptions. Again, it is difficult to see how one could improve on that. To address a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I hope this is not an absurd, fanciful and unhelpful suggestion, but if we assume that one of our enormously distinguished doctors in the House, who contributes greatly to the proceedings of the House, has as a patient some foreign head of state, Prime Minister or whatever, and is consulted by him professionally—that must surely be confidential. He cannot possibly say: “I’ve been treating that king for piles” or whatever it is. It would be a gross abuse of professional privilege and confidentiality. That is the sort of situation one could get into. Therefore, if you had this report without the possibility of exemption, you would require somebody such as that doctor to take leave of absence and cease to participate in the House. I am not sure that I can do any better than that. I fear that nothing I can say will entirely satisfy all the questions that such a report inevitably raises.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. He has tried to answer, and he has hit the nail on the head when saying that it explains the difficulties. However, the committee must look again at two things that he referred to as a matter of urgency. This report takes us some way forward, but not far enough. The point he made about a medical person who contributes to the work of this House but who is treating somebody in confidence does not explain why there cannot be any registration at all. Surely the registration could be declared. The confidentiality of who is being treated might be an issue, but who makes that decision? That is the central point. At present, the person who makes that decision is the Peer. When we talk about exemptions, that is not acceptable. I do not intend to divide the House against the report, which takes us a step further forward, but there are inadequacies in it which I hope the noble Lord will take back to the committee and address as a matter of urgency.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB) [V]
We will certainly take back and consider all the points that have been made. On the substantive question that the noble Baroness raises, I have no doubt whatever that the Member would say that he practices as a doctor in a given field for clients internationally as well as at home. I do not know whether that would be regarded by her as satisfying that aspect of the register of interests. Subject to that, of course, we will look afresh in the light of all the helpful comments made by Members.
Animal Welfare and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8, 21 and 22 October be approved.
Relevant document: 33rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Definition of Qualifying Northern Ireland Goods (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 and 21 October be approved.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the first instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 30 November.
Official Development Assistance
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to mention the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, to start with. Like her, I feel immensely proud that the United Kingdom has been a development superpower and contributed so much to the world. Our support and leadership on development has saved and changed millions of lives. Last week the Minister told this House that the development priorities would remain the same, but a cut from 0.7% to 0.5% would represent a 30% reduction in funding. NGOs have estimated that, if applied across aid spending in areas previously managed by DfID, could mean that each year 5.6 million fewer children will be immunised and 105,000 lives will not be saved; 940,000 fewer children will be supported to gain a decent education; 7.6 million fewer women and girls will be reached with modern methods of family planning; 2 million fewer people will be reached with humanitarian assistance; 3.8 million fewer people will be supported to access clean water and better sanitation; and 16.5 million fewer women and children will be reached with nutrition programming.
I am also proud of the UK’s contribution to the global efforts to tackle Covid-19, particularly on vaccine development through Gavi and the breakthrough at Oxford, but does the Minister agree that these efforts will be hampered without strong health systems to deliver and administer vaccines, and that UK aid is critical to this?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, our ODA spend in tackling global issues, such as the pandemic, climate change and conflict, has been firmly in our national interest. She emphasised that cutting UK aid risks undermining efforts to promote a global Britain and will diminish our power to influence other nations to do what is right.
Is the noble Lord familiar with the words of General James Mattis, who said that if development funding gets cut,
“then I need to buy more ammunition”?
Does he share my concern that the effect of this cut in aid spending on instability will be to reduce the impact of the Government’s announced increase in defence spending? It will make it harder for us to pursue our national interest and to create a safer, healthier, fairer and better world for us all.
We know that we need a dramatic acceleration in the pace and scale of global climate action. As we approach 2021, when the UK will host both the G7 and COP 26, the UK has an opportunity to lead the response to the Covid pandemic and the climate crisis. This cut reduces the funds available for both these efforts and shows that the UK is stepping back when its support is needed most. For the climate conference to be a success, we must harness the political will of other countries. As hosts, it falls to the United Kingdom to lead by example, not to withdraw,
Does the Minister agree with President-elect Joe Biden that effective foreign policy relies
“not only on the example of our power, but on the power of our example”?
The example that these cuts set is of stepping back when, in the midst of this global pandemic, we should be stepping up.
Mark Lowcock, UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, has this week made clear that the impact of these cuts will not only affect the world’s most vulnerable but damage the UK’s global reputation. Have the Government abandoned their plan for a global Britain? What plans do the Government have to legislate for this cut to aid spending, in the light of the responsibilities outlined in the international development Act 2015? When do they plan to bring a Bill forward, and do they intend to include a sunset clause to ensure a return to 0.7%—the agreed OECD global target?
The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, understood that this decision is not a necessity but a political choice by this Government. I will work hard with her and with all like-minded Peers across this House to oppose this ill-conceived, short-sighted decision.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to your Lordships’ House. In her resignation letter to the Prime Minister, the former FCDO Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, called the cut to the aid budget “fundamentally wrong”. She could not in all integrity defend the betrayal of a manifesto commitment made less than a year ago. Her view is endorsed by many others in the Minister’s own party in both Houses. No fewer than five former Prime Ministers—three from the Minister’s own party—and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury have said that this cut to international aid is morally wrong and harmful to Britain’s standing on the international stage. Not so long ago—in July and again in September—the Secretary of State, Dominic Raab, agreed.
To tie the cuts in the aid budget to the £4 billion increase in the defence budget is to rub salt into the wound. The Secretary of State would do well to heed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, in your Lordships’ House last week. He said that the UK’s influence comes,
“largely through the integration of our hard power ... with our soft power”,
and that reducing the international development budget will significantly
“reduce the impact of so-called global Britain”.—[Official Report, 25/11/20; col. 250.]
In his Statement, the Secretary of State says that the cut to the aid budget nevertheless means that Britain’s aid spend remains at No. 2 among the G20. This misses the point. The outcry is because the Government are reneging on an unequivocal manifesto commitment and cutting aid over and above the fall in GNI at a moment unprecedented in global history. Future generations will rightly be appalled. It is akin to kicking someone when they are down. The British people have a strong sense of fair play. It is wrong to suggest, as I have seen in the press, that public opinion is on the side of these cuts. There is no evidence to support this assertion.
The 0.7% of GNI aid target, enshrined in law, is a proud Liberal Democrat achievement. It was spearheaded in the other place by the Private Member’s Bill from my right honourable friend Michael Moore. In your Lordships’ House, it was ably led by my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, supported by my noble friend Lady Northover—then a DfID Minister in the coalition Government. Do the Government intend to change that law to reduce the aid target to 0.5%? If so, do they intend to use a Finance Bill as the vehicle for it?
Can the Minister state categorically that the 0.7% will be met this year? I regret that I need to ask this, but doubt remains. Will any shortfall caused by the overenthusiastic £2.9 billion cut announced in July be managed in a way that alleviates poverty and offers taxpayers value for money?
The Secretary of State does not mention scrutiny either in this Statement or in his letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, chair of the International Relations and Defence Committee. Can the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness and value for money of ODA spend will not be the preserve of internal FCDO processes, but rather subject to independent, open and transparent scrutiny, including by parliamentarians?
What assessment have the Government made of how many UK international NGOs will go under next year as a consequence of the economic situation and of this cut? How many jobs will be lost in the UK? Does the Minister agree that these NGOs, particularly the small ones, have the trust of local community leaders and so have been able to go that vital last mile to deliver essential healthcare, nutrition and—crucially today—vaccines? Surely he accepts that the COVAX initiative will fail unless we can get supplies to where they are needed. We must have robust health systems on the ground to vaccinate people. I fear that this Statement shows that joined-up thinking is not currently a strength of the new FCDO.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for their comments. I also thank them for making time last week, in calls that I and colleagues made, to discuss their obvious concerns about this cut, some of which they have articulated today.
I say at the outset in responding to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary mentioned specifically in his Statement, the decision was taken given the effects of the global pandemic on the economy and, as a result, the public finances, but it was taken with deep regret. It was felt that at the moment we cannot meet our target of spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA next year. The Statement was very up front, setting out the Government’s intent. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in the Statement, it is our intention to return to that target as soon as the fiscal situation and the challenges permit. As I am sure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness acknowledge, those challenges are immense.
They both mentioned the manifesto commitment. Like many in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, and like many people across the country, we are proud that the Conservative Government enshrined the 0.7% target in law. Equally, the commitment in the manifesto at the time of the election did not for a moment predict—I do not think that anyone could have done so—the challenge not just to the UK but to the world of a health pandemic, coupled with the challenges to the economy that we face.
I shall pick up, first, on some of the specific points made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. Rightly, he talked about the impact on aid. I do not deny that if you have a reduced pot of money, you will spend less on many of the important causes that we are currently engaged in around the world. I have seen for myself the importance and strength of those contributions. Our development spend brings about stability in countries, ensures that peace agreements are sustained and, importantly, empowers communities around the world.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, mentioned the importance of transparency. I do not agree with her on that. As someone who started his life in the Foreign Office as a Minister of State, was then a double-hatted Minister across both departments and is now a Minister at the FCDO, I have seen in my portfolio, and have direct experience of, the benefits of bringing together the important tools of diplomacy and development. In ensuring that decisions are expedited, we can make more efficient decisions, and the focus of those decisions can more readily be seen in the different parts of the world with most need.
In particular, I emphasise to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that we remain absolutely committed to helping the world’s poorest. The measures that the Government have announced will ensure that every penny that we spend goes as far as possible towards sustaining our position as a world-leading development power, notwithstanding the cut that has been announced. The noble Baroness acknowledged where we stand.
I have always felt that the importance of any spend lies in its effective delivery on the ground. We stand with pride in comparison with many of our G20 and G7 partners, and it is important to recognise that we have seen some real benefits from our spend over many years. In particular, we will continue to spend over £10 billion on many of the key priorities which I know are close to the hearts of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan.
The strategic framework on ODA spend that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is setting up—the double lock, which he announced with my right honourable friend the Chancellor—will ensure that the money spent is targeted on achieving many of the key goals highlighted by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, including being at the forefront of meeting the challenge of the Covid pandemic. In that regard, I am proud that when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister returned to work following his own challenge from Covid, one of the first events in which he participated and led on was the Gavi summit. That raised over $8 billion—far in excess of the estimate.
Equally, the Gavi summit ensured that the vaccines and the support that they will give to many vulnerable communities, including those that I often see on my own patch—I give the specific example of polio eradication in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan—are sustained at a time of great challenge for people across the world. Specifically on the Covid-19 pandemic, we have also been at the forefront of the COVAX Facility. I believe we all welcomed the news this morning about the further progress that has been made on developing vaccines.
I also assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that, as these vaccines come on line, including the important Oxford-AstraZeneca one, we are committed to ensuring a scaling up of vaccine production. Indeed, the FCDO has been instrumental in facilitating the agreement reached between AstraZeneca and the Serum Institute of India for that very purpose—to scale up production of a vaccine that, through the COVAX Facility, as well as through direct distribution, will allow vulnerable communities to be reached as quickly as possible.
In addition, the noble Lord, rightly raised our chairmanship of the G7 and the important leadership that we are showing as president-elect of COP 26 in Glasgow next year. I have a personal interest in this, in that I was the one who stood up at the UN and declared the £11.6 billion of climate financing. We will stand by that over the five-year period. It is important that we show leadership on these issues.
We remain very committed to the SDGs as the basis of our aid. There are many challenges, but arguably the biggest two international challenges in the area of development are the Covid-19 pandemic and facing the climate emergency. The United Kingdom continues not just to lead the narrative but to provide support through direct financing for both initiatives, to ensure that the most vulnerable communities and developing states benefit from our continuing support.
The noble Baroness mentioned the 0.7% target. As I have mentioned to her previously, and as I believe I said in responding to a Question last week, our spend this year will meet the target of 0.7% of GNI. She also raised the issue of scrutiny of ODA spend. The fact that I appear before your Lordships’ House today, as do colleagues in the other place, and the fact that we continue to have discussions and debates about this, shows that scrutiny takes place. I fully acknowledge and respect that. During my discussions last week, I talked directly to the commissioner of ICAI, not only to reassure her about our commitment to our development programmes but to gain a sense from her of what this means for the independent assessments that ICAI is able to make. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have committed to ensuring that ICAI retains its role in making sure that our development spend is appropriately scrutinised.
Finally, I come to the important point that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, raised about the importance of legislation. Again, I fully understand why that was mentioned, and it was raised also by noble Lords in other discussions. At this juncture, I acknowledge not only what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said but the important work done by my noble friend—not just my noble friend but my very good friend—and colleague Lady Sugg in the development sphere. She will be missed at the FCDO. It is often said in the context of your Lordships’ House that it is much more welcome to have two hands on the pump rather than just one. I will personally miss her insights, experience and friendship, but I respect the decision that she took. Equally, I acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in enshrining in law the 0.7% target.
It is right that noble Lords ask questions about the Government’s recognition of their statutory obligations. As I said only last week, we are cognisant of our duties to Parliament. Under the 2015 Act, the Secretary of State is under an ongoing legal duty to ensure that that 0.7% target is met. However, as has been acknowledged by noble Lords, the framework of the Act envisages that 0.7% may not be met in certain circumstances, including by reference to economic and fiscal circumstances.
On that basis, it is permissible to depart from the duty where the fiscal and economic circumstances justify doing so, reporting to Parliament under the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked me specifically about this issue. I assure noble Lords that we are considering legislation in the context of the projected long-term fiscal circumstances and the need to plan over successive years. That kind of long-term planning is not easy to square with Parliament’s intention as set out in the framework of the Act, and therefore I believe it is right in the context of that planning to ensure that we engage further with Parliament by bringing forward legislation.
The noble Lord and noble Baroness asked me specifically about timing. All I can say is that we intend to bring forward legislation in due course because, at the current time, it is difficult to predict the end date and this 0.5% figure moving back to 0.7% in light of the fiscal circumstances. It is right that we look carefully at that. As I said, we are considering the issue and will bring forward legislation in due course. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, know—and I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on this issue—I understand the strength not just of the sentiment but of the principle behind 0.7% and its value in establishing the UK as both a respected partner and a development power in the world.
Regarding the merger and the bringing together of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the noble Baroness talked about defence spend. Earlier today we had a Question on the importance of women, peace and security. That is why the integrated review, on which further announcements will be made earlier in the new year, brings together all the key strands of our diplomacy and defence to ensure that the UK has been, is and will continue to strengthen its position as global Britain on the world stage.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend share my concern about the whole principle of hypothecation of revenues being spent on particular areas of public spending? Why should overseas aid be so deserving rather than health, education or any other area? Surely this seriously inhibits the ability of the Chancellor to deal with crises, such as the one that we are facing now in the finances of this country, if money is hypothecated for certain causes? Secondly, does my noble friend welcome the fact that the British people are some of the most generous when it comes to giving their money to good causes that they choose? That is not the same thing as government Ministers using other people’s money to spend on causes that the Government choose.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raises two points. Respecting his insights and his own experience as a Minister, I say to him that I have seen myself the direct benefit that our development spend has brought in the field and the opportunities that it has brought to communities in different parts of the world. I am proud of the fact that our development spending has lent itself to strengthening the opportunities for different communities, but that also has a knock-on positive impact on what we as the UK are trying to achieve in the international arena. Our development spend and our commitment to it, our commitment to the SDGs and our commitments to alleviating poverty, providing support for famine relief and ensuring that girls are educated wherever they might be in the world are things that we can proudly stand up and say the UK has supported and will continue to support.
I agree with my noble friend in as much as I accept that the British people are among the most generous in the world—we see that in the pandemic that we are currently facing—but equally we as the Government are trustees of public spending to ensure that, as we look at our priorities domestically, we also look to invest wisely internationally, including in supporting the most vulnerable communities and people around the world.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, and I echo the comments made about the much-respected noble Baroness, Lady Sugg.
