House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Although we are leaving the EU defence structures, we remain committed to the security of Europe and will continue to co-operate with the EU and European nations on a bilateral or multinational basis on shared threats and challenges. We do not need an institutionalised relation with the EU to do so. The defence settlement reaffirms our position as Europe’s leading power, with the second highest defence budget in NATO, providing leadership and the ability for investment to help to drive forward NATO’s adaptation.
Allan Dorans [V]
Any major conflict will require UK forces to be able to work collaboratively and fully with EU forces in the future. What steps has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that that is possible through access to the European Defence Standardisation Committee, which replaces the former Materiel Standardisation Group?
Mr Wallace
The leader in the field of standardisation has always been NATO, with the setting of NATO standards, which have let us interoperate with our allies the United States and all the other nations of Europe. It would be wrong to abandon that to adopt another approach. We all know in Europe, whatever part of the EU debate one is in, that the United States is the cornerstone of European security, and that is why NATO is so important.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows, however, that NATO and Europe are not quite the same. As Brexit talks reach their conclusion, does he agree that to depart without a trade deal would be less than helpful in re-establishing western resolve to take on the growing, complex threats that we face? The Government’s integrated review emphasises a commitment to reinvigorating a proactive role for the United Kingdom on the international stage, giving real purpose to global Britain. Would it not be an abject failure of statecraft, and diminish our collective security co-operation, to leave the EU without a deal?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend obviously urges us to make a deal. I think that right now, as we speak, members of the Government are trying to make a deal with the European Union to enforce the decision by the British people to leave the European Union. What would be a mistake is if both sides forgot that security is not a competition—it is a partnership. That is what I always said as Security Minister, and as Defence Secretary I mean it now. There has been no sign among many of our European allies that that situation has changed. We are still partners in going after whatever threatens all of us, our way of life and our values.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)
I am encouraged by the Secretary of State’s replies so far. Given that there is no security for Europe without the United States, what specific reassurance can he give that we shall not be sucked, via Permanent Structured Cooperation, into the European Union’s persistent attempts to create an alternative NATO without the United States, which would be a particularly dangerous military version of Hamlet without the Prince?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend raises a worrying spectre. First, we are very grateful to the Germans, who have tried very hard to get a proper third-party agreement with PESCO, although we have no plans to participate in it because we have serious concerns about the intellectual property rights and export controls that it would seek to impose. However, we will always be open to working with European industries—on the future combat air system, for example. We have engaged with the Swedish and the Italians, for instance, because the collective security of Europe is often based on a good sovereign capability in our industrial base. We will continue to do that on a case-by-case basis, and to do that with our other allies such as the United States. Britain is also the keystone of European security.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
The Government publish their future pipeline for steel requirements, together with information on compliance, with steel procurement guidelines. These measures enable UK steel manufacturers to plan better and bid for Government contracts.
Jessica Morden
Last month, UK Steel criticised the opaque procurement processes involved in the defence sector. I know the Government will agree that UK steel is vital to our national interests. Will Ministers therefore set clear and transparent objectives regarding UK steel in defence projects and commit to engaging with the industry early, meaningfully and often in the procurement process?
Jeremy Quin
I am sorry to hear that. We are very keen to engage fully with the steel industry; it is important that we do so. We need transparency, and that is absolutely a goal, as is reinforced by the Cabinet Office guidelines. Looking at the macro picture, however, I am sure that the hon. Lady would agree that the plans we put in place for the biggest single boost to defence expenditure in 30 years, with the commitments to Type 26, Type 31 and the fleet solid support programme, all suggest that there are going to be good opportunities for steel manufacturers in the future.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Ministry of Defence is one of the largest providers of apprenticeships in the United Kingdom, with around 20,000 on a programme at any one time. We are investing in cutting-edge capabilities and research and development with the future combat air system technology initiative, resulting in more than 1,800 highly skilled engineers in 300 companies throughout the UK. The MOD spent £19.2 billion with UK industry and commerce in 2018-19, safeguarding and supporting thousands of jobs throughout the UK.
Sir David Amess
Will my right hon. Friend confirm what impact the end of the transition period will have on our ability to amend defence procurement regulations to support UK jobs?