The scale of these cuts will be brutal for those affected but also, I believe, damaging in the long term to this country and its interests. The Statement gives priorities in general and I welcome the commitments on climate change, girls’ education and health, but it is very short on detail. So I have a specific question: will the Government be honouring their other commitment made in their manifesto—namely, to lead the fight against malaria? Will they do so by maintaining investment in malaria at its present level?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I commend the work of the noble Baroness’s campaign to eradicate malaria. We have worked together on this, particularly in relation to the last CHOGM. She asks for quite specific details on the programmes and prioritisation. My right honourable friend has laid out the framework for how we will look at those priorities. I cannot give her a specific commitment on a particular programme on a particular issue, but I can say, where we have given commitments in the past, we will ensure that we look at how we can sustain our support, whether technical or financial. In due course, as decisions are made on how we prioritise our aid spend specifically, I am sure that we will return to these questions. I regret that I cannot give her a specific commitment on the issue of malaria at this time.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I ask the Minister to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins: will Her Majesty’s Government include a sunset clause in any legislation amending the International Development Act? Secondly, do the Government intend to produce and publish any impact assessment of the reduction in spending on official development assistance?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I cannot go into the details of the legislative proposals that will be coming forward; as I said, I am not party to them yet, but they are being looked at. He asked some specific questions about sunset clauses, as did the noble Lord, Lord Collins, which I have noted, but beyond what I have said about the status of the legislation there is little more that I can add at this juncture.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too am concerned about the lack of clarity about where the axe will fall on the UK’s very effective aid programme. Is the Minister able to give specific examples of where the severe cuts may occur? For instance, will women’s education funding be at the same sort of level or a much lower one? In health, will maintaining help with Covid mean reducing HIV/AIDS projects when their importance was very much emphasised yesterday on World AIDS Day? The Government really owe those receiving assistance and those delivering it much more proper transparency.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that as we look at our priorities for spend in 2020 those will become much clearer. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is looking quite specifically at the issue of ODA spend for next year. The noble Baroness is right to raise the important gains that we have seen on key priorities that the UK has supported. I assure her that we will look at each programme to ensure that we can sustain not only the leadership that we have shown but the gains that we have made. Again, I have to say to her that I cannot give her details about specific programmes and projects at this time.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, when asked about the domestic economic situation, the Minister for Africa, James Duddridge, told the House of Commons:
“We are bound by law to spend 0.7%, so it is not a choice; it is in the law, and we will obey the law.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/20; col.147.]
We now know that the Government believe it is a choice and they will break the law. As the Minister said, they will in fact bring forward legislation to repeal that law, which does not sit with what the Government said about it being a temporary measure. So will the Minister give me this commitment: will the Government publish the fiscal criteria that will have to be met in order for the 0.7% commitment to be re-met before any legislative proposals to repeal the 2015 Act? If they do not, how can we believe the Government in the same way that we believed James Duddridge in June?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, again, asked quite specific questions and understandably, I cannot share with him information on the nature and detail of the legislation at this point. I assure him that, as I have said before, the Government fully recognise their obligations to Parliament. As I said earlier in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, this is important and we are looking at legislation to ensure that we fulfil those obligations to Parliament.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I entirely support the 0.2% reduction in our development spend in the light of the economic emergency that we all face. It is also right to strengthen our defence and security capabilities, working hand-in-hand with our soft power. In line with this strong, integrated approach, does the Minister agree that if those in the party opposite are serious about protecting the world’s poor, it is incumbent upon them—unlike their colleagues in another place—to support the overseas operations Bill when it comes to your Lordships’ House? That Bill will support our Armed Forces, some of whom are risking their lives in some of the most dangerous places in the world, such as Mali, South Sudan and Afghanistan—places where, every day, they seek to work hard with our soft power to save and change millions of lives.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point with which I totally agree—and I am sure that many other noble Lords would also agree—regarding the important role that our Armed Forces play in bringing about and sustaining peace and in ensuring humanitarian corridors. The increase in spending that we have seen in other areas—including in the MoD budget—testifies to the important role of the military when it comes to peacekeeping operations and sustaining humanitarian corridors. We can all be proud of the role that our military plays in delivering support to the most vulnerable communities around the world.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
My Lords, a detected lie is the clock striking 13: it is wrong and it casts doubt on all past and future chimes. In June, the Prime Minister formally renewed the 0.7% commitment on the record in the other place. I was reassured, but it turns out that I was deceived. The aid community around the world was reassured, but it turns out that they were deceived. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, was deceived: she was an excellent Minister and will be much missed. The cut to our aid projects now is 30%; the cut to our credibility is much greater. I ask the Minister: why do we lie?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I said earlier, we are proud of our commitment to 0.7%; it was a Conservative-led Government who brought that into legislation. I can assure him that we made this decision after very careful consideration. We needed a temporary reduction in order to meet the unprecedented challenges that we face in terms of both health and the economy. I reassure him, however, that our intention is to return to 0.7%.
Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that there are few parts of the world where our continued development assistance is needed more desperately than in Afghanistan? Does he further agree that any reduction in our support for that country—given the decades of conflict, the huge numbers of displaced people and our deep involvement there, both militarily and economically—could have devastating effects? Can he assure us that, whatever changes are envisioned in our aid budget, the funding for Afghanistan will remain a top priority?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, just recently, I participated in the pledging conference where we announced a further £155 million in development support for Afghanistan for the next year, contingent, of course, on the situation with the peace talks. Equally, we have committed a further £70 million to the important strides that we are making in ensuring the security situation in Afghanistan. As the Minister for Afghanistan, I recently discussed this with President Ghani directly. We remain committed to ensuring that the gains that have been sustained in Afghanistan continue through our security support as well as our development support.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. Does the Minister agree that severe cuts on top of the departmental merger and the fundamental restructure of delivery are likely to prove deeply disruptive for development programmes? Strengthening management and capacity within the department, referred to in the Foreign Secretary’s Statement, may well be essential, but does the Minister accept that the success of UK aid delivery has been built on a model of partnership with the UK’s world-leading NGOs and development specialists? These cuts will test their resilience. How soon will the department be able to provide clarity on bidding and programme-planning to enable the Government’s development partners to manage their own capacity to ensure that crucial aid and development work can be sustained and that resources on which the Government depend for delivery will still be there when called upon?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we have great development expertise. Where I differ from him is that, in bringing the departments together and creating the FCDO, I believe that we have further leveraged the expertise of our development officials in contributing to our diplomatic priorities as well. Let me further assure him that I have spoken directly to a range of international partners, both within the UN context and key NGOs. We will continue to liaise with them on specific allocations; those decisions are in progress, and we will update NGOs and other key partners on them as they are taken.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while we build back better at home, we now have an opportunity to give back better overseas by addressing significant cost inefficiencies in our aid programmes? Will he confirm that humanitarian commitments, such as ensuring distribution of a Covid vaccine to Rohingya refugees, will remain a priority?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I formally welcome my noble friend: this is the first time I have answered a question that he has posed. I agree with him on both fronts. The creation of the FCDO allows for things to be done more efficiently. As the Minister for Bangladesh, I am directly engaged on the Rohingya issue, which I know is close to my noble friend’s heart. We gave a further commitment to Bangladesh of £47 million—£37 million for Rohingya support and £10 million for support for Bangladesh itself—at the recent pledging conference that we hosted.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, we are still among the world’s richest countries. If the problem is finding the money, let us adjust the top level of income tax to share the fiscal burden fairly. The Government were elected on a manifesto pledge to maintain overseas support. If this manifesto pledge can be jettisoned, can this House, too, pick and choose which manifesto commitments we should respect?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the proposals on tax, I am sure that the Chancellor will listen very carefully to the noble Lord. On the issue of the manifesto pledge, I have already answered that question.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick [CB] (V)
My Lords, will the Minister be so kind as to respond to the very forceful letter that was sent to the Foreign Secretary by your Lordships’ International Relations and Defence Committee last Wednesday, arguing that the decision taken was wrong economically and wrong politically? Does he not think that it is shameful that in none of the statements made by the Government, including his own answers to questions, has it been admitted that we have already cut £2.9 billion from our aid by applying the 0.7% calculator, and that all that is proposed now comes on top of, and in addition to, that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord on his final point. The reduction in GNI has meant a circa £2.9 billion reduction in the current aid spend, but we will fulfil our commitment to the GNI for this year. I also accept the principle that the proposal of 0.7% going down to 0.5% for 2021 presents an additional reduction. I know that the letter from my noble friend Lady Anelay to the Foreign Secretary is in the course of being responded to.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. There is another aspect of the ODA which the Government continue to neglect: the amount of taxes which are avoided in emerging economies and low-income countries. Last year, they lost $144 billion due to tax avoidance by corporations and the rich. The tax avoidance industries in the UK and the Crown dependencies and overseas territories are particularly responsible for that. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the emerging economies get the taxes which are due to them? That would give them plenty of resources for development.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it needs political leadership within country, but we should be lending technical support to ensure that a greater level of tax is collected within developing parts of the world. I note what the noble Lord has said.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, what the noble Lord calls the “fiscal situation” that we are currently in was already apparent when reassurances were given, until a very few days ago, on our commitment to development by a department—DfID—renowned for its efficiency and transparency, including working on governance and tax collection. We could be in this so-called fiscal situation for the next decade or generation, because of Covid and Brexit. Can the Minister honestly say that he anticipates that we will ever return to 0.7% of GNI for development?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Having hope and optimism is part and parcel of what defines the Government’s thinking. While we have been challenged this year, and our decision on this issue reflects that, as I have already said, it is our intention to return to 0.7%. We have recently seen news on the Covid vaccine, and the steps that are being taken. I again underline the United Kingdom’s leadership on the important issues of facing up to the Covid challenge and ensuring that, through the COVAX facility and other support, we access vaccines and provide them to the most vulnerable. This underlines this Government’s commitment to ensuring that the most vulnerable and those who need assistance continue to get the support that they need, notwithstanding the challenges and this decision.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in today’s list. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation 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, and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Wednesday 2nd December 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 View all United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 155-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (27 Nov 2020)
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, before the House begins its Third Reading on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, it may be helpful to say a few words about Third Reading amendments. In line with the procedure agreed by the House, the Public Bill Office advises the usual channels that Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, on the Marshalled List for Third Reading today, falls outside the guidance in the Companion on Third Reading amendments. On the advice of the Public Bill Office, the usual channels met and have recommended to the House that Amendment 2 should not be moved. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, was informed of the view of the usual channels. She has confirmed to my office that she will not move her amendment today.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the other signatories of the Report stage amendment and for the positive engagement with the noble Baroness that took place yesterday with my noble friend Lord Callanan and Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, of which the House will hear more later.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I call the Minister to make a Statement on legislative consent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I am required to inform the House that on 7 October the Scottish Parliament voted not to grant legislative consent because of its assertion that the Bill negatively impacts the devolution settlements. We have remained open to engagement with the Scottish Government on the contents of the Bill, and this offer still very much stands. The Senedd and Northern Ireland Assembly have not yet voted on legislative consent, but we have continued to engage with both Administrations on the Bill’s contents in recent weeks. This engagement has been fruitful, and the Government have listened closely to concerns. It has resulted, for example, in the Government tabling an amendment to ensure that the devolved Administrations have a strong role in appointments to the Office for the Internal Market panel, in light of Welsh Government proposals.
We appreciate the significance of the UK Government legislating without consent for this Bill. Our ambition, of course, remains to secure legislative consent Motions for the Bill. As I have said throughout the passage of the Bill, the UK Government remain open to discussions with all the devolved Administrations.
Clause 12: Modifications in connection with the Northern Ireland Protocol
Amendment 1
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my original Amendment 21 on Report, also signed by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on which I spoke on 18 November 2020 and moved formally on 23 November 2020, replaced the original Clause 10 with a new clause listing public interest derogations from market access principles. I was pleasantly surprised and grateful that the Government accepted the amendment without a Division. The clerks subsequently advised us that the amendment required some consequential changes to the Bill to remove minor inconsistencies. These changes are set out in the amendments before your Lordships’ House today. Amendment 1 removes two subsections on page 8 and Amendment 3 removes Schedule 1 entirely. I beg to move.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Government regret the changes made to the previous Clause 10 on Report, but I will not reopen that debate here. I appreciate the need for these amendments to tidy up the Bill text so the Government will not oppose them.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank noble Lords from across the House for the quality of the debates and the scrutiny provided throughout the passage of this Bill. I am grateful for the constructive engagement from many noble Lords from all parts of the Chamber that we have had both in and out of the Chamber, and hope that we can continue these discussions in the same spirit. I extend my thanks to other members of the ministerial team: my noble friends Lord True, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lady Penn, as well as Shreena and the rest of the excellent civil servants on the Bill team.
I have said throughout the debates that this Bill is essential for guaranteeing the economic and political integrity of the United Kingdom. It will ensure much-needed certainty for businesses as we leave the transition period. It will preserve our ability to trade freely across all parts of the United Kingdom. Having listened to all the debates in this House on this Bill, I believe I can say that all noble Lords share this objective. While noble Lords and I may not have always agreed on every single point—to put it mildly—the challenges posed by noble Lords and debates we have had have always been conducted in a constructive and courteous manner—except, obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, but we accept his contributions.
On a related note, I want to touch briefly on an amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, referred to by the Leader of the House. As I committed to do on Report, I facilitated and joined a meeting on this issue between my honourable friend Robin Walker, Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office, the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie, and Lady Suttie, to discuss this in more detail. I thank the noble Baronesses for a good meeting, which assuaged their concerns on this issue.
For the benefit of the House, let me be clear: Article 2 of the Northern Ireland Protocol is vital, and the Government are fully committed to upholding it. I assure noble Lords that the rights for individuals in Northern Ireland captured within the scope of the Article 2 commitment will continue to be protected going forward, and will not be impacted by the workings of this Bill. I have explained this in greater detail in a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. To reassure noble Lords who may have similar concerns, I will place a copy in the Library. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great honour to be speaking at this point. My noble friends on the Cross Benches have brought their wide range of experience, wisdom and differing views to crucial amendments to the Bill.
The Bill is of huge constitutional significance: it goes to the heart of our history, to the devolution settlements that have matured as we enter a new era outside Europe. As the UK takes back control and seeks to be more independent than over recent decades, decision-making and mutual respect among the four nations of the United Kingdom will be more important than ever.
We now see that Scotland is withholding legislative consent and Wales is pending, as is Northern Ireland. To lose those nations would compound the threat to the union from a party that is called the Conservative and Unionist Party. In each nation, elected representatives know the intricacy of local problems and ways to achieve solutions to make our nations attractive for innovation and new ways of working. Covid has made the challenges greater, as many in the population have been deeply traumatised by bereavement, isolation and rising unemployment.
This House has examined every word of this Bill with rigour. The amendments it has made have been resoundingly supported around the House and outside. They have laid a foundation for the UK’s reputation to be restored, as we foster new relationships and rebuild older ones around the globe. Through its amendments, the House has shown its commitments to the future well-being of our national relationships and constitution. We have delivered a clear beheading sentence to Henry VIII’s dangerous clauses, and the rumble of Llewellyn the Great and Robert the Bruce turning in their graves was audible at times.
We have ensured that there is a secure negotiating framework on the face of the Bill to achieve that consensus across our four nations, which history has taught us achieves so much more than mere directive dominance. We have removed one clause that would allow the Government to use the allure of taxpayers’ money to work around, not with, the devolved Governments and to undermine their priorities. We have removed another that would explicitly impose new reservations on their competence in respect of state aid. We have protected the devolved institutions’ ability to introduce ecological and environmental improvements and new public health initiatives in their nations, the learning from which will benefit us all.
This Bill has posed a major threat to the union itself. With my noble colleagues on these Benches, particularly the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, we have done all we can to ensure that threat diminishes. It has been an enormous privilege, if daunting at times, to be able to participate in this Bill. So many across the House have brought their expertise—from the Select Committees on which they serve, particularly on common frameworks, as well as past experience as elected representatives of widely differing areas—to a shared goal of improving the Bill.
Now we send the Bill on to the next part of its journey, and I hope the Government will continue to listen hard and will reflect on the importance of the amendments and the eloquent speeches of many, including my noble and learned friend, Lord Judge. I genuinely believe that noble Lords should and will resist the reinsertion of distasteful parts of the Bill and the deletion of key amendments.
Finally, it is my pleasure to thank all those who have contributed to the Bill’s passage: the outstanding Public Bill Office and parliamentary clerks, the Bill team and the many who work to support us behind the scenes, particularly the digital team and broadcasting hub, which enabled so many smoothly unmuted contributions—I beg your pardon that mine failed just now—and efficient votes. We have shown that we can function very effectively as a hybrid House, voting remotely, with numbers that showed how clearly the Lords can express its collective views.
The Ministers, Whips and Peers showed they can still maintain a sense of humour under pressure. I would particularly like to thank the Lord Speaker and my fellow deputies, who chaired us through very complex parliamentary procedures. I thank them all very much indeed. Once again, to all in this House who supported these critically important changes to the Bill, I give a huge thank you.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. At this stage, I thank the Ministers, the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Callanan, the Opposition Front-Bench team, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, from the Cross Benches.
In his speech today, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred to the meeting that he had with the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and myself yesterday on the non-discrimination principle in relation to Clause 11 of the Bill, which specifically refers to Northern Ireland and the two commissions: the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which have agreed today with the dedicated mechanism in respect of the Northern Ireland protocol. Our meeting yesterday was very productive, and, in fact, the Minister’s subsequent letter to me, following our exchanges on Report, was also productive and provided good clarification on the point of the market access principles and the non-discrimination principle in relation to the Bill.
Both commissions found it very helpful, because the issue was central to the recent amendment and recent correspondence with the Minister and concerned the operation of those market access principles introduced in the Bill, particularly the non-discrimination requirement. The question was whether these principles applied to legislation introduced to ensure that there will be no diminution of certain rights in Northern Ireland resulting from the exit of the UK from the EU, as required by Article 2 of the protocol. As already referred to, the two commissions have direct responsibility, as they have agreed to act as the dedicated mechanism responsible for monitoring, supervising, advising, reporting on and enforcing the Government’s commitment under Article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol of the withdrawal agreement from the end of the transition period.
Following that period of uncertainty, shall we say, the Minister’s letter to me of last Friday—which was productive—and our meeting yesterday proved a very useful exchange, providing the necessary clarifications, for which the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and I are extremely grateful. I further note that the Minister has agreed to our request to put that letter, plus another one to do with procurements, in the Library of your Lordships’ House.
Robin Walker, Minister at the Northern Ireland Office in the other place, has agreed to write to both commissions: the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, for which he has responsibility, and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive. In that letter, he will state what the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has already stated to me.
I thank Ministers for their deliberations with us and productive outcomes, and I hope it all works well. I hope that Part 5 of this Bill, which deals specifically with the Northern Ireland protocol, will not be reinstated in the other place, because I firmly believe in the principle of reconciliation. Breaking international law and the other international agreement, the Good Friday agreement, at any point would not be good for peace or political progress in Northern Ireland.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, to save time, I ask your Lordships’ House to read into my remarks the kind words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, about those behind this Bill. I think it is appropriate for me, a disagreeable Conservative Back-Bencher, to congratulate the Ministers, my noble friends Lord Callanan, Lord True and Lady Bloomfield, as well as my other friends on the Front Bench, for their conduct of the Bill, good spirit and sense of humour, as they have watched large parts of the Bill of which they had conduct, crumble during its passage. The Bill has had a bumpy ride; I do not think that is controversial. Today, we will return a somewhat different Bill to the other place compared to the one that it sent to us.
None the less, I urge that we do let it pass and go back to the other place. As I implied on Report, it has, on occasion, been tempting to think that, in relation to the progress and development of the Bill, Downing Street had
“learned nothing and forgotten nothing”.
Of course, Talleyrand was referring to the Bourbons after the abdication of Napoleon: they seemed determined endlessly to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors who had been swept away in the French Revolution. That is clearly not a fate I wish for the Government, although last night’s revolt in the Commons suggests that they need to have a care.
It may be said that all that needs to be said has already been said about the Bill. In the other place, that is often seen as a good reason to say it all over again. I will not say it all over again, but I will point out two themes that have emerged from our consideration of the Bill, which I hope the other place will not ignore when it considers the Bill we return to it.
The first relates to the rule of law. The Bill did not start well. It began with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announcing that the Government would deliberately renege on their international treaty obligations, albeit, as he said, in a very specific and limited way. It was not a slip; it was a deliberate statement. But it was certainly a mistake, and it made the Government look ridiculous.
The Government sought to cure that error by passing the buck to the other place, and then sought to avoid the error by arguing that they were not breaking their rule of law obligations, or that there was a difference between our international law and domestic rule of law duties, or that it did not matter, or that they had to break their obligations because, in some unspecified manner, the EU was going to act in bad faith. I sincerely regret that the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General took part in this because, objectively observed, they did not assist. Few Britons who believe in the rule of law and in our respecting treaty obligations were convinced by any of that.
Part 5 of the Bill was unsupportable and it was rightly removed for the reasons set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and many other thoughtful contributors, from all parties and none. I therefore gently ask the Government and the thinking majority in the other place not to put Part 5 back into the Bill.
Lord Garnier (Con)
It is always a joy to have the support of my noble friend.
No British Government, and certainly no British Conservative Government, should be in the business of persuading the United Kingdom Parliament to enact a law that breaks a treaty that is barely a year old, the terms of which were put into domestic law earlier this year by the very same Government and Parliament. They cannot break the law, still less the law of their own making, and expect to engender respect at home or abroad.
My second theme relates to the maintenance of the United Kingdom—something already touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I am a unionist, and I want to see the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland continue and thrive. Of course, I know that there are some people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who want to see a different constitutional arrangement, whether that be through greater devolution, a federal system or the separation of Wales and Scotland from the United Kingdom and the unification of Northern Ireland and the Republic. But there are, and there were, provisions in the Bill—no doubt sincere arguments were made in favour of them by the Government—that will encourage those against the continuance of the union to conclude that the United Kingdom Government do not care about their views and that they should therefore try even harder to leave. My noble friend Lord Callanan’s statement at about 2.20 pm exemplified that.
The law too often passed by Parliament is the law of unintended consequence. If we are not more aware of the effect of our words and deeds upon the minds of those who want to bring the union to an end, it is we unionists who will live to regret it. It was, after all, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, my honourable friend Douglas Ross, who recently said that the case for separation was being won in London, not in Scotland.
I therefore ask the Government, in relation to this second theme—the maintenance of the United Kingdom —not to do anything that will give the separatists any excuse to say that the United Kingdom has had its day and that London knows nothing and cares less for the opinions and self-respect of the devolved Administrations. Of course separatists will find insult where none is intended and make good use of every slight, actual or perceived, so let us not give them any excuse to do so. Let us treat the devolved Administrations with respect and co-operate together as a functioning union, with more to gain from being one country than four separate ones.
I urge the other place to rest content with the Bill as we return it to them. It is in better shape now than it was and it will do less damage to the union and our country’s international reputation.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, when the Bill entered your Lordships’ House, it presented many problems—not to put too fine a point on it. It is a great honour to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who, among his many pieces of advice, advised Peers not to rehearse the arguments that we have heard over the course of the Bill. So I will not do that, but I agree that the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House in a better state than when it arrived, though it is of course still far from perfect.
During the scrutiny process, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, alluded to, over 30 amendments have been inserted into the Bill through your Lordships’ overwhelming votes. At the same time, as other Peers have said, large and important parts of the Bill were removed as a result of this process. I hope this gives Her Majesty’s Government cause to reflect further, rather than simply trying to move on.
Additionally, the Government themselves have made more than 30 amendments to the Bill, and that indicates that the Ministers have been listening to and participating in this debate. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bloomfield, Lady Penn and Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Callanan—the full cadre of Ministers—for their stamina and general good humour through this process. I agree that the Ministers listened, and the government amendments are testimony to that. The departmental Bill teams must get much credit for keeping Ministers on the straight and narrow—if indeed they did. The Bill has been drafted and debated on an extremely tight schedule, and I am sure that the Bill team lost many weekends and evenings as it stewarded Ministers through this process—as well as drafting the many letters for my noble friend Lord Purvis that have emerged.
I thank all the Cross-Bench and Labour speakers, the Bishops and their teams for the great collective effort on the Bill. It is invidious to pull out names but I would like to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge, Lord Hope, Lord Thomas and Lord Falconer, who put in many hours to get us to where we are today. Perhaps the Law Society of Scotland and the Welsh Government should also get a special mention for the hours that they have put into drafting amendments.
I would also like to mention the parliamentary clerks, as well as the Whips’ Office and the usual channels, for helping to get the Bill timetabled and get us through it. It was not an easy task in the circumstances. From our team, I would single out Elizabeth Plummer and Sarah Pughe in the Lib Dem Whips’ Office, who have done a fantastic job. Finally, I thank the cadre of colleagues I have on the Benches today, my noble friends Lady Bowles and Lord Purvis, and the 20 other Lib Dem Peers who have participated in the various stages of the Bill.
It is clear from what I have been saying over the past weeks that this is not the way the Liberal Democrats would have done it, but I feel that the debates have been deep as well as wide, and serious and well considered on all sides. It is important that this is considered as the Bill leaves this House and goes forward.
The Minister mentioned legislative consent. Other speakers have said how important it is that Part 5 remain out of the Bill; that is very true. Many of the other amendments were also targeted at the grab at devolution that the Bill seeks. The principle of legislative consent requires that those amendments be given full consideration in the other place. If they are summarily dispatched, as is often the case with your Lordships’ amendments, the message will be sent clearly to the devolved authorities about what this Government consider to be important in terms of the devolution settlement. That runs far past this Bill, and far past the term of this Parliament. It is a very important issue—and not one that I think the Government, in the end, want to have on their hands.
I am wont to give Ministers advice, and they are wont to ignore it, but there are many other people wiser than me who are also giving Her Majesty’s Government this advice. I hope that, when it all comes out in the wash, that advice will be listened to— because this issue is far more important than just this Bill.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
I thank the ministerial team for their time and accessibility while we have been working on the Bill. Bills that span departments—three, in this case—are a nightmare to run. Credit is due to those involved, in BEIS, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, for their seamless performance. We tried hard to find divisions between them, but we failed. I particularly want to thank the Minister from the Cabinet Office, Chloe Smith MP, at a difficult time for her. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in wishing her well for the next six months, and a speedy recovery.
Our team in the Lords is used to working collaboratively, and we have tried to blend our experiences and interests to good effect in working on the Bill. I thank in particular my noble friend Lady Hayter for her endless supply of wit and wisdom, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, who must have been a terrifying vision when he rose at the Dispatch Box to take on the combined ministerial skills that he was dealing with. We have also worked closely with Commons colleagues, and we now pass to them the responsibility for defending the changes that we have made.
The Bill team has supported the parliamentary processes very well and has managed the large number of Zoom meetings and letters with huge professionalism. We thank them. We should also thank the technical teams who have supported the hybrid House so well. Last, but not least, I thank Dan Harris, our legislative support team member, who has absorbed huge amounts of work and juggled his other commitments so as to keep us on track, drafting all our amendments and dealing with the Public Bill Office to get us to where we are. He celebrates a big birthday this week, and he deserves the break that he is taking.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, it is customary to say that Bills that have been sent to us for consideration by the other place leave here much improved by the detailed scrutiny that your Lordships’ House brings to legislation. I am not sure that this Bill—with, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, observed, its 65 amendments in all, and shorn of about one third of its original material—can qualify for that appellation. It still seems to have some problems and deficiencies. However, we think it has been improved.
My colleagues and I were heartened by the handover meeting we held yesterday with the ministerial team, involving Commons Ministers as well, which seemed to open up possible joint solutions to many of the remaining issues. Of course, external events may well intervene, but we are not far apart on many issues, and we remain willing to work together with the Government to resolve the outstanding issues over the next period.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, let me first thank all those who have contributed to the debate for their remarks. Again, all noble Lords have approached the subject in a timely and constructive manner, in the finest traditions of this House, as has been demonstrated throughout the passage of the Bill. It is now up to the other place to scrutinise the changes that this House has made to the Bill. It would be wrong of me to prejudge what will happen there, but I can say that should the Bill return for further consideration in this House, I look forward to working with all noble Lords in the spirit of constructive—well, sometimes constructive —co-operation that we have all shown so far.
State Aid (Revocations and Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:20 - Division conducted remotely on the amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 258 - Amendment agreed.
Lord Callanan
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 October be approved.
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations are made under the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which I will refer to as the withdrawal Act. The purpose of these regulations is to remove redundant EU state aid law from the domestic statute book after the end of the transition period. This is both appropriate and necessary to provide legal certainty for UK businesses and public authorities that EU state aid rules no longer apply in the UK, except where they apply directly under the Northern Ireland protocol.
I begin by explaining the European Union’s approach to subsidy control, which is known as state aid. State aid is support in any form, from any level of government, which gives a business or other entity an advantage that could not be obtained in the normal course of business. If this advantage has the potential to distort competition within the internal market and affect trade between EU member states, then state aid is present and the rules for state aid are triggered. The state aid rules were devised by the European Union to ensure that EU member states operate in a way compatible with the internal market, and the rules are of course very much a European Union concept. They derive from Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which, together with the EU regulations and decisions made under that treaty, control how and when member states can grant aid. Responsibility for enforcing the rules sits with the European Commission. However, having left the European Union and the single market, the UK will no longer be bound by EU state aid rules after the end of the transition period.
If changes to domestic law are not made in time for the end of the transition period, EU state aid law would become part of UK law, as retained EU law through the withdrawal Act, but the law would then contain some fundamental deficiencies. These deficiencies would make this retained EU law on state aid inoperable in the United Kingdom. Revoking the EU law on state aid will make it clear to businesses, courts and public authorities that state aid rules will no longer apply in the UK, except, as I said, where they apply directly under the Northern Ireland protocol. Instead, the UK has announced that we will have our own subsidy arrangements to support a competitive, dynamic market economy.
From 1 January, the Government will follow World Trade Organization rules on subsidies and other international commitments agreed in free trade agreements, and we will consult on whether to go further, including whether to legislate on this matter. We will, of course, work closely with businesses and public authorities across all parts of the United Kingdom to consider how best to design an approach to subsidy control that works for the United Kingdom economy.
In terms of the technical detail, this statutory instrument disapplies and revokes retained EU state aid rules that are preserved by Sections 3 and 4 of the withdrawal Act. As I mentioned earlier, Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, together with the EU regulations and decisions made under that treaty, govern the state aid regime. Article 107(1), for example, defines state aid and sets out the general prohibition on giving aid. That prohibition operates by providing that aid is incompatible with the EU internal market in so far as it affects trade between member states, unless the aid has been approved by the European Commission.
Article 107(2) and (3) sets out when the Commission must give approval and those areas where the Commission has discretion over whether to approve aid or not. Article 108 sets out the Commission’s role in monitoring state aid and obliges member states to notify aid to the Commission in advance. Aid cannot be awarded until approved by the European Commission; this is known as the standstill obligation. While the Commission has exclusive competence to decide whether aid is compatible with the internal market, national courts can enforce the standstill obligation. In effect, national courts can suspend an aid measure until the Commission has considered whether the measure is compatible with the internal market. However, after the transition period, the UK will no longer be bound by EU state aid rules. The rights and obligations I have just described will no longer be relevant. This SI ensures that they are not retained in UK law by the withdrawal Act.
Other EU regulations that enable the EU state aid regime to operate across member states would, after the end of the transition period, become retained EU law through the withdrawal Act. These broadly consist of procedural and exemptions regulations. The procedural regulations, for example, set out how the state aid regime operates and make clear the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and the member states. They set out the procedures to be followed in notifications and investigations and give the Commission information-gathering powers. The exemptions regulations set out the conditions under which an aid measure is exempt from the requirement to notify the Commission in advance. Yet these provisions would not be able to be complied with or enforced in the United Kingdom because the Commission will not have a role in the UK’s domestic subsidy control arrangements. The SI will therefore revoke these now redundant provisions.
Removing retained EU law from the UK statute book that is both deficient and no longer relevant avoids any possible confusion about whether state aid rules must be complied with or not. Importantly, this SI also ensures that domestic legislation can continue to operate appropriately beyond the transition period, when EU state aid rules will no longer form part of domestic law. The SI does this by making consequential amendments to other retained EU law and UK domestic legislation which refers to state aid rules.
It is important at this point for me to make it clear how these regulations will operate in light of the Northern Ireland protocol. While these regulations remove retained EU law from the UK domestic statute book, Article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol will allow state aid rules to continue to apply after the transition period. The application of state aid rules under the protocol will be limited to measures relating to goods and wholesale electricity affecting trade between Northern Ireland and the EU. The regulations will not affect the application of the Northern Ireland protocol, which is given effect through Section 7A of the withdrawal Act made in 2018: they make amendments only to UK domestic law.
This SI is necessary to make corrections to domestic law, by revoking retained EU law on state aid from the UK statute book and fixing any technical deficiencies in other retained EU law and UK domestic legislation which refers to state aid rules. This instrument will ensure legal certainty for businesses, aid-granting authorities and the courts from 1 January 2021, when EU state aid rules will cease to apply in the United Kingdom. I therefore commend these regulations to the House.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the Regulations replace retained European Union State Aid rules with a yet to be defined new subsidy regime, and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to delay implementation of the regulations until (1) they have consulted widely on their proposals, (2) they have sought the agreement of the devolved administrations, and (3) the primary legislation detailing how the United Kingdom’s new subsidy regime will operate after the end of the transition period has received Royal Assent.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of the statutory instrument. My amendment calls on the Government to delay implementation of these regulations until they have consulted widely on their proposals; in particular, until they have consulted and sought the agreement of the devolved Administrations and the primary legislation detailing how the UK’s new subsidy regime will operate after the end of the transition period has received Royal Assent. I will listen very carefully to comments made during the debate, particularly to the response of the Minister, but I give notice that I intend to divide the House on this issue.