Mr Wallace
The Government are using the opportunity offered by leaving the EU to develop defence and security procurement regulations tailored to better meet the UK’s needs. We have embarked on a comprehensive review of the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 with a view to improving the pace and agility of acquisition.
Mark Logan
Two years ago, MBDA’s high-tech manufacturing facility was officially launched in Bolton. As the Secretary of State for Defence said at the time, we cannot have prosperity without security. What good news can my right hon. Friend share with Boltonians in the run-up to Christmas and beyond?
Mr Wallace
I think the best news for Boltonians and fellow Lancashire constituents such as mine is that the Government’s record defence spending commitments for the integrated review mean that there will be money for the future combat air system, one of the mainstays of north-west aerospace. That is good news for MBDA in Bolton, good news for BAE, good news for the supply chain and good news for the thousands of people in the north-west who work in aerospace, and that is because the Government have invested in the future capabilities of sovereign aerospace.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The full range of veterans’ support services, including the Veterans UK helpline and the welfare service, have continued to be provided throughout the covid-19 pandemic, with appropriate adjustments to keep people safe. This Government have sponsored a study into the specific effect of covid on the veteran community, and we will report on that in the next few months.
Fleur Anderson
I welcome the study. This year has been very challenging for older veterans, who are more at risk of isolation because of the covid-19 lockdowns and restrictions and the tightening of funding for military charities. What work is the Minister undertaking to ensure that no veteran in Putney and across the country is going lonely this Christmas?
Johnny Mercer
Over the course of the past 15 months, the UK’s first Office for Veterans’ Affairs has spent every day trying to design a system to stop veterans who leave the military from falling through the panoply of services that are there. That includes working with the third sector, which has an enormously important role, and also with statutory provision, because we understand that, ultimately, this nation’s duties to its veterans should be ensured—not delivered—by the state. I am determined we will reach the goal that this will be the best country in the world to be an armed forces veteran.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for his remarks. As he knows, many of our veterans up and down the country have faced loneliness and isolation as they shield during the pandemic, and that feeling will only get worse as we approach Christmas, with the reality of not being able to see family as usual. Will the Minister support and promote the Jo Cox Foundation’s “Great Winter Get Together” to help our veterans who may be experiencing loneliness this winter?
Johnny Mercer
I would be delighted to support the initiative in the name of my friend, Jo, who was in the same parliamentary intake as me. Loneliness is an acute problem, particularly at this time of year, and I am especially aware that our veterans, who often depend on the sort of face-to-face contact of such things as cognitive behavioural therapy, will have been challenged by the specific circumstances we find ourselves in. I would be delighted to support that effort.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
As part of the national covid-19 response, Defence has supported NHS trusts in a variety of ways, including the distribution of personal protective equipment and diagnostic equipment; the planning, construction and staffing of Nightingale hospitals; conducting testing; and supporting the vaccine taskforce. We have established a winter support package of 13,500 personnel with specialist capabilities to ensure our continued support to the NHS and other civil authorities throughout the winter period.
Holly Mumby-Croft
I thank the Minister for his response. Will he give a little more detail on how many armed forces personnel are currently deployed on covid-19 tasks and in which specific capacities?
James Heappey
I would be delighted to. There are currently 2,600 personnel committed to covid-19 tasks. The number of tasks is too numerous to list in full in the Chamber, but personnel are deployed on everything from mass testing to the deployment of vaccines and just about everything else besides. The body of the deployment at the moment is in planning, logistics, support to local authorities and ensuring that Defence’s planning and delivery expertise is shared as widely as possible around Government, so that we can ensure that we are poised to respond to whatever else comes during the winter.
David Simmonds
I commend the armed forces for the amazing work they have done in supporting the civil authorities. Will my hon. Friend provide an update on any discussions he has had with the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS about how the armed forces will support the roll-out of mass vaccination?
James Heappey
Defence is working closely with other Departments, particularly the DHSC and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to assist on vaccine roll-out plans. Some 60 military planners are integrated within the vaccine taskforce, and Defence has deployed 56 personnel to assist in constructing vaccination centres. Defence stands ready to provide further support to the NHS in meeting the challenge of vaccinating the UK against covid-19.
Caroline Ansell
The professionalism and logistical support of the Army have already proved vital in our country’s ability to respond to this pandemic. That was seen most recently in Eastbourne’s mobile testing unit, which allowed key workers to return to work. I was most interested in my hon. Friend’s remarks about how the Army might help to roll out the vaccine, having performed various other important tasks. Could he tell the House how many military liaison officers have been deployed to date to help with these very localised planned operations?
James Heappey
My hon. Friend is right to single out the military liaison officers who have been working alongside local authorities across the country throughout the year. There are 350 of them currently deployed. I know from speaking to my own council chief executive in Somerset, and I have heard from colleagues around the country, just how much their expertise has been valued by local authorities, assisting them with their preparations initially for the distribution of PPE, then for testing and now for vaccines.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
There are welcome reports that our armed forces are to support the NHS with the roll-out of the coronavirus vaccine, performing vital work to transform sites across the country into distribution hubs. However, personnel are already stretched, and resourcing is a key concern after a decade of defence decline. Will the Minister update the House with real detail on the steps he is taking to ensure that they have the resources needed to perform their vital work safely?
James Heappey
There are 2,600 service personnel deployed right now. The winter preparedness package is 13,500 people at readiness. We are confident that in generating that package, we have not in any way damaged Defence’s ability to prepare for operations that are required currently or in the next six months. We are very proud of the 13,500 that we have been able to generate. Everything that Defence is doing, we are able to do without threatening defence outputs, and we are delighted to be playing the part that we are in supporting the country at this important time.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Defence engagement programmes, including those that count as official development assistance, help create the conditions for sustained economic development for recipient nations by increasing the effectiveness and integrity of their defence institutions. We assess the impact of our programmes continuously and subject them to formal evaluation annually.
Layla Moran [V]
As the Minister knows, it is the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, or DAC, that sets out the guidelines for development spending, and it states that spending
“promotes and specifically targets the economic development and welfare of developing countries.”
As the MOD explores new areas, such as cyber-technologies and space-based assets, will the Minister ensure that any development spending by his Department is DAC-compliant and continues to focus on helping the world’s poorest?
James Heappey
I think that the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that we will do our best, but of course what matters is that we are doing the right military things in order to create the right situations for prosperity and security wherever we are serving around the world. If the activity is not directly compliant, I am not sure that should stop us doing it. The reality is that there are many things that Defence does, not least the forthcoming deployment to Mali, where we will set the conditions for security in a very troubled country, which does not meet the definition, but is a very worthwhile thing to do and has real positive humanitarian effects.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
Responding to the covid-19 pandemic has been Defence’s highest strategic priority, and as part of the national response thousands of service personnel and veterans have been active in every region of the United Kingdom and devolved Administrations.
Andrew Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I think the nation has been inspired by the actions of one veteran during this pandemic, and that, of course, is Captain Sir Tom Moore, but veterans from all of our services have got so much to offer—skills in a wide variety of areas, involvement in many community groups and an approach to getting things done—so how is my hon. Friend ensuring that veterans are kept safe while they provide their invaluable support?
Johnny Mercer
As I mentioned earlier, during this period I have been acutely aware of how our needs for our veterans have changed or moved along during the pandemic. We have rolled out a series of services—the veterans trauma network; the transition, intervention and liaison service; and the complex treatment service. We are working towards that place where we can build a panoply of services so that all of our veterans are looked after in this country, in line with the Prime Minister’s intent.
David Johnston
Veterans across my constituency have been supporting one another, whether by calling in on those they have mental health concerns about or raising money, as the Wantage branch of the RAF Association did in raising £6,000 for Operation Connect. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking them, and does he agree with me that this shows that, even when our service personnel stop their active service, they continue to serve us in our local communities?
Johnny Mercer
I of course pay tribute to the RAF Association in my hon. Friend’s constituency for raising £6,000. Veterans, like many community and voluntary groups across the country, have really stepped up during this time to deliver services, deliver medicines and help vulnerable people. It is something that I certainly have been enormously proud of, and it reflects the true values and ethos of our veterans community in this country.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
It is a pleasure to hear from the right hon. Gentleman. No one could ever accuse him of being inconsistent on this subject. I am pleased to assure him, as I have previously, that we will be commencing the competition in the spring.