This amendment stems from three primary sources. First is the 30th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which, inter alia, said:
“The disapplication of EU State aid rules appears to be a reversal of the previous Government’s policy position, which sought a continuity approach in the case of a ‘no deal’ scenario”,
and that:
“This approach raises the question whether it would have been more appropriate to take forward such a policy change through primary rather than secondary legislation, enabling Parliament to scrutinise the new approach more fully”.
The second is an amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, supported by a vote on Report deleting Clause 44 of the internal market Bill, which he said purported
“to make state aid a reserved matter by the device of expanding or extending the competition policy reservation.”—[Official Report, 25/11/20; col. 317.]
The third is the fact that the rollover continuity free trade deal with Japan, discussed in your Lordships’ House last week, replicates the restrictions on subsidies being repealed by this very SI. If we are still honouring international treaties, this will need to be legislated for, so why is this SI being progressed today?
The SLSC commented that when the previous Government laid the 2019 state aid regulations before Parliament, the plan was to transfer the EU’s enforcement functions to the CMA and to enable the continued application of state aid law in the UK in a domestic policy context in the event of no deal. However, these 2019 regulations were withdrawn in February without being made. The SLSC also points out that this new SI is being
“made under the Withdrawal Act which, according to the Explanatory Notes … ‘does not aim to make major changes to policy or establish new legal frameworks in the UK beyond those which are appropriate to ensure the law continues to function properly from exit day’ and commits the Government to ‘introduce separate primary legislation to make such policy changes which will establish new legal frameworks’.”
Why is this happening? Why is there no primary legislation? I hope the Minister will deal fully with the points made by the committee, particularly its general concern about using secondary legislation to introduce policy changes that should be done via primary legislation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, prefaced his introduction to his amendment proposing to delete Clause 44 of the internal market Bill by saying that
“the regime of state aid is plainly necessary, and it is necessary to have one for the whole of the UK”.—[Official Report, 25/11/20; col. 316.]
I agree with him. The Minister has previously made it clear that the UK needs to design a bespoke state aid, or what he calls a “subsidy control”, regime. He has also said he hopes that it
“will operate in a way that works best for all UK businesses, workers and consumers”,
and promises
“a consultation on whether we should go further than our World Trade Organization and international commitments, including whether further legislation … is necessary.”
So far, so good. However, with no supporting evidence, he asserts that:
“Reserving subsidy control is the best way in which to guarantee that a single, unified subsidy control regime could be legislated for in future.”—[Official Report, 25/11/20; col. 325-26.]
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested that this was clear evidence that the Government want to use the internal market Bill to alter the devolution settlement. In the Third Reading debate a few minutes ago, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, spoke eloquently about the need for all unionists to tread very carefully when progressing legislation that affects the current rights and responsibilities of the devolved Administrations. I agree with him.
Whatever the truth here, this is a worryingly centralising Bill. As we learned in the Autumn Statement only last week, the shared prosperity fund which replaces EU funding for regional and local structural projects will in future be controlled and spent by UK government Ministers from Whitehall. The Minister might wish to clarify whether, under the guise of promoting competition, the Government are set on unravelling the devolution settlement.
There is a bit of a mystery about what the Government are up to here. Why are they currently spurning the sensible and pragmatic way forward suggested by the Welsh and Scottish Governments of using the well-regarded common frameworks process? Reinforcing as it does the need for all four nations to work together for mutually agreed solutions, it seems a complete no-brainer.
On international trade agreements, it is an open secret that level playing field issues are one of the main sticking points in the ongoing EU FTA negotiations. It is said that London has been strongly resisting demands from Brussels for the UK to remain in the EU state aid regime. It has even been suggested that this SI has been brought forward and modified from its original form to bolster the UK’s negotiating position. However, as we debated last week, the state aid provisions included in the UK-Japan free trade agreement are effectively the same as the current EU rules and include what one distinguished commentator called
“hard-edged commitments not to provide open-ended … support”
to UK companies. To give effect to these commitments, there will need to be legislation. I do not need to point out the irony if this SI has to be brought back in primary legislation to give effect to the Japan free trade agreement. Will the Minister comment on this? What are the plans for legislation to implement the Japan free trade agreement?
State aid has received little attention during the UK’s 47 year-long membership of the EU, but its importance has been highlighted repeatedly during the parliamentary stages of the internal market Bill, as well as remaining one of the sticking points in the EU-UK negotiations. We have no sense of where the Government want to take their policy on state aid, other than that it cannot be the same as it has been under the EU. Removing a well-understood policy framework that has been in place for half a century and replacing it with a reliance on WTO rules, which are widely discredited, seems a perverse way of making policy, even if the Government need more time before deciding what to do. There is no doubt that state aid can be beneficial. If deployed as part of a robust industrial strategy, it can help create decent jobs, kick-start businesses, rebalance regional inequalities and power the UK’s internal market. However, it can also be harmful.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said that this change
“is neither a welcome nor indeed acceptable use of secondary legislation”.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not understand where they fit into this process, and it is complicated by the Northern Ireland protocol. In the internal market Bill, the Government stand accused of attacking the devolution settlement. Even if that is not the case, they have a lot of ground to make up before their proposals have buy-in from the devolved Administrations and are seen as legitimate and politically uncontroversial in all four nations. The criticism from the SLSC, the gaps in the IM Bill and the need for clarity following international trade treaty commitments suggest in combination that there is a powerful case for delaying this Bill until Ministers have consulted widely and sought the agreement of the devolved Administrations and the necessary changes to existing primary legislation have been agreed. This pause for reflection is what this amendment in my name would achieve. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his presentation and explanation of these regulations. I recognise the difficult position the Government are in this year as a result of the pandemic’s impact on preparing the UK’s rules after the end of 2021. However, as I explained during the passage of the internal market Bill, I have significant concerns about the Government’s adherence to issues such as the Northern Ireland protocol and the delicate balance of power within all four devolved Administrations of our United Kingdom.
On the measures we are debating today, I have significant sympathy with all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I too regret that these measures are being proceeded with. The Welsh Government, for example, have particularly expressed concerns that these regulations will amend UK legislation in devolved areas which hitherto were supposed to require consent under the intergovernmental agreement, especially issues that relate to the water industry and other areas. The Welsh Government have stated their concerns about removing current state aid rules without putting any alternative subsidy regime in place.
Concerns about these measures were reinforced by the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee saying that this
“is neither a welcome nor … acceptable use of secondary legislation”
and that it should rather be done with full parliamentary scrutiny in primary legislation. Following the concerns expressed by the Welsh and Scottish Administrations, can my noble friend say how the proposed shared prosperity fund will interact with any new state aid regime? When will the details of the future proposals for this regime be produced? What consultation will happen?
Finally, I repeat my concerns at the Government’s proposal to break the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol. Article 10(1) of the protocol requires the UK to follow EU state aid rules rather than the WTO rules, which are more like a free-for-all. I know that we have dealt with a number of these issues in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and that a number of these concerns have been addressed by various amendments made by your Lordships’ House. However, I ask my noble friend, in the light of the ongoing free trade negotiations that have been, and continue to be, under way with other nations, and in the light of the concerns expressed by the devolved Administrations and the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, whether the Government might consider it appropriate to delay the introduction of these measures in order to offer time either to agree a deal or to have the necessary consultations and consents from the other areas of the United Kingdom.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of these regulations and their effect in revoking retained EU state aid rules so that they are not part of domestic law for part of the United Kingdom. However, nothing in these regulations affects the continued application of EU state aid provisions, as provided for in Article 10 and Annex 5 of the Northern Ireland protocol, after 31 December 2020. The Minister, when he was introducing the regulations, somewhat skirted over that issue. This has significant and far-reaching implications for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland. I know that time was short, but it was very much an afterthought and will have significant effects on business in Northern Ireland.
Great Britain will have its own domestic subsidy control regime that follows WTO rules and other international commitments agreed under free trade agreements. It would be good to have some idea of what the Great Britain regime is going to be. We in Northern Ireland need to see the detail. Some flexibilities have been promised, given that we are going to have this hybrid situation in the United Kingdom. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate when we are going to see the Great Britain rules for the subsidy control regime.
In his reply, will the Minister spell out which areas will be covered in Northern Ireland by the EU state aid regime? He mentioned goods and electricity. Services, as I understand it, will not be covered. However, that can lead to a problem when it comes to which businesses will be subject to which regime in Northern Ireland. We know about manufacturing, but a lot of the value is in services. Will businesses in Northern Ireland be under the EU regime, the Great Britain regime or what? That needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency. We are almost four weeks away from these matters having to be settled and it is important that they are settled and clarified very quickly.
In the Command Paper in May 2020, the Government set out that the state aid provisions in the Northern Ireland protocol would apply only narrowly. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could reaffirm that and answer the questions that I have raised.
The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill has been mentioned. The Minister and noble Lords will know the concern in Northern Ireland that rules will be applied under the protocol, not least in this area, over which there will be no democratic oversight or input for anyone from Northern Ireland. Stormont, the devolved Government, the Executive and the Assembly will have no say in those rules, and neither will Westminster. There is a massive democratic deficit. That is unacceptable, and yet it has been imposed upon Northern Ireland. Yesterday, we discussed a democratic consent statutory instrument in Grand Committee, and we were told that, in four years’ time, the Northern Ireland Assembly would be able to vote on the matter. The Northern Ireland Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland would like a vote now. It is entirely democratic and reasonable to expect such a thing.
In closing, can the Minister outline how Her Majesty’s Government will ensure that Northern Ireland companies will not be placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom? If Northern Ireland companies are following EU state aid rules and their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom are following a different subsidy regime, that has the potential to cause problems for Northern Ireland companies. Will he ensure that Northern Ireland businesses can access the United Kingdom schemes as well, or at least offer compensation in some shape or form to make up for that competitive disadvantage, if there is any?
It is important to put on the record that, while these are technical regulations, they seem to be putting in place the state aid rules that will apply after Brexit for the whole of the United Kingdom; but in fact, they will apply only to part of the United Kingdom. For Northern Ireland, these regulations have very serious implications indeed, and that needs to be highlighted and addressed.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it will not surprise the House to hear that I strongly support these regulations and do not support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I particularly welcome any statutory instrument that removes EU-derived law from our statute book. It may take a long time to remove it all, and it is clearly not a top priority, but when excellent opportunities such as this arise, we should grasp them.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mirrors the concerns expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House in relation to not using primary legislation to introduce a new state aid regime. We are not being asked to approve a replacement state aid regime. We are being asked to approve this statutory instrument, which should be judged on its own merits and not in relation to the legislative process that may or may not be followed for any replacement state aid regime. The merits of these regulations are clear. They will remove from our statute book the state aid rules that apply to those within the single market. We will no longer be in the single market at the end of this year, except to the extent required by the Northern Ireland protocol. That should be the end of the story.
I have to say to my noble friend Lady Altmann that I do not understand the concerns expressed by the Welsh Government that she relayed. The legislation is redundant and keeping it would be confusing.
The question of what kind of state aid rules we need for the UK’s own internal market is an entirely separate issue and should have no bearing on this order. As noble Lords are aware, the Government have committed to consulting on their plans for a scheme of subsidy control for the UK’s internal market. I am sure that this will include consultation with the devolved Administrations, and so we do not need this amendment to bring that about.
A regime for the UK’s internal market is not an urgent issue, and it is important that the Government take their time to get the details right. As my noble friend the Minister has said, the UK will of course be bound by the WTO’s rules and the terms of any free trade agreements, as it will whether or not we create new rules for our own internal market.
Equally, whether or not the mechanism for creating any new state aid scheme is by way of primary or secondary legislation does not affect these regulations. As noble Lords know, the Government had intended to use the power in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill before your Lordships’ House took another swipe at the Bill with its wrecking ball last week. Whether the Government decide to use primary or secondary legislation is not a big issue for me, provided that their consultation is thorough. Primary legislation can take a big chunk of the finite time available under our parliamentary processes. I would prefer to use up any spare legislative time for things such as our levelling-up agenda. I would certainly not get excited if secondary legislation were used.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also seemed to misdirect itself when it said, at paragraph 17 of its 30th Report, that part of the reason for drawing the order to the attention of the House was because,
“on this occasion, the policy is one that appears central to the UK’s negotiation position with the EU.”
Your Lordships’ Select Committees never miss an opportunity to drag Brexit into the story, which is, I am afraid, another sign that many noble Lords—perhaps a majority—still have not yet come to terms with the fact that we have left the EU. But our negotiating position with the EU on our future relationship is nothing whatever to do with this statutory instrument. The EU may well be making a fuss about our future internal state aid regime and may want to try to dictate its terms, but that is not relevant to excising irrelevant law from our statute book.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who is such a strong and loyal Member of the Benches opposite. I particularly liked her reference to the “wrecking ball” that we took to the internal market Bill, because, obviously, we were in fact helping the Government not to break the law. I think that is part of what we should be doing in your Lordships’ House. I know that when I follow her, all I have to do is go in the opposite direction and I will be absolutely fine.
The Minister was very soothing in his description of what this statutory instrument does, but I had some fears about it being done through secondary, and not primary, legislation, which were reinforced by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. It seems that, rather than the usual EU exit tweaks that most statutory instruments do, this is actually repealing the whole body of EU state aid laws—all the rules—except for Northern Ireland, under the Northern Ireland protocol, leaving us only with WTO rules and anything that is agreed with other countries in our future trade deals. Somehow it seems quite a lot within a very simple mechanism that, I feel, is not perhaps appropriate for it. It does feel like too big a change to be a legitimate use of the statutory instrument powers in the EU withdrawal Act and goes way beyond anything the Government actually said they would use these powers for.
The change should be made by primary legislation. There has been lots of time to do it; there has been time in our schedule but, because the Government have not actually decided their policy, they are just falling back on WTO rules. Also, the fact that this statutory instrument is coming so late in the day rather suggests that this is another hard-line tactic for the EU negotiations, which I think is very sad. What kind of state aid rules are the Government negotiating in their trade deals? Is that something we have access to? What kind of state aid restrictions will the UK subject itself to? Are the Government going to ensure that public authorities are aware of the state aid rules and the changes that will result from this SI?
EU state aid law is well understood by public authorities at the moment, but I would argue that this fast change to WTO rules and trade agreements creates uncertainty—and none of us wants any more uncertainty. I am minded to vote for the amendment to the Motion, because consultation with the devolved authorities does seem like something we really ought to do—if not just through courtesy, at least through gathering more information and understanding exactly what is going on elsewhere. I thank the Minister for his explanation, but I would, if possible, like an answer to my questions.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and welcome them. They are necessary to prepare for the introduction of a UK domestic subsidy control regime. As my noble friend has made clear, the EU state aid rules, which would otherwise have been transposed into UK law, would have been inoperable under the withdrawal Act and, in any case, they would have been redundant.
The Government have made it clear that the UK will follow the WTO’s subsidy rules and will also adhere to any relevant obligations entered into under free trade agreements. Among those obligations are those entered into under the CEPA with Japan. Could the Minister explain what the difference is between the Government’s offer to the EU on state aid, which, I understand, is similar to that included in the EU-Canada free trade agreement, and what has been agreed between the UK and Japan? The Financial Times has reported that the UK-Japan agreement replicates the restrictions on subsidies in the EU-Japan deal that went into effect last year. That agreement prohibits the Governments from indefinitely guaranteeing the debts of struggling companies or providing an open-ended bailout without a clear restructuring plan in place.
Of course, as far as state aid is concerned, the EU should put its own house in order. Accusations of dumping cannot easily be made against the UK. As the Prime Minister said in his inspiring Greenwich speech in February:
“France spends twice as much on state aid as the UK, and Germany three times as much … In fact, the EU has enforced state aid rules against the UK only four times in the last 21 years, compared with 29 enforcement actions against France, 45 against Italy—and 67 against Germany.”
But as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out with her usual forensic acumen, today’s debate is about our domestic state aid rules. In that regard, I do not support the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara.
Of course the Government will consult widely on our new domestic subsidy regime, including with the devolved Administrations. I am not quite sure whether creating a statutory requirement to seek the agreement of the devolved Administrations goes further than the requirement to consult, but I am certain that the devolved Administrations will argue that it is tantamount to requiring that their agreement must be given. I would ask the noble Lord if he has not noticed that on every single relevant question the devolved authorities want to do things slightly differently to show their powers. I think the noble Lord’s proposal is, therefore, most unhelpful.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that it is very important that we have a single set of rules across the United Kingdom. The noble Lord’s wish to extend devolved powers to include all those powers until now held by the European institutions for the purpose of harmonising rules across the EU does not fit well with his view that, at the UK level, the UK Government should not reserve the powers necessary to ensure harmonised state aid rules across the United Kingdom. I think I can see some inconsistency in the noble Lord’s position, and I would ask my noble friend the Minister if he agrees.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, have withdrawn from this debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Liddle.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I very much want to support the amendment that my noble friend Lord Stevenson is moving. I think that the proposal before us today is symptomatic of the poor quality, dysfunctional Government that we now have. I do not think that I am going to express myself in quite the polite terms that he did, because I think that what is happening is appalling.
As a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, we thought it very strange indeed that such a major decision was being taken by statutory instrument. It is a major change of policy. It is a change from the policy that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, himself advocated in this House during the passage of the EU withdrawal Act, when he explained how the European state aid regime would be adopted by the UK but be run in future not by the European authorities but by the British authorities—the CMA. Yet the Government are casting that aside, abolishing the present regime, without frankly having a clue—a clue of the slightest clue—about what they are going to replace it with.
The WTO regime is not a credible state aid regime. I am a strong supporter of trying to build up the WTO—it is very important that our effort goes into that in future and, with the change of President in the US, it might be possible—but, frankly, its regime on state aid is a bit of a joke. There is no need to secure prior notification of any kind, there is no proper enforcement mechanism and there is a tribunal that President Trump has made largely ineffective. The Brexiteers’ greatest friend, President Trump, is the person who has done more to damage the WTO than any other figure.
There is no clarity on the Government’s part about what kind of state aid regime they want. All they know is that they think it is essential that the London Government should be in control of whatever it is. That is the argument we have had on the internal market Bill, where they insist that state aid is a reserved matter when in fact the devolved Administrations have had considerable discretion over how they allocate public funds in support of economic development. The Government’s behaviour on this undermines the devolution settlement as well as being economically incoherent.
The Minister kept repeating that what we are doing here gives business certainty. It gives business no certainty whatever, because who knows what the regime is going to be? The refusal of the British Government to set out a state aid regime is one reason why it is so difficult to conclude the trade agreement with the EU. The EU does not have a clue how the Government intend to sustain any kind of level playing field, which is a perfectly reasonable request in a trade deal.
This is a very bad policy and a very bad move. I believe in state aid; I believe it is necessary to support restructuring. I am not in favour of subsidising lame ducks, but I am in favour of trying to give companies in difficulties a viable future. State aid is important in promoting innovation, particularly in the high-tech industries that are our future. Frankly, though, this does not get us anywhere near having a credible state aid policy. It is a typical Brexit act, taking a leap into the unknown without a clue about what you are actually trying to achieve.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, state aid has the potential to distort market competition. As a member of the EU, we were governed by its state aid rules. This SI does away with that, but there is a degree of flexibility to those rules. In 2015, for instance, the Government wanted to subsidise the Drax power station to enable it to convert one of its units from coal to biomass fuel. The European Commission investigated and gave its approval. Clearly there were advantages for all in making that contribution to its own carbon emissions, and the EU state aid rules did not get in the way.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for explaining to us how the EU state aid rules have been used so fairly, largely to keep France and Germany in line and to allow the UK to do most of what it wanted. They are not overly unfair. We should not characterise EU state aid rules as necessarily preventing the UK doing what is right. As Theresa May said in Florence in 2017, the UK and EU understand and agree about the purpose of state aid rules and
“trying to beat other countries’ industries by unfairly subsidising one’s own is a serious mistake”.
Some of us fear that the Government are about to make that serious mistake.
That is why I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The Government can now define their own state aid rules but those have implications far beyond the UK. After all, we are a great trading nation, and everything being said about our future outside the EU is about how we are going to trade brilliantly all around the world. State aid rules that are not approved by those we wish to trade with will make that increasingly difficult. That is why we shall not be able to escape completely from state aid rules. The WTO operates its own and, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, pointed out, they are far from adequate, but in every trade deal, as we have heard, state aid will be an issue that has to be agreed on.
So what state aid are the Government so keen to be able to dispense that it stood, in part, in the way of a Brexit deal being negotiated? Perhaps the Minister could tell us what the Government want to do. It seems very strange to see a Conservative Government so apparently keen on being able to dispense state aid. In the past, we have seen plenty of instances where government interventions in industry have been disastrous. It gave us the Austin Allegro, for instance, a car that was not only unattractive but prone to breaking down. That failed to rescue the British car industry; being open to overseas investment was what did that.
Backing winners is not something that we have shown particular acumen in doing, but perhaps that is what the Government have in mind to try again. The partial purchase of the bankrupt satellite company, OneWeb, in the summer seemed to be a move in that direction, but hopes for that business have already begun to fade. At the time of the partial purchase, which civil servants definitely were not comfortable with and had to be mandated to do, OneWeb appeared to be caught in the UK’s efforts to find a replacement for the crucial Galileo project and the GPS system that it fuels. Five months on from that purchase, I am no clearer about how we plan to replace Galileo. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House whether he envisages pumping more public money into OneWeb and indeed if he could provide reassurance about how Galileo is to be reproduced in just a matter of weeks.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out, we still do not know what state aid policies the Government have in mind. It seems wrong to do away with one policy without explaining what will take its place. I can understand why the EU would be concerned about that, and why it could be standing in the way of a deal. Whatever importance the Government put on being able to dispense state aid as they wish, that cannot be as important as securing a deal with our largest trading partner.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness that the time limit for speeches is five minutes.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
In debate after debate, we hear more stories of the chaos that looms with a no-deal Brexit, particularly on top of Covid, so surely the Government could make clear what state aid regime they favour and whether they no longer believe that British companies are capable of competing fairly on the world stage. Four years after the decision to leave the EU, could the Minister tell us how close the Government are to developing their state aid regime?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, we have had so much contentious legislation in this Chamber recently, some of it causing noble Lords—including myself—genuine anguish, that my sole purpose originally in putting my name down to speak in this debate was simply to thank my noble friend for bringing forward an instrument around which I thought we would all be able to unite quite joyfully. After all, we as a country voted to leave the ambit of EU law, and noble Lords from all sides of the House have bought into that. Indeed, I recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, whom it is always a pleasure to follow, was a keen advocate of Brexit alongside us at the time. We achieved our objective.
Brexit was an inherently constitutional vote. It did not decide policy, nor what our future laws would be. It decided dramatically to change the locus of where those laws would be made, restoring that to our own democratic institutions and to the electorate on which they depend. Yet, here we are, four years later, still subject to the full panoply of EU law. So we should really be rejoicing at this statutory instrument which, for the first time, is wholly devoted to abolishing a whole range of EU laws—clause after clause. It does almost nothing else. It simply sends regulations bowling like ninepins off the statute book and out of existence.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, seeks to persuade your Lordships to introduce a note of regret into this inherently joyful event. He is not happy for a number of reasons, principally—as far as I can make out—because he is not content to see elements of the existing regime abolished without knowing what will take their place. We might all want to know that; what will replace the Government’s state aid regime is a matter of keen interest. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has promised us that it will be robust, and that is all we know. However, as my noble friend Lady Noakes has explained, this is almost entirely ungermane to the current instrument before us. She gave a number of reasons why it was not relevant —but there is another. It would be naive of the Government to put forward their state aid subsidy regime in the context of protracted negotiations with the European Union about our future relationship. The European Union intends to take that regime and, if it approves of it, seek to codify it in an international treaty or make it a precondition of such an international treaty. It wishes to recover its influence over our industrial subsidy strategy before it has even relinquished it—to de-democratise it and take it out of the hands of the electorate.
This seems a very strange path for a Labour Front-Bencher to pursue. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, will be well aware that, in recent years, even among the leaders of the Labour Party there has been a wide range of views as to the role of industrial subsidies. There is nothing wrong with that; in a democracy, there is bound to be a wide range of views. His Motion effectively begs a Conservative Government to take their as yet unknown policy and see it embedded in an international treaty. This would remove the opportunity for other political parties which may put themselves forward for election in future to make any meaningful change to it, which is a strange and difficult path to go down.
In the interests of our democracy and of maintaining democratic control over our policy, this amendment to the Motion should be rejected.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I can only emulate his wit and clarity. In this instance, I agree with him. I will make some additional points.
I am opposed to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, just as for many years I was totally opposed to the EU’s state aid rules. It was one reason why I voted to leave in 2016. I was glad to escape them then and I do not want any further delays. I note with some irony that this means I will be supporting the order put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. During the years before the referendum, even the most ardent Eurosceptics in the Conservative Party were rather lukewarm in highlighting the egregious nature of the EU state aid rules. Indeed, Margaret Thatcher was happy to use those rules to roll back the state at home. The Eurosceptic left might well be a dying breed, although there are a few of us left—but, in contrast, for many years they objected to the EU’s state aid rules. The much-missed RMT leader, Bob Crow, the former Labour leader, the right honourable Jeremy Corbyn, and others on the left, such as me, recognised that those rules were anti-democratic. Whatever the UK electorate might have voted for, if those policies involved certain state subsidies to create new jobs or to help certain industries survive, they could be blocked.
EU rules stipulate that Governments need to notify the European Commission in advance for permission. This is an affront to popular sovereignty and why I support this order. This outrageous mechanism, which allows the Commission to overrule elected finance Ministers and claw back payments, is uniquely prescriptive in the world. It goes far further than other economic blocs, such as the World Trade Organization. The WTO allows subsidies by default. Prior notification and approval are not required. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, might say, this makes it more democratic than the EU.
Apart from noting the irony that today’s Labour Party seems keen to retain the EU’s anti-worker, anti-state rules, and that the Conservative Party seems committed to escaping them, it is worth considering why there is so much focus on state aid in the withdrawal agreement negotiations, and in this House. Surely, it cannot be because the EU thinks that the UK will be chomping at the bit to increase state aid, once it is free from Brussels, or that the present Government are likely to launch a campaign for the mass nationalisation of industry. Even when it was in the EU, Britain conducted less approved state aid than most other EU members. In 2018, Britain’s official state aid spending amounted to 0.34% of GDP—about half the EU’s average of 0.76% and far below Germany’s 1.45%. Why do the EU and its avid remainer cheerleaders in the UK constantly take such a robust stance over rules that cover a relatively small part of the UK’s GDP and overall state spending? This seems more politically than economically driven. After all, state aid rules are often used by the European Commission as a mechanism for asserting its overall authority and supremacy over its member states, on pain of punishment and at the expense of their sovereign rights. The rules are used as a punitive and enforcing mechanism.
While the UK has formally left the EU, it seems that it wants to use state aid to curtail the UK as a genuinely autonomous nation. That is why I think it is right that the Government seek to protect against a maximalist interpretation of Article 10 in the Northern Irish protocol, because it could give the European Commission extensive jurisdiction over subsidies granted throughout the UK. It is why it was so important to retain Clause 45 of the Internal Markets Bill, but more of that another time. More broadly, regardless of the economic impact of adhering to any version of the EU state aid rules, the main issue is one of national sovereignty. If the British people want more nationalised industries or state support, it is they—and not the European Commission—who should have the final say.
We have heard much hectoring from some noble Lords about the importance of sticking to international law. Interestingly, despite the rigidity of the EU state aid rules, those same rules were effectively waived during the recent European lockdown-induced recession —just as they were during the financial crisis a decade ago—to allow for emergency bailouts and job protection schemes. This rather calls into question the supposed inviolability of international legal rules in all instances. Is this not a case of one rule for them and another rule for the rest of us? I want to get rid of state aid rules as quickly as possible.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate. If the Minister did not already know it from the UK internal market Bill, how state aid—if such a thing is to exist as a definition in future—is to work is a sensitive and significant matter of public policy that merits primary legislation. The changes go beyond what would be permitted under the withdrawal Act. I will concentrate on the mainstream state aid point, although I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that I have seen the amendments to recognise third-country state aid instruments as core tier 1 equity for bank capital. If only there had been such clarity all round.
The problem is that, given the double whammy of, “delete all and maybe start something else—or maybe not”, as we are told in connection with this statutory instrument, and the attempted power grab without consultation in the UK internal market Bill, it all looks like a high level of disregard for stakeholders and devolution, or a high level of disorganisation, or both. The truth of the matter seems to be that policy is at the mercy of trade agreements on the one hand and the avowed distancing from all things EU on the other. It is not even an attempt to cherry pick. There are some cherries to pick, not least the ones that we put into the legislation.
By now, one would have hoped for the emergence of some ideas on alternative shape; if this is how the negotiation is proceeding with the EU, I am not surprised that it got stuck. So instead of an independent policy we have a hole that might or might not get filled. That hole is carved out by secondary legislation, which is a major policy change. Does this mean that, from January, public authorities can start to make subsidies, secure in the knowledge that if they fit within the WTO rules—which means among other things a free-for-all on services—there will be no retrospective prohibition, interruption or comeback? How will that sit in making trade deals if it has already started?
Paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that there have been technical discussions with the devolved Administrations. I find that interesting, given the onslaught against the UKIM Bill. Can the Minister explain more about those technical discussions? Paragraph 11 says that there will be guidance given about the new subsidy control arrangements, but paragraph 12 indicates that, indeed, all that public authorities need to worry about are the WTO rules. Will that guidance include any forward-looking advice beyond compliance?
I do understand that contraction of geographical scope of the state aid rules is sensible, but maybe there could have been a general continuation of the principles until completion of the consultations or some other commitment to co-ordination, not least because of Northern Ireland. Now there will be notional freedoms but concern that it may be temporary or governed solely by Treasury stinginess. The Business Secretary has said—reported, for example, in the Financial Times on 9 September—that the,
“guiding philosophy remains that we do not want a return to the 1970s approach of picking winners and bailing out unsustainable companies”,
and some of that is indeed now in the Japan trade agreement. Is there an intention to enforce that on public authorities and devolved Administrations, or are they being given free rein to see how it works out?
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has proposed in his amendment that the policy be delayed until after the consultation, when devolved Administrations are on board and the legislative context in which state aid rules sit is more certain. These Benches can broadly agree with those sentiments. We think that the Government’s approach to state aid policy, and the wider context of the UKIM Bill, has been deeply unsatisfactory, with important details left undetermined and the devolution settlements neglected. We will, therefore, be supporting the amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their interesting contributions to this debate. There have been many contributions on a range of subjects, very few of which had anything to do with this instrument. Fascinating though discussions were on the fate of the Austin Allegro, and Galileo, I say to my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft that they were totally irrelevant to today’s debate and nothing to do with the instrument being discussed.
The EU state aid rules were created to meet the needs of the European Union. With the UK’s departure from the European Union, we will no longer be bound by EU state aid rules after the transition period. We have been clear that we will not align with EU rules as part of any free trade agreement. My noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Moylan were absolutely right to say that what subsidy control regime we have in future is an extremely valid debate. We will, no doubt, have that discussion in this House at great length, but it is nothing to do with the merits, or otherwise, of this statutory instrument. Many noble Lords who contributed seem to be confused about that. The point of this instrument is that businesses must have clarity on the UK statute book to plan for investments and to receive the support that they need to innovate and grow.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has moved an amendment expressing regret, as he is perfectly entitled to do. However, I hope that noble Lords can see that revoking retained EU state aid law is appropriate and necessary. Furthermore, consequential amendments to other retained EU law, and UK domestic legislation which refers to state aid rules, will ensure that these regulations continue to operate appropriately. I repeat: state aid is support in any form, from any level of government which gives a business or other entity an advantage that could not be obtained in the normal course of business. In the way it is defined in the EU, if this advantage has the potential to distort competition within the internal market and affect trade between EU member states, then state aid is present and the rules for state aid are triggered.
The state aid rules were devised by the European Union to ensure that EU member states operate in a way which is compatible with the internal market. The rules are very much a European Union concept. We will no longer be part of the European Union or the single market and the EU will no longer have any jurisdiction in the United Kingdom, and nor will the European Commission. At present, the UK Government or devolved Administrations proposing any form of state aid need to get the permission of the European Commission. In future, the Commission will have no jurisdiction in the United Kingdom. It makes no sense to leave these rules on our statute book, which is what noble Lords are proposing today.