John Spellar
The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions has argued forcefully for defence orders to be brought forward to help our industry through the economic crisis, especially in our regions and nations. The Navy carrier group needs the fleet solid support ships, and the Department has the specifications from the previous bidding round. It is a project that is really shovel or welding-ready, so when is the Secretary of State going to get off his backside and start ordering these ships? [Interruption.] He may even want to intervene and answer himself.
Jeremy Quin
I am most grateful, Mr Speaker, though the Secretary of State is raring to go.
Just to reassure the right hon. Gentleman, the specification has changed. It has changed because we now understand more about the carrier strike group and how we will deploy these important assets. It is on track, and we will get there. We have had two rounds of market engagement, and we may wish to do more market engagement. We have got a busy shipbuilding supply chain; there are a lot of orders going through. It is important that this is well based and well founded, and I want to make certain that we launch this competition successfully and, indeed, that it is concluded successfully.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) [V]
The country has a vaccine for covid-19, and it will be rolled out as a matter of urgency to save lives. The Ministry of Defence has had approval for funding the defence industry. Will the Minister, as a matter of urgency, roll out the FSS and other shovel-ready defence projects now, not wait until to the summer, to give a real shot in the arm to the defence industry, and to retain thousands of jobs and create thousands of new jobs and apprenticeships for new technology graduates, as well as to support British workers and use the springboard of the British defence industry to lead the country out of this covid recession?
Jeremy Quin
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the CSEU report on shovel-ready projects, which I commend. It is always good to have advice from those quarters, and indeed, many of them are already ongoing. I gently remind him, however, that the report praised the German Government for increasing spending by €10 billion to €12 billion over the next few years. It also praised the French—I think the French Minister has been asked to go before the Assemblée Nationale with an extra €1.5 billion, or around that number. That does not bear any comparison with our £24 billion investment in defence over the next few years. That is the biggest single boost to defence over the past 30 years, and it will mean a lot of orders coming through, to the benefit of British defence, the British armed forces, and British firms across the Union.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the integrated review, and will continue to do so on wider issues concerning defence.
Owen Thompson
The spending review made recent welcome changes to defence spending, particularly with cyber and other areas of resilience. It seemed strange, however, that those spending increases were announced before the integrated review. Are the new funds in the spending review part of the Government’s response to the integrated review, and is that a case of the cart coming before the horse? Or, is it a case of, “That’s it”, meaning that the review will not make any new announcements backed up by spending commitments?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman asks a valid question about the timing of the integrated review, and there will be an integrated review at the beginning of next year. The defence announcement was a building block as part of that review, and it will obviously work towards the overall posture of global Britain when it is announced in the new year.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The extra funding was a welcome promise to upgrade Britain’s defences after nearly a decade of decline, so it is long overdue. The capital announcement is one thing, but what is the real-terms revenue funding for defence over the next four years?
Mr Wallace
Over the next four years, £188 billion will be spent on defence. Some £126 billion of that will be set for resource spending, while £62 billion will be for capital spending.
John Healey
I asked the Secretary of State about resource funding, and he has to face that question. The answer is on page 67 of the Chancellor’s spending review report, which shows a 2.3% real cut in resource funding through to 2024-25. That means less money for forces’ recruitment, training, pay, pensions and family support, at a time when our armed forces are already 12,000 below strength after the last review. That could mean new ships, but no sailors. Will the Secretary of State recognise that hi-tech weapons systems are essential for the future, but highly trained service personnel are indispensable? May I urge him not to repeat the mistakes of past Conservative reviews, and instead to put forces personnel at the heart of the current integrated review?
Mr Wallace
I know the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in Mr Brown’s Government, who did not have the greatest reputation for financial accuracy. Although we can agree on the spending profile, his interpretation of the rates of inflation and alleged real-term cuts is not something that we recognise. On the “decade of decline”, as he calls it, I thought that before coming to the House I would read the National Audit Office “Major Projects Report 2010”, into the Government in which he was Minister of State, and the spending on defence. That report highlights that in one year up to 2009, the Government overspent by £3 billion. That is where the black hole that amounts to £38 billion came from, so before he throws stones in glass houses about managing defence budgets, he should be very careful.