From 1 January, the Government will follow the World Trade Organization rules on subsidies and other international commitments. Before the end of this year, the Government will publish guidance for UK public authorities to explain these commitments. As I have said before, during debates on the internal market Bill, we will also consult in the coming months on whether to go further, including on whether to legislate.
A number of noble Lords posed questions, very few of which had anything to do with this particular instrument. I will, nevertheless, endeavour to answer them. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about legislating for the UK-Japan free trade agreement. In general, where implementation is required, the Government will use the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Act ensures that existing laws which implement the EU-Japan free trade agreement continue to have effect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, in another contribution that had nothing to do with this debate, asked what any new regime would mean for new subsidies. We are clear that we do not intend to return to the 1970s approach of government bailing out unsustainable companies. I shall say a little more about the negotiations later.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, about the Northern Ireland protocol. It is important to note that after the end of the transition period the EU state aid rules will not apply to Northern Ireland as they do today. State aid provisions apply only to trade that is subject to the protocol, which is limited in scope to goods and wholesale electricity markets. Northern Ireland will enjoy new flexibilities with respect to support for its service industries, but let me be clear that the instrument that we are debating does not affect the application of the state aid principles in the Northern Ireland protocol.
My noble friend Lady Altmann, who I think was referring to our previous debates on the internal market Bill rather than to this statutory instrument, mentioned consultation with the devolved Administrations. Officials have been having technical discussions on this instrument with the devolved Administrations and other Governments’ departments at the official level and no concerns have been expressed about it by their officials. I recognise that on the general issue of a future state aid policy they wish to make a contribution, and we have said that we will consult them, but they have expressed no concerns about this statutory instrument.
The noble Baroness also referred to the shared prosperity fund. Again, that has nothing to do with the instrument that we are debating, but it will be consistent with the UK’s approach to subsidy control following the end of the transition period to ensure that it invests fairly in local economies. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about common frameworks. Obviously, we debated these issues at length when considering the internal market Bill, but let me reiterate the points I made then. The devolved Administrations have never previously been able to set their own subsidy control rules, as covered by the then EU state aid framework. They will continue to have responsibility for spending decisions on subsidies within any future subsidy control system.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lady Noakes asked why the Government are using secondary legislation to remove the state aid regime and whether this is a policy change. The answer is no. This is not a policy change and it is no more than is appropriate to revoke redundant retained EU law and make amendments to address deficiencies in other retained EU law and UK domestic legislation that refer to EU state aid rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also raised the UK-Japan agreement, on which I have already answered. My noble friend Lord Trenchard and a number of other noble Lords asked about the status of the negotiations. Obviously, they are ongoing literally as we speak and the future of state aid is, of course, an important subject within them. Noble Lords will understand that there are limits on what I can say about it, but perhaps I may refer to comments made by my noble friend Lord Frost when he spoke to your Lordships’ committee about our approach that might be helpful. He said:
“If subsidies are granted, for example, there must be clear statements that they must contribute to and be justified on public policy or market failure grounds. They must be proportionate. There must be openness and transparency about what they are. They must be aimed at bringing about a degree of change in behaviour. They must be the right instrument for the purpose, and you should not in general subsidise if there are negative effects on trade and investment. Those are all commitments that we are willing to make and that we think are important parts of a good subsidy system.”
However, as I said, the negotiations on this matter are very much ongoing.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked whether we are swapping an effective regime for a dysfunctional one. I have said why we cannot retain the current EU regime: there is no point in giving the European Union jurisdiction over state aid in the UK when we are no longer members of the EU. The ASCM is the appropriate standard for global subsidy control and is a more appropriate basis for regulating subsidies than the EU state aid regime, which of course is designed for the European single market which we will no longer be a part of. Some 164 countries follow WTO rules on subsidy control, showing that they are a well-recognised common standard.
I am running out of time to speak, but I hope that I have explained why the statutory instrument before us is worthy of noble Lords’ support and why it is essential to the clarity and well-being of the UK statute book. Noble Lords raised many concerns about other issues, to which I am sure we will return in the future, but in the meantime, I commend this statutory instrument to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have one request to ask the Minister a short question for elucidation. It is from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The Minister did not answer any of my questions, which I presume is because he felt they were out of order. At the same time, I did ask how we were going to make sure that public authorities understand the impacts of this statutory instrument. He did not answer that.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I answered many questions. It is not a matter of being in order; it is whether questions were relevant to this particular debate. I think I said in my reply that of course we intend to publish guidance for local authorities, the devolved Administrations and others active in this field before the end of the year, but the noble Baroness will understand that this is still very much a live subject in the EU negotiations. When we have a complete picture of how the regime will operate in the UK, any commitments that we may wish to enter into as part of those negotiations will be legislated for in the future relationship Bill, but we will ensure that guidance is issued before the end of the year.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have no further requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, for context, I was originally going to introduce this debate on a different day—in other words, not on the same day as the Third Reading of the internal market Bill, but because of other pressures it was moved. I suppose that it was inevitable that the debate would be full of resonances from our recent discussions on the internal market Bill. If we wanted to take the optimistic view, this discussion on the amendment to the Motion could be treated as a sort of digestif after the main course of the Bill, but I shall come back to that point.
I thank the Minister for his full response to the debate. He might have worried about the wide-ranging issues that were raised, but at their heart, they were all about much the same thing. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann, Lady Jones, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Bowles, and my noble friend Lord Liddle for supporting the points I was trying to make. In addition, others have made good points that are relevant to the debate, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, who asked how companies in Northern Ireland can be expected to cope with both the internal market approach and the requirement under the state aid rules for limited use of the EU state aids that carry forward.
The underlying point that everyone touched on but was not really answered is how we are going to be aligned to the WTO rules for state aid while at the same time our growing number of international trade agreements are going to recognise state aid restrictions that will need to be taken into account as we go forward. The Minister is obviously not able to speak for another department on this, but there is an issue here that we need to resolve. We already have the idea that the Canada rollover agreement will be one set of state aid rules, but we know that the Japan FTA has a different set, which are much more like the current rules for the EU.
We do not yet have a satisfactory explanation from the Minister about why the choice was made to go for the reduction in the state aid rule continuation through secondary legislation. We need a debate on that, but on the basis of a proper consultation. If nothing else, I hope that will still happen. However, as I have just mentioned, we will gradually bring in elements of a state aid policy. It occurs to me that, although the Minister made a good job of trying to argue why this SI at this time is important, he did not really answer the question of why we could not retain the form and substance of the EU state aid rules, which have worked for 47 years, while stripping out any egregious issues that the Government do not like in relation to control by the EU or surrendering powers to the European Court of Justice, which of course is completely inappropriate post Brexit—we agree with that. But there are arguments on both sides that will not be resolved today.
A regret amendment is limited in its effect. It draws attention to points and provokes a good debate, which we have had today, but it has absolutely no effect on the Government unless they decide that it should. The Government should think seriously about the points made about the need for a delay, because there is a good case for that, but if they decide to go ahead, that is obviously their decision. However, as a prompt to their conscience, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Human Medicines (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 October be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, we all believe that we must protect the safety of patients, while preserving their access to new and innovative medicines. The instruments that we are discussing today, on the UK’s regulation of medicines and medical devices, will ensure that there is a functioning statute book at the end of the transition period. This could not be more important in the context of the Government’s Covid-19 response.
The instruments are generally technical in nature and broadly achieve three things: first, they make minor amendments to existing regulations to take account of the implementation period agreed under the withdrawal agreement; secondly, they implement the Northern Ireland protocol; and, thirdly, they implement certain changes to the regulatory regime in Great Britain to ensure that the regulatory framework is up to date and functioning correctly at the end of the transition period.
These regulations do not prevent the need for future changes but they do preserve the solid foundation of the UK regulatory environment to protect patient safety and to allow the UK to remain a world leader in science and innovation. I will set out some of the key changes in the medical devices SI and then the medicines SI. However, as the SIs are long and technical, I trust that noble Lords will understand that I will not address all elements in the time we have available.
The medical devices instrument will allow CE-marked medical devices to be placed on the Great Britain market for a period of two and a half years. This will ensure continued access to medical devices for patients, while providing time for industry to adapt to future regulations. The Government have created their own new product safety marking—the UK conformity assessed, or UKCA, marking—which will be used across goods regulation in Great Britain. The SI sets out that the UKCA marking can be used for devices certified in accordance with the regulations and placed on the market in Great Britain from the end of the transition period.
The instrument makes a change to the 2019 medical devices SI, which would have inserted into domestic law provisions of the EU medical device regulation, or MDR, and the in vitro diagnostic medical devices regulation, the IVDR. By not including these provisions, we can develop our own system based on patient access, international standards and public health considerations.
The report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, led by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, has made it clear that we must do more to protect patient safety. The Government wholeheartedly agree. We will use the opportunity of leaving the EU to develop a robust, world-leading regulatory regime which prioritises patient safety, innovation and international best practice, using the powers of the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill.
Throughout recent constructive debates on the Bill, I have listened carefully to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and other noble Lords. We listened to concerns and have incorporated the medical devices information system into the framework for a future regulatory system. We are also in discussion on a number of other important regulatory issues, the details of which I will not go into now for the sake of brevity. I look forward greatly to the public consultation on this future regime next year and to working closely with the life sciences and healthcare sectors on these important considerations.
I now turn to the human medicines SI. From 1 January 2021, the Northern Ireland protocol will apply, so marketing authorisations granted by the EU will continue to apply in Northern Ireland. However, medicines placed on the market in Great Britain must be authorised through the UK national route.
The human medicines SI allows the MHRA to have “regard to” decisions made by EU member states on products approved via decentralised and mutual recognition procedures when considering whether to authorise those products in Great Britain. This policy will ensure that the MHRA can continue to take effective regulatory and safety action on these products.
The medicines SI will ensure that new and existing medicines continue to be on the UK market after the end of the transition period, so that patients are still able to access them in a timely manner. This will be achieved by allowing recognition of decisions by the EU Commission to grant marketing authorisations for centrally authorised products. These products will receive a GB marketing authorisation.
Both the SIs we are discussing today uphold the Prime Minister’s commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK market. The SIs include transparency requirements for medicines and medical devices moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, which will allow the MHRA to maintain oversight of products on the GB market and thus protect patient safety.
For medical devices, the transparency requirements mean that non-UK manufacturers placing devices on the UK market will be required to appoint a UK responsible person. The UK responsible person will be required to register devices with the MHRA in accordance with a transitional timetable set out in the regulations. Registration requirements will also apply to GB and Northern Ireland-based manufacturers. Both SIs make changes to ensure that the relevant EU laws will continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period, fulfilling the requirements of the Northern Ireland protocol. I reassure noble Lords that this Government will continue to regulate medicines and medical devices in a way which works for the whole United Kingdom, including, of course, Northern Ireland.
The MHRA will continue to regulate medicines and devices in Northern Ireland. This will ensure continuity for patients and for businesses. Moreover, the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, currently passing through this House, will provide the powers for future changes to the UK’s regulatory system. Within this, and having tabled an amendment in my name, what is now Clause 43 requires a public consultation on regulatory change before making use of the relevant designated powers in the Bill. The consultation process will help to ensure that the interests of the all interested parties, including devolved Administrations such as Northern Ireland, continue to be fully considered. Officials have kept the devolved Administrations informed of the drafting of this instrument and I am grateful for their continued collaborative approach. In particular, I thank the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, Robin Swann, who agreed—despite policy for human medicines being a devolved matter—to the human medicines SI being signed solely by the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care.
To inform the industry, we have published a number of guidance documents which go into further detail on the changes included in the SIs on GOV.UK. In addition, an accompanying series of webinars were held where officials engaged directly with 11,500 industry representatives and provided them with an opportunity to ask questions. My officials also meet regularly with top industry companies and key trade associations, including the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, the BioIndustry Association and the Association of British HealthTech Industries.
It is important to note that these instruments amend pre-existing EU exit legislation made in 2019. A full consultation process was conducted for this pre-existing legislation. Moreover, full impact assessments were conducted for this underlying legislation. As the nature of the changes in the instruments that we are discussing today are in many instances technical, the impacts of these SIs above and beyond the existing legislation do not meet the threshold for further impact assessments and hence these are not provided for. These instruments will ensure that the UK’s exceptional standards of safety and quality regulation of human medicines and medical devices are maintained and enhanced. At a time when we have never been more reliant on all the elements of our public healthcare system for our survival, we must support this. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to make an esoteric and wide-ranging speech on the relationship between the protocol, the MHRA and the European Medicines Agency and wow the gathered hundreds of online Peers in order to demonstrate my technical knowledge, but I have abandoned that in favour of saying something very brief on the relationship between these regulations and the Bill to which the Minister has already referred, and on today’s announcement about the purchase of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine.
I genuinely congratulate the Minister—he must have had nightmares over the last eight months of Questions and Statements on PPE, test and trace, and everything else—on actually managing to find the time to be entirely on top of, and extremely impressive in, the process of taking through the somewhat delayed legislation on medical devices. I also congratulate him on his willingness to be flexible. It is easier to be flexible with one’s own side, but I actually am impressed that he, on behalf of the Government, has been able to respond so effectively to the superb campaign of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in relation to the protections that we debated in Grand Committee. I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench has done a sterling job in supporting and working on that.
I want to test out this afternoon—in relation to what we are debating, because it is directly related to it, although it will be the subject of a Statement tomorrow—the extraordinary misunderstandings that appear to exist not just on the twittersphere, which you would expect because the very word “Twitter” brings that to mind, but in social media and the broadcast media as well. These relate to the relationship between the MHRA and the European Medicines Agency, and the relationship between what is possible now and what might change following the final conclusion of whatever deal is done at the end of the transition period in respect of our exit from the European Union at the end of December.
Perhaps the Minister—and this is a kind of run-out for tomorrow, seeing as there are so few of us gathered together—could confirm that the MHRA has powers, and has used them already when we were, and remain in the transition period, members of the European Union, in circumstances where it was appropriate to act swiftly when the European Medicines Agency was taking a longer period of time to come to a judgment on the efficacy of a particular procedure or vaccine. Regulation 137, I think, relates to this. Would it not be nice if we could join the German ambassador in welcoming international collaboration, rather than always having to believe that when we borrow someone else’s horse we should get commended for riding it in in front of the others? I am very supportive of what has been done; I believe that the MHRA has done its job thoroughly and efficaciously. It is excellent that we have been able to move quickly, not least because we might be able to transport the vaccine during December, before whatever chaos exists from 1 January. It is a great move forward; we should all celebrate it, but we should do so within the context of the reality of the situation, the knowledge of what existed already, the relationship of continuity after 1 January and the celebration of international collaboration to tackle the virus which, after all, is a pandemic.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD) [V]
I do not intend to take up too much of the time of the House, but I want to make a couple of comments and ask the Minister three questions about the SIs and the context in which they sit. These instruments are technical in nature, but the subject area—the regulation of medicines and medical devices—is a key issue for millions of people across the United Kingdom.
It is clear that in a no-deal EU exit scenario, the UK’s current participation in the European regulatory network for medical devices would end. The MHRA would then take on the responsibility for the UK market currently undertaken through the EU system, to ensure the continued safety of patients. The instruments are designed to enable the regulation of medical products and devices across the UK to be continued beyond the implementation period, so the regulations need maximum scutiny.
The EU and the UK markets for medicines and medical devices are closely linked, and enormous numbers are involved. I doubt whether the general public have any idea of the scale. According to the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, every month at least 45 million packs of medicines are exported from the UK to the EU, and 37 million packs are supplied from the EU to the UK. The UK still also relies heavily on the EU for its supply of medical devices, with more than half its £5 billion budget for imported medical technology being spent on devices originating from the EU.
From January 2021, changes to legislation on these issues will no longer flow through from updates at EU level. I therefore hope that the Government will explain clearly how this vital supply chain will be not only maintained but improved. A number of issues in relation to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill have raised concerns about the Government’s approach to the future regulation of medicines and medical devices. I will pick out just three for the Minister to consider.
The first issue is patient safety. There is a balance to be struck between innovation and patient safety. The Government need to provide assurances that patient safety will be an overarching consideration in their approach to new devices, some of which have been controversial in the past. The scandal of the women affected by mesh implants is an obvious example of where things have gone wrong.
The second issue is about alignment and collaboration. The EMA centralises the process for licensing and the monitoring of drug safety. Pharmaceutical companies could prioritise the EEA market over the UK market if the processes diverge too far, leading to delays in medication and medical devices being available in the UK.
The third issue—to me, possibly the most important—is patient data. The Government need to provide assurances that patient data will be protected and used appropriately. That should be front and centre of their approach, to give confidence that patient data will be protected and will not be shared with third parties.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Goddard, with another northern perspective. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, made a good choice of location today, being in your Lordships’ House rather than in Sheffield, because here the emergency services are dealing with an unexploded World War II bomb just up the road from me. I thank those emergency services workers. This is a reminder that all our essential services and workers have so many things to deal with at the moment, including all the medical professionals dealing with the complexities that we are discussing today.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, about the importance of acknowledging international collaboration. Whether we are talking about vaccines or medical research, the nature of science today is innately collaborative, and we need to keep that in focus.
I also agree with the noble Lord that the Minister has been highly informative and helpful to your Lordships’ House right through the pandemic. That has built trust, which is so crucial. I hope that the Government will ensure that the information they provide is always accurate and trustworthy—as other representatives, I am afraid, have not been today, in their claims that exiting the EU made it possible to approve the vaccine so quickly.
Turning to the detail of these complex and detailed instruments, I decided to engage in the debate because I have also been heavily involved with the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. As the Minister said in his introduction, it is clear that these instruments and the Bill are closely interrelated. It is also clear from our debates on the Bill, and from the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that we need a great deal of improvement in our regulation and oversight of medicines and medical devices.
These statutory instruments also address the issue of falsified medicines. With fake medicines estimated to cost the pharmaceutical sector about €10 billion, and considerable evidence that the Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated that problem, this is truly a key issue.
I shall address four key points. The first is the Northern Ireland complexities, with which the SIs are heavily involved. The second is the extra costs for the NHS, and potentially for private patients, for medicines and medical devices. The third is falsified medicines, which I have already mentioned, and the fourth is the risk of shortages in the immediate post-transition period and the later post-transition period.
In relation to the first point, about Northern Ireland, the Explanatory Memorandum says, at paragraph 7.10:
“To ensure unfettered access only benefits NI businesses, these regulations require that:
a) only an NI business should be able to apply for a licence from MHRA … and
b) the market authorisation holder … will need to be located in NI.”
It will have to provide information and data, and take
“legal responsibility for the medicine once on the GB market, including access to a suitably qualified person for UK regulators to interact with on ongoing safety monitoring … related to those medicines”
and medical devices. My first question for the Minister is: are there enough qualified, appropriately registered, people in Northern Ireland for those roles? Secondly, are small independent businesses, such as small pharmacies in rural areas, ready for this situation?
As of early November, a phased process for implementing medicines regulation in Northern Ireland up to 31 December 2021 has been agreed, which means that the current batch testing, importation, and falsified medicines directive requirements will remain in place for another 12 months. December 2021 is not very far away. Are these regulations future-proofed? Will they still cover the situation in 12 months’ time?
The Explanatory Memorandum also notes all the extra costs—for example, £18,000 for a new active substance, £10,000 for a complex abridged application, and so on. Can the Minister provide any information on what extra costs the end of the Brexit transition period will bring, for drugs both for the NHS and for people with private prescriptions?
On the third point, about falsified medicines, in October the Royal Pharmaceutical Society wrote to the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, asking for “robust plans” to be put in place
“to help authenticate the legitimacy of medicines”.
The RPS also said:
“We are concerned that removal of these safeguards could leave the UK vulnerable to an influx of counterfeit medicines, impacting on patient care in the UK and across the EU”.
Can the Minister provide assurances on that point?
Finally, I want to ask about shortages. In August the Government recommended that pharmacies and hospitals build up a six-week stockpile before 31 December. Is the Minister confident that that is in place, given all the many other pressures from Covid-19, normal winter illnesses and the general pressure on our medical systems? In the shorter long term, at the end of those six weeks, will the supply be secured? Can we be confident that we will have the medicines we need?
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations, and other noble Lords for their contributions and key questions on these two important instruments. I also thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for the speech he decided not to make. As noble Lords have said, it is timely to discuss these instruments now, as we take stock of the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill Committee discussions and outcomes, await Report dates and deliberations, and meanwhile continue the so far helpful discussions on a number of key issues taking place between the Minister, ourselves and other noble Lords involved with the Bill.
For the record, the Bill has changed substantially as a result of government amendments agreed in Committee —not by consensus among participants, as we normally would have expected, but by the Government’s insistence that it was necessary to agree the amendments in Committee to comply with the requirements and timescales for consultation on the Bill with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
We are now working our way through the “new” Bill to assess the full impact of this departure from established procedure and, in particular, the response from the Government to the deep concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee on the use of delegated powers across a range of provisions in the Bill. I note that the Government have not formally responded to these committees, as is also usual practice, other than broadly commenting in the course of their response on individual proposed amendments, or in general correspondence from the Minister in his letter to Peers of 13 October and to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, of 18 October. Can the Minister tell the House if he plans to respond to the committees, explaining not only how their concerns have been addressed but by which specific government amendment? This information is pretty crucial to all involved as we continue to discuss the Bill with Ministers prior to Report.
The regulations today are confirmed through the affirmative procedure instruments. I would be grateful if the Minister can today confirm that the Government will use this procedure in all regulations on human medicines and medical devices, as also promised in his letter of 13 October.
We have had a good, if short, debate on these SIs, which are long, complex and technical, but which we recognise as a necessary step towards ensuring that people are kept safe when using medicines and medical devices after the end of the implementation period for exit from the EU. I will not repeat the content and purpose of the regulations, which have been well explained by the Minister and other noble Lords and also documented in the very helpful Explanatory Notes and Library briefing, and by the most helpful summary of all, in my view, the Commons Minister Edward Argar’s bullet-points letter of 20 October. In the main, the key issues are the ones we have closely examined in Committee, and which continue to be under discussion.
I want to reinforce and add to the questions raised by some noble Lords. First, on the landmark Cumberlege report, I referred earlier to the helpful discussions taking place on the implementation of this vital review, in particular the establishment of a patient safety commissioner. The Minister referred to these discussions, but he knows that a clear statement of commitment from the Government is needed on this and is long overdue. Can he update the House further on the progress of the discussions? The Minister in the Commons promised strengthened regulations to do more to protect patients, and to use the powers in the MMD Bill for this. He said that plans are in development which will take into consideration both international standards and global harmonisation in the establishment of our future system. I look forward to further information from the Minister about these budding plans and the timescale for when we can expect information and consultation on them.
My noble friend Lord Blunkett touched on the powers of the MHRA in relation to vaccines, and the powers generally in the Bill. There have been deep concerns about how the MHRA is to be staffed and resourced to meet the huge challenges of its future role as the UK regulator of all medicines coming into Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is a much respected body, but its capacity and expertise will need to be hugely expanded to meet its new obligations and duties. The £13 million in additional funding from the Government up to the end of March 2021 will, I suspect, be just a pump-priming starter. Can the Minister tell the House the planned annual budget for the MHRA up to the end of year three of its operation under its extended remit?
The conformity assessment—the UKCA mark—will be available for industry to use for medical devices placed on the market in Great Britain from the end of the transition period. Is the Minister confident that manufacturers have been given sufficient time and guidance to prepare for the UKCA marking?
What assessment have the Government made of the impact these new regulations could have on the number of approved medical devices in the next few years? According to GlobalData’s pipeline products database, there are more than 17,000 active medical devices currently in the pipeline, with approximately 42% of these devices in the early stages of development. The high proportion of products being developed in the EU and UK indicates that a vast majority of devices will be caught in transitioning approval processes, which may lead to a temporary decline in the volume of approved devices—and, indeed, to the delays that noble Lords have talked about. Many companies are already struggling with the demands of the medical device regulations, including the increased costs. Does the Minister share my concern that this, coupled with the additional authorisation process required to reach the UK market, may lead to delays or deter companies from selling their products in the UK altogether?
Under these regulations, the UK will continue to recognise the CE marking on medical devices and in vitro diagnostic devices which have demonstrated their conformity with EU regulatory requirements, until July 2023. Will the UKCA marking be recognised by the EU? Can the Minister confirm whether the EU falsified medicines directive, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will apply in the UK after Brexit? If not, packs of medicine intended for the UK that are not compliant with the directive may not be lawfully dispensed in Northern Ireland.
The complexities businesses face are considerable and have been exacerbated by the Northern Ireland protocol, which requires companies seeking marketing authorisation to be able to sell a new medicine in the UK to continue to follow EU procedures in respect of Northern Ireland. Can the Minister confirm whether a single marketing authorisation will suffice or whether new companies will have to obtain a double “EU plus UK” marketing authorisation to sell throughout the UK?
For those of us deeply concerned about the risks of regulatory divergence on medicines and medical devices between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, can the Minister tell the House about the specific work that is being done, in response to the Bill and these regulations, to mitigate the adverse consequences of possible divergence in the medium and longer term? One has to look only at the timely and expert analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, of the MHRA guidance on this issue in Committee to see that there are key issues that remain unclear and unresolved, and deep confusion around how the dual systems will work in the future.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the penetrating and thoughtful questions on this important set of SIs. There were far too many for me to be able to cover them in all the detail they deserve this afternoon, but I will undertake to write to noble Lords if I have failed to address any specific questions.
I start by sharing with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the very positive vibe he gave out about the vaccine. He is entirely right that I have been at this Dispatch Box answering questions on PPE, test and trace and all manner of government challenges, but today is a great day. I do not want to bang on about it, but it is a huge relief to see the authorisation of this vaccine: it is a huge triumph for medical science and a massive breakthrough for humanity. I cannot help emoting so positively on it.
On the precise procedures used, I reassure the noble Lord that, in fact, the procedures used for the authorisation of this vaccine were exactly the same as those we could have used, and do use, under current EU regulations—as he probably knows. Those will change at the end of the month, but, as he probably knows, in October, we brought in specific regulations to allow us to have this opt-out procedure. I pay tribute to the EMA, which is a fantastic regulator with which we intend to work extremely closely. I pay enormous tribute to the MHRA, which has worked with phenomenal diligence, enormous scientific insight and great precision and confidence in order to get this authorisation done so promptly. Dr June Raine, who runs the MHRA, has done a fantastic job, and we should be extremely proud of the role of British regulation in this matter.
On a serious point, this incident demonstrates some of the benefits that will come to Britain’s life sciences industries from the transition. As noble Lords will know very well, we are not planning a massive divergence from either the EMA or the cohort of other regulators—the FDA and others—on a large number of matters. In fact, we have a huge amount of respect for our partners in other countries, especially the EMA. However, in the areas of innovative medicine, where there are new techniques and novel science, and where thoughtful, rapid processing makes a huge impact on the velocity of innovation and where expertise and scientific insight are particularly important, Britain can make a difference. This is where the MHRA will help not only British industry but all of humanity. I very much look forward to reporting back to the House on the progress that we can make in that area.
There have been a large number of questions from noble Lords on whether we are ready for these changes. I assure all noble Lords that we are in great shape. We are in constant liaison with industry and I have regular phone calls, meetings, webinars and bilaterals with industry to ensure that things are in good shape. When it comes to batch testing, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, the stockpiling of medicines, and the other matters raised, I can assure noble Lords that we are indeed in good shape. The noble Baroness asked specifically about our conversations with the DPRRC; I cannot give precise answers to her detailed and very reasonable questions, but I will write to her.
I am particularly abreast of the matter of stockpiles, having presented to the Project Defend board earlier today for three hours. I assure noble Lords that the Government are considering the resilience of the country as we approach not only the transition, but also the ongoing pandemic and the winter, simultaneously. We are in very good shape. There is a nationwide, government-wide project to ensure that we are truly resilient. In terms of health provisions, this means not only having stockpiles, but also strengthening our relationships with our suppliers, ensuring the provenance of those supplies and, where necessary—I emphasise that—building up domestic supply. Phenomenal progress has been made regarding medicines and devices, as well as PPE, which typically one associates with production in Asia. We are currently producing more than half our PPE in the UK, and it is possible that we will be producing more than that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, is entirely right about the MHRA. We have a winning organisation there, but the emphasis and pressure on it going forward will be extremely important. I assure her that I have regular meetings with the MHRA through the spending review, and its financial plans have been gone through with a fine-toothed comb. Both the MHRA management and the policymakers at the department are reassured that the budgets and the human resources are in place for the MHRA to step up to that challenge.
These are important regulations. I am extremely grateful for the scrutiny that noble Lords have given them and, in that spirit, I commend them to the House.
Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 November be approved.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Patrick Finucane: Supreme Court Judgment
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I first take a moment to pay tribute to Brian Kerr, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, whose death was announced by the Lord Speaker in your Lordships’ House earlier today. I am sure that the whole House will want to pay tribute to him and, on behalf of our Benches, I thank him for his service on the Supreme Court and as the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland. The whole House will offer its condolences but I also offer my personal condolences to his family and friends. His membership of the Supreme Court and judgments in the Finucane case are relevant today.
I appreciate that our way of working now means that Ministerial Statements are not repeated in your Lordships’ House. I understand why, but today in particular it would have been helpful for the House to have heard the words from the Secretary of State before we started on questions.
Few of us can even imagine the unspeakable horror of losing a loved one in a bloody and violent attack. During the euphemistically named Troubles, over 3,500 people lost their lives in Northern Ireland, many thousands more were injured and so many today continue to carry the physical and mental scars of that time. The 1989 murder of Pat Finucane is horrific. As he sat down at home for a meal with his family, he was shot 14 times by the Ulster Defence Association, the UDA. His wife Geraldine was also injured. Since then, the Finucane family have sought the full and complete truth about his murder and how it came about.
As a former Northern Ireland Victims Minister, I met many victims, cross-community, who had suffered and survived in different ways. Of all the ministerial posts and positions that I held, this was the one that had the greatest impact on me personally. I can still vividly recall the details of discussions and conversations —it is many years ago now—with individual victims and survivors. I had only to listen but they lived with the consequences each and every day. If there was one thread that ran through so many of those conversations, it was the search for the truth. Time and again, in different circumstances and from different sides of the community, I would hear that they wanted to know what had really happened. Why had their loved ones died in this way? Why had they been singled out? How could this have happened? As many in your Lordships’ House will know, the truth can be difficult and painful, but the dignity, sadness and perseverance of those families in that search for truth was humbling.
The truth can also be difficult for the Government. I welcome the repeat of David Cameron’s apology in the Minister’s Statement. It was genuinely made and it is right for it to be repeated. Mr Cameron was also correct when he said that it was not enough. For the Finucane family, the search for truth—the whole truth—continues. The Statement, however, is a bitter blow to them.
There have been several inquiries, including that by Sir Desmond de Silva, who found that there were “shocking levels” of state collusion. He concluded in his report that:
“I am left in significant doubt as to whether Patrick Finucane would have been murdered by the UDA in February 1989 had it not been for the different strands of involvement by elements of the state”.
That report was, and still is, absolutely devastating.
In a further attempt for a full public inquiry, Geraldine Finucane took the case to the Supreme Court, and the Minister’s Statement recognises that the Supreme Court in its judgment held that
“Mrs Finucane did have a legitimate expectation that there would be a public inquiry into Mr Finucane’s death”,
but Lord Kerr added that the Government had not taken decisions in bad faith or without genuine policy grounds but—and this is the part of the judgment that the Government have failed to adequately address in the Statement—the Supreme Court makes
“a declaration that there has not been an article 2 compliant inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane”.
Article 2 of our Human Rights Act is the right to life.
The Secretary of State outlined and clearly understands the reason why the Supreme Court came to that decision. But he appears to take the view that the three steps he outlined in the Statement could—and I repeat could—mean that the Government have fulfilled their obligations under Article 2 as outlined by the Supreme Court. Just to recap, the steps were, first, the information from the review announced by the Secretary of State in 2009, the current PSNI review and the review of the police ombudsman, which, if I have understood correctly, is dealing with issues referred to it in 2016. But then, if you read the rest of the Statement, you see that the Government are not convinced that is the case, because the Secretary of State says that he told the Finucane family that he would not establish a public inquiry “at this time”.
I know these things take time, and I know how difficult they are but, given that phrase the Secretary of State used in the House of Commons, about not having an inquiry “at this time”, could the Minister say when he thinks the Government think it would be right to do so? What is preventing the Government seizing the opportunity now? I think the Minister has to understand that this issue will not go away until everyone is satisfied that the full story and the full truth has been told.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too would like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement this evening, but share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that it would perhaps have been better if he was able to do it in person. From these Benches, I also pay tribute to the Finucane family, and particularly to Geraldine—Patrick Finucane’s widow—who have all endured so much since his brutal murder in 1989. My heart truly goes out to them for what they must have had to endure over these past 31 years.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s announcement two days ago is as regrettable as it is concerning. As the Minister knows, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said this evening, the UK Supreme Court has stated that none of the previous investigations into the murder of Patrick Finucane met the required human rights standards. He will equally know that the Law Society of Northern Ireland yesterday expressed its concern about the decision at this time not to establish a public inquiry into his murder.