Perhaps I could be very clear about how we went about getting to this settlement. We started, as I have said repeatedly in the House, with the threat and what we need to meet the threat and to fight tomorrow’s battles, not the last. We then took that request to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, had a discussion, and it resulted in the record settlement that Members see before the House today.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Surely the review is meant to tell us what the threat is and then the Government respond with the spending, rather than the spending coming before the review is published. All that being said, I suppose we are where we are. I am grateful for one thing that the Secretary of State has done: he has finally listened to our policy of a multi-year defence agreement. May I ask him to go one step further? In other countries where those are used, they involve all political parties. Will he pledge to do so?
Mr Wallace
What would be good is a welcome from the Scottish National party that £1.76 billion will be spent with Scottish business, at least, year on year. That is something that the Union manages to deliver for Scotland through the United Kingdom armed forces. This record spending unlocks funding for Type 26, Type 31, Type 32, research vessels and the fleet solid support ships. Where they are to be built is obviously still a matter for decision in some cases, but I can guarantee that, right now, many ships of Type 26 and Type 31 are being built in Scotland. A welcome for that from the SNP would be great, but of course we know we will never hear it.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Someone’s put 50p in them today, Mr Speaker, haven’t they just? Let me ask the Secretary of State this. I have asked him time and again, and he usually just shouts back to me whatever is in his folder; let’s try answering the question. Of the spending announced for Scotland, at what point—he has only a few days of the year left—will the Government finally meet the promise they made six years ago of 12,500 personnel stationed permanently in Scotland? It is currently below 10,000. In all the projects he listed, he did not mention the promise of the frigate factory. [Interruption.] He laughs because he knows it is a promise that is not going to be met between now and 31 December, is it?
Mr Wallace
I laughed because, having examined the proposals, the frigate factory would have included the closing of Govan and the investment in Scotstoun. I am not sure, but I remember distinctly that Govan was originally a very proud Labour seat, obviously then represented by the First Minister of Scotland. Having done the review, BAE and, indeed, the MOD and others recognised that the best value for money was to invest in both Govan and Scotstoun, to make sure that we make the frigates and destroyers that the hon. Gentleman wants so much but does not want to use, and to sail them up to Scotstoun to be integrated. That is why we support over 10,000 jobs in Scotland, and we will continue to do so. Where the future basing of our armed forces goes is for the integrated review. All will be revealed to the hon. Gentleman.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced the first outcome of the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, with the significant increase for defence funding of more than £24 billion over four years to enable modernisation of the armed forces. The full conclusion of the integrated review will be published, as I have said, early next year.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Secretary of State for that response. An unaffordable and delayed equipment programme; a shortfall in personnel targets; plans to invest in space and cyber, and integration across all five operational domains, as well as a fall in defence spending since 2010 of more than £8 billion in real terms—the Government’s poor handling of our nation’s defence means that the review’s ambitions will not match the Secretary of State’s rhetoric, so when is he going to share with us what areas of defence will be scaled back or sacrificed in the review?
Mr Wallace
I am sorry; I thought the hon. Lady was referring to the 2010 National Audit Office report on the Labour Government. It is a very good read; all those comments are in there, and it is remarkable that Labour has not learned the lessons. We have learned the lessons. We have looked at what we need to do, we have started with the threat, we are tailoring our response to our ambition, and, as a result, it is my intention that we will make the tough decisions to disinvest in equipment that was fit for previous encounters with adversaries and to invest in future equipment. But at the heart of it, as I have said from the beginning, the most important equipment of our armed forces is the men and women of them. That is why included in that is wraparound childcare, for example, to reflect the modern armed forces.
Stuart Anderson
In the Defence Committee, we have been able to look at the evolution of warfare and what that might mean for this country. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the integrated review will clearly lay out Britain’s position in the changing battle space?
Mr Wallace
Yes. My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the profound changes we are already seeing at home and abroad, and I thank the Committee for the work it has been doing on that issue. The integrated review will set out the UK’s global leadership, commitment to collective security and burden sharing, alongside defence’s historic settlement. It will enable us to prepare for this new and complex reality, including investing billions in combat air, shipbuilding, space, cyber and world-leading research.
Jack Dromey [V]
The four years capital programme is welcome, even if it conceals a real-terms cut in revenue spending. Right now, we have funding without a strategy, which is why it is essential that the integrated review be published as quickly as possible. Will the Secretary of State undertake that the capital spend will be spent on British industry to equip the British armed forces, creating tens of thousands of jobs in our defence, aerospace and maritime industries?
Mr Wallace
Can I be absolutely clear? While we recognise the figures of RDEL, or resource departmental expenditure limits, and CDEL, or capital departmental expenditure limits, over the four years, we absolutely do not recognise the interpretation by the Labour Front Bench of a real-terms cut in RDEL using the inflationary figures and depressors that they have already jumbled up. The simple fact is that this Government have made a record defence spending commitment and we will be investing it in people, their capabilities and their equipment. When it comes to equipment, the first thing is to ensure that we give our men and women the best to keep them alive and safe on a battlefield. I am confident, because Britain makes most of the best equipment in the world, that a large proportion of that will be British made and British secured.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
As part of the national covid-19 response, the Ministry of Defence has, as we discussed earlier, 13,500 personnel to assist in winter resilience operations, including the response to the current pandemic crisis. The force capabilities include liaising and planning, logistical support, engineering and other specialist capabilities.
Mr Perkins
People in Chesterfield have had cause to be grateful to members of our armed forces, who helped to erect the coronavirus testing station at the Technique Stadium in Chesterfield. Of course, the armed forces would have been better placed to support the effort if we had not seen service numbers cut by 46,000 under this Government over the past 10 years, but can the Minister tell us whether the armed forces stand ready to offer mass testing in all tier 3 areas should the Health Secretary request that they do so?
James Heappey
First of all, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about the service personnel who have been at work in his constituency. Defence will generate as much as we can possibly generate to meet the needs of the Government. At the moment, 13,500 personnel are in readiness. We are looking at how we might generate more if required. No such demand signal has yet come from the Health Secretary, but if it did we would see what we could do. Of course, we have the opportunity, given that we have placed the mobilisation orders in the House, to look at how we might generate our reserves to participate in the response as well.
Rosie Cooper [V]
Our armed forces have helped to deliver successful whole-town testing in Liverpool, and we have heard today that the Ministry of Defence plans to use MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—support for more testing and preparations to roll out covid vaccines. Can the Minister indicate whether good quality local accommodation, together with extra funds, will be provided to the armed forces to help them with this vital work?
James Heappey
Clearly, these are matters for operational commanders, but my expectation would of course be that those we deploy to do this important work at such an important moment for our nation are properly accommodated and fed while doing those duties.
Mr Dhesi
I commend our world-renowned armed forces on their much valued efforts in the fight against the pandemic, especially when they recently helped to deliver successful whole-area testing. Will the Minister explain exactly how the Government plan to use MACA support for other areas in tier 3, such as my Slough constituency?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to give him a lecture on the intricacies of the MACA process, which I have come to love over the last nine months. The reality is that if he feels that his local authorities would benefit from military support, he should ask them to put in a MACA request, and the MOD would look to resource that, as we have done on hundreds of others over the course of the year thus far. If he feels that the chief executive of his local authority would benefit from assistance in generating that MACA request, he can write to me and I will be delighted to help.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
The assessment phase of the Challenger 2 life extension programme has concluded. The proposition is now being worked up prior to a decision being taken on the investment case.
Mark Pritchard
The Minister will be aware of the excellent Shropshire defence engineers who have recently been awarded an £860 million project for the Boxer vehicle delivered through RBSL—Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land. Would he like to put on record his thanks to all those in defence engineering in Shropshire and perhaps allude to the fact that, should the contract be awarded in the west midlands, it might be going to Shropshire?
Jeremy Quin
I would not comment on any particular forthcoming potential procurement, but I have visited Telford to see RBSL and I can absolutely endorse my hon. Friend’s remarks about the brilliant engineers and apprentices I have met there. He is rightly proud of the capabilities in defence throughout Shropshire, and I was delighted with the £860 million contract to support Boxer. It is a brilliant supply chain in Shropshire and throughout the UK.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Around 0.01% percent of defence expenditure is reported as official development assistance, reflecting the fact that the majority of defence activity falls outside the definition of ODA.
Richard Graham
Given that military aid is not eligible for the OECD’s goal of ODA, although a stable and peaceful Government is surely helpful for the economic development and welfare of developing nations, is it time for our military aid to be included in the many exceptions list, or is it time for a review of the OECD definition so that the good work of our armed forces can be recognised and accounted for as part of the Government’s aid commitments?
James Heappey
My hon. Friend is right to acknowledge the important contribution that defence activities make in helping to create the secure conditions essential for sustained economic development. As he may have heard me say to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), to be constrained by the definition would do a disservice to our freedom of manoeuvre as the Ministry of Defence, but we very much hope that ODA rules could be changed to reflect the very wide range of activities that defence is involved in but that currently are not accounted for as part of our ODA spend.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The MOD makes procurement decisions based on security, capability requirement, cost, supply chain and other social value considerations and will continue to do so. The November 2020 changes to the Green Book will ensure that there is an increased focus on setting clear objectives and consideration of location-based impacts. MOD footprint and spend is widely distributed across the UK and future procurement will continue to reflect this.
Philip Dunne [V]
The potential pragmatism of the Treasury towards its Green Book rules on public procurement is welcome, as it was heralded as one of my recommendations in my report on prosperity two and a half years ago. Does my right hon. Friend believe that this will make clear the prosperity metrics, which the Treasury will recognise when it comes to defence procurement, and will the Treasury accept that a pound spent on defence in the UK is worth more than a multiplier of 1 in the levelling-up impact on the UK economy?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, especially in that last observation, and I congratulate him on his prosperity report. He was clearly thinking ahead of the Treasury at the time, and I am delighted that it has recognised the importance and contribution that those changes will make to levelling up and closing the north-south divide. While the end-of-year rules were not changed, the recent £24.1 billion multi-year settlement with the Treasury will now allow the MOD to invest in next generation military capability across the whole United Kingdom.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The Government have no plans to change their policy on overseas pensions uprating. It is long-standing Government policy that the state pension is not uprated annually for those not resident in the United Kingdom unless the pensioner resides in a country with which there is a reciprocal social security agreement requiring that uprating.
Carol Monaghan [V]
The Minister prides himself on standing up for veterans, so it is surprising to hear him say, as he just has, that he is not going to do anything for the estimated 60,000 veterans who have their pensions frozen, many of whom are living in poverty and relying on family handouts. These are pensioners such as world war two veteran Anne Puckridge, who, instead of receiving £134 a week, receives a mere £72 a week. When is the Minister going to stand up for veterans, as he should be doing as the Minister for veterans?
Johnny Mercer
I will not take any lessons from the hon. Lady on standing up for veterans. State pensions are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, and she is well aware of that fact. This arrangement has been conducted by successive Governments for over 70 years, and questions about the policy should be directed to the Department for Work and Pensions.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
On 21 September, I made a statement to the House on allegations that the Ministry of Defence had blacklisted the media outlet Declassified UK. An independent review that I ordered into those allegations has now concluded and I have placed a copy in the Library today. The review concludes that the Ministry of Defence does not operate any policy of blacklisting and has no direct political bias. However, on this one occasion, individuals acted as if there was such a policy. That was wrong and, on behalf of the Department, I apologise. As long as I am Secretary of State for this Department, we will not tolerate any form of bias within the communications directorate, and I fully accept the findings of the report and will be taking forward its recommendations.
Andrew Jones
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. May I ask him about the recent funding announcement for his Department and what that means for the Army Foundation College and the junior soldiers who attend it? The college is, of course, located in Harrogate and has Captain Sir Tom Moore as its honorary colonel.
Mr Wallace
I had better not cross that, then. My hon. Friend has rightly championed the Army Foundation College, which was assessed as outstanding during its most recent Ofsted inspection. The college is just one part of the training and education that make our armed forces admired across the world. We expect it to continue to play that role as we modernise the armed forces and train the skilled persons we need to meet future threats.
As we approach and prepare for Christmas, I