The approach announced by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will not provide for witnesses and documents to be compelled, as would have been the case under a full public inquiry. Can the Minister say how he believes this decision is compatible with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the necessary requirements for independence? This unfortunate decision is compounded by the sidelining of the Stormont House agreement that would do so much to provide a more holistic approach for all victims of the Troubles.
We are also facing continued delay to implementing the commitments to legacy, as set out in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Can the Minister tell the House when he believes we will see an announcement on taking forward those proposals on legacy? Apologies, although welcome, are not enough. A public inquiry would do much to help both the Finucane family and the wider community get to the truth and find some closure. It is therefore some consolation that a future public inquiry has not been entirely ruled out. Patrick Finucane’s case raises serious questions about the rule of law, actions of the state and accountability. The Government’s decision raises serious public interest issues. I hope they will reflect on this and reconsider their decision.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith: I am very sorry to hear today that the former Justice of the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kerr, sadly died earlier this week. I thank him for his service, and I give my condolences to his family.
I also agree with the noble Baroness that it would have been better if the procedures of the House allowed me to repeat the Statement, particularly on a subject that is so serious and important. It is often better that that is the case and I think this is one of those cases, so I completely agree with her points there.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the Leader of the Opposition, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for their statements. I state unequivocally that the murder of Patrick Finucane was an appalling crime, as the noble Baroness said. It caused tremendous suffering to all his family and to his wife Geraldine, as with so many other events that occurred during the Troubles and for so many other families from all communities across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom and Ireland.
The Government are clear that the shocking levels of collusion made clear by previous investigations are totally unacceptable. The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, apologised publicly for that in 2012, as the noble Baroness said. This afternoon I echo the words of the Secretary of State in the other place on Monday by reiterating that apology today. I am very aware of the service and experience that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has had in Northern Ireland, and I listened carefully to what she said. She is right: at the end of the day, whether it is the dreadful murder of Patrick Finucane or any other murder, it is essential to get to the bottom of what actually happened.
I want to take a step back by saying that, over the years, as the noble Baroness said, the murder of Patrick Finucane has been the subject of a considerable number of investigations and reviews, including the three Stevens investigations and the de Silva review. As is well known, those investigations led to the conviction of Ken Barrett, a loyalist terrorist who pleaded guilty to the murder.
Then, jumping well ahead, in February 2019 the Supreme Court made a declaration that the state had not discharged its obligation to conduct an Article 2- compliant investigation into the death of Mr Finucane. That judgment specifically set out that:
“It is for the state to decide … what form of investigation, if indeed any is now feasible, is required in order to meet that requirement”,
but it did not specifically order a public inquiry.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, following the 2015 police review of the de Silva report, a number of issues arose; they were referred to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and remain subject to investigation. On 2 November 2020, the Northern Ireland Office was informed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland that Pat Finucane’s case was shortly to undergo a process of review, expected to begin early in the new year. I want to clarify that both those processes are independent of government.
I hope I can give some reassurance to both noble Baronesses that, having considered all the options open to him to meet the state’s obligations under Article 2, the Secretary of State has concluded that at this time it is right to let the upcoming PSNI review process and the ongoing police ombudsman investigations move forward before making a further assessment of whether any further steps should be taken. The Government are clear that we are not taking the possibility of a public inquiry off the table at this time, as the noble Baroness said, but we wish to see the processes conclude.
To answer a question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, concerning the breach of Article 2, the Government have acknowledged the Supreme Court finding that there is yet to be an Article 2-compliant investigation into the death of Mr Finucane, and we acknowledge that there has been some delay in setting out the way forward. However, I say again that we believe the two-pronged approach of allowing those two investigations to progress is the right way forward at this time.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, over 3,500 people were murdered, many butchered to death in the cruellest fashion, and tens of thousands were injured and scarred for life. Every murder, including that of Pat Finucane, is to be unreservedly condemned. Coming from a family whose loved ones were also murdered, I know the pain and heartache caused to the family circles. Everyone is equal under the law and equally subject to it, but the Finucane case, as it has been presented, places his family in a class of its own—a hierarchy of victimhood.
Is the Finucane case the only one in which the claim of collusion has been made? If not, what makes it different to others? Is it that it is regarded as high profile because of its political backing from pro-republican sources across Europe and America? Does this mean that the well-connected republican elite have a right to a different kind of justice to others? Is this what justice has really come to? If so, those with highly ranking political connections are treated preferentially, the ordinary citizen really does not stand a chance.
Can the Minister detail to the House the number of investigations which have already been carried out in the Finucane case? Can he say how many millions of pounds have been spent on it and compare that to the expenditure on investigations endeavouring to give answers to the families of those burned alive at La Mon and of the eight innocent workmen brutally murdered at Teebane, not forgetting the IRA atrocities carried out at Enniskillen and Kingsmill, to name but a few? The decision made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is the right one, if justice is to be equal.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I agree that the Finucane murder was particularly dreadful and high profile. We should never forget it, but it would be wrong to make comparisons with other dreadful crimes that took place. We are adamant that the right way forward is to make progress in dealing with the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. I reassure the House that this remains a high priority for the Government. We remain committed to bringing forward legislation as soon as possible because we want information recovery and reconciliation to be at the heart of a revised legacy system that is fair and proportionate and delivers for victims from all communities. As part of this, we will engage closely with the Northern Ireland parties on proposals in the near future. It is important that we listen to a wide range of voices on this to find a way through. The point is that we need to look forwards, not backwards, while equally looking at the legacy of the past.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that, from 2010, when the new Government inherited a complete impasse, to 2019 I participated in every key meeting on the Finucane case and helped to draft David Cameron’s statement in 2012. On that basis, I assure my noble friend that the announcement made by the Secretary of State on Monday is the right one. It has my full support and is entirely consistent with the requirements set out in the Supreme Court judgment.
This was a vile murder for which there was no justification, as with many thousands of others in Northern Ireland over the period of the Troubles. Does my noble friend agree that the right approach to legacy is not having highly selective, one-sided, open-ended and costly public inquiries but establishing mechanisms which have broad community support and the potential to offer better outcomes for all those who lost loved ones in the Troubles? David Cameron was right to say that collusion is always wrong, but we should never forget that the vast majority of those who served in Northern Ireland in the RUC and the Armed Forces did so with exemplary professionalism, integrity and bravery.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I acknowledge the experience of my noble friend and all the time he has spent dealing with Northern Irish matters. I assure the House that this decision has been taken following very careful consideration of the facts, the findings of the Supreme Court judgment, the outcome of the independent counsel review, and the UK’s obligations under Article 2. It is important to remember that the Supreme Court judgment did not mandate a public inquiry, as I said earlier, and it specifically set out that it is for the state to decide.
On another question that he raised, there is no doubt that the collusion identified in this case is, as I said earlier, totally unacceptable. But we must also be clear about the high standards that almost all those who serve in our Armed Forces adhere to, performing in incredibly difficult circumstances to protect this country. So many people from both the Armed Forces and the security services give so much to protecting us, in Northern Ireland and across the UK. Finally, we agree that finding a way forward on legacy that works for all victims is a priority.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the issue that runs through this particular case and the differing opinions about it is one of double standards. The vast majority of victims have no lobby groups working on their behalf and their cases are barely mentioned. In this particular case, there was collusion; that has been admitted. Why is it that this collusion is clearly an issue for the Irish Government, when the fact that, in the 1970s, senior Cabinet Ministers were involved in the creation, financing, equipping and training of the Provisional IRA is never mentioned? Other legal figures were killed in Northern Ireland, including several elected members of my own party, such as Edgar Graham, Robert Bradford and a number of councillors. There appears to be a different stream for people with big political connections, in the United States in particular, and the rest—the majority—of the victims, who are left to stew in their juice. Why is there no focus on the involvement of the Irish Government, and an apology sought from them as well as from our own?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I have said it before and I will say it again: collusion is totally unacceptable, and this was made clear by David Cameron back in 2012. We believe that the way forward is to allow the independent reviews of the PSNI and the ombudsman to follow their course. To perhaps reassure the noble Lord, as the Secretary of State said on Monday, some new information is being published today from two sources—the 2015 PSNI review, or the de Silva report, and the government-commissioned review by the independent counsel. The new information will, we hope, through the independent reviews, lead to some progress. It includes the failure to identify RUC security services and secret intelligence services officers who failed to warn Patrick Finucane of threats to his life, and the failure to identify RUC officers who probably proposed Patrick Finucane as a target, and I could go on. This is part of the decision to allow these two independent reviews to run their course.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I support the Government in their decision in this case. The murder of Pat Finucane in 1989 has been, and should be, condemned as wrong and wicked. So too are the murders of all innocent victims, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. There have been other, all too often forgotten, judges, lawyers and family members murdered by the IRA, whose brutal murders Sinn Féin—which is very prominent in this case—and its fellow travellers refused to condemn. Indeed, it still eulogises and glorifies their terrorist killers.
We should remember resident magistrate William Staunton, murdered in 1972; Judge Rory Conaghan, murdered in 1974; resident magistrate Robert McBirney, murdered in 1974; Judge William Doyle, murdered in 1983; Mary Travers, murdered in an attack on her father, Tom Travers, as he left church in 1984; Lord Justice of Appeal Maurice Gibson and his wife Cecily, murdered in a savage attack in 1987; the dear family Robin and Maureen Hanna and their six-year-old son David, murdered in an attempt to kill High Court Justice Higgins in July 1988; and Edgar Graham, who has been mentioned by the noble Lord previously, a human rights barrister, law lecturer and Assembly man, murdered in December 1983. Sadly, these dear people do not receive the same attention, concern, calls for inquiry or media coverage. Their families, too, deserve to know who planned and colluded in their murders. We remember them also this evening.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Indeed. The noble Lord read out, powerfully, a list of not only those who were caught up in the Troubles but those who were murdered. This is exactly what we want to do in looking forward and finding solutions. Those solutions have to deliver for victims, whose families need to find out what happened to the loved ones whom they lost during the Troubles. I say again that we are committed to bringing forward legislation that focuses on reconciliation, delivers for the victims, as I have said, and ends the cycle of reinvestigations into the Troubles in Northern Ireland that has failed victims and veterans alike. We need to look forward.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, of course every murder is to be condemned, whenever it happened, and I share the concern that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, expressed about the horrible murders that he mentioned. But before us is the issue of justice and decency for the Finucane family. The Minister said that the PSNI was one way forward and that the police ombudsman was the other way forward. Is he aware that the chief constable said that there were no new lines of inquiry and that the police were reluctant to be involved because they would not be seen as independent in this matter? For all the good work that the police ombudsman does, she does not have the resources for the sort of full public inquiry that the Finucane family is asking for and which I think would be the right way forward in this case.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am certainly aware of that element in the statement from the PSNI. Perhaps I may say two things. First, we are adamant that the way forward is to allow the PSNI review process to run its course. Secondly, I think that the noble Lord will be aware that the chief constable has said that, in order to be quite clear that the review is independent, it is likely that an independent force, beyond him, will be asked to take this forward. It is also important to say that the indications are that the PSNI review will start very soon in the new year, although it is up to the PSNI to decide on all other aspects, including the timings of the review.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, at the outset, I say that all murder in Northern Ireland is wrong. Some of those opposed to a public inquiry into the Pat Finucane murder use the spurious argument that it would be unfair to favour the Finucane family over other victims’ families, thus creating a hierarchy of victims. However, does the Minister agree that the requirement for a public inquiry here goes well beyond seeking justice for the family, in that it is essential for all citizens in the whole of the UK, and not just in Northern Ireland, to know the truth of the central role that their Government played in this level of collusion, which has already been referred to and acknowledged by the former Prime Minister, David Cameron? As we know, the PSNI and the police ombudsman stated earlier this week that they are not ready to carry out such work because of issues to do with resources.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I hear what the noble Baroness says. I reiterate what the Secretary of State said on Monday, which is that, with so much history of all the reviews that have taken place since the dreadful murder in 1989, it has made sense at this time to look at what we know now. On the noble Baroness’s comments about public inquiries, the Government have demonstrated that, when the public interest requires it, we will establish public inquiries to look at potential failings by government or state bodies. As she will know, we have done so in the case of the Manchester bombing. However, I reiterate that it is right that we allow the police and the ombudsman processes to proceed before taking a decision on whether further steps are required.
Baroness O'Loan (CB) [V]
My Lords, there can be no doubt that grounds exist for establishing a public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane. An inquiry should be established because the matter is related to state collusion, leading to the murder, and there are major unanswered questions. As noble Lords know, both the PSNI and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland have said they have no ongoing work in relation to the murder. The work of the police ombudsman, which was referred as a consequence of de Silva, relates to other terrorist murders carried out in Northern Ireland. When I was police ombudsman, I knew that I could not investigate matters surrounding the murder of Patrick Finucane because I did not have the powers. That continues for the current police ombudsman. She can only investigate the activities of police officers. She has no remit to investigate, with a view to prosecution, loyalist paramilitaries, the staff of the Ministry of Defence or the Security Service—that is what is required in this case. Moreover, the police ombudsman does not have the resources to do the work she should be doing; she is grossly underresourced. Yet, as I found when I carried out my investigations, while the crime in question may have occurred decades ago, what emerges from the investigation may have implications for policing today. Do the Government have plans to provide further funding to the police ombudsman to allow her to discharge her statutory duties? It is not a matter of double standards, an inquiry for one and not for the other. It is a matter of learning from the wrongdoing of the past to enable the anti-terrorism work of today.
There are hundreds of unsolved murders, as noble Lords have said. The current system is not working. We urgently need the independent historical investigations unit, which has been promised. It must be properly resourced and needs to do the type of investigation carried out by Chief Constable Boutcher in Operation Kenova. This is not a matter on which the Government can delay; it is urgent. Can the Minister tell us when a new, independent, properly resourced, historical investigations unit will be established?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am not able to give a timing for the historical unit. The noble Baroness has raised a number of questions and I have taken on board her views about the decision that has been made. I reassure her that funding for the PSNI is there. There is no issue over that funding or indeed for the ombudsman investigation. There is much to do; it is for both independent investigations to decide how they will progress, and it is up to them to let us know how they will do that. We have every confidence they will do the best job possible in looking at these matters.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
I say at the outset that I agree entirely with the words of the Leader of the Opposition on the Labour Benches when she described the full horror of events in Northern Ireland, the losses involved and the particular case that we are dealing with today. One speaker asked what makes this case different, and others have alluded to the other horrifying killings in Northern Ireland and that there should not be a hierarchy regarding those losses and terrible deaths.
I want to make an argument that this case is different, because it goes straight to the heart of the rule of law. All murders are crimes against the people of a nation—there is no doubt about that. I remind people that the rule of law is not something to be easily dismissed, although the Secretary of State, Brandon Lewis, was unfortunately the author of that famous statement that it might sometimes be possible to breach the rule of law and international treaty law in limited and particular ways. I remind the House that the rule of law should not be broken—and certainly not by the state.
There are two elements of the Finucane case that are important to all of us, as a society: here you had a lawyer, whose role is fundamental to the rule of law; and you had collusion by the state in his killing. You had one part of the state interfering with another—the rule of law, which is fundamental.
Thirty years ago, a special moment took place when the basic principles on the role of lawyers were adopted by the United Nations. In that same year, 1990, the International Bar Association also laid down principles connecting lawyers and their role to the rule of law. It said—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Could the noble Baroness please make her point swiftly, because we are over the time allowed for this question?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
The independence of lawyers, and the opportunity for them to properly fulfil their function, should never be confused with the cases that they conduct. The lawyer is not to be identified by the authorities, or the public, with the client or the client’s cause, however popular or unpopular it may be. The killing of Pat Finucane was basically an assault on the legal system.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness really must make her point swiftly, please.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
I will ask my question quickly. Does the Minister agree that the rule of law is fundamental and that the murder of Pat Finucane takes on particular significance because of the collusion of the state in it?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The rule of law is indeed fundamental. I take note of the points made by the noble Baroness about the Finucane murder. The decision that has been made was taken following very careful consideration of all the facts, the findings of the Supreme Court judgment, the outcome of the independent counsel review, and the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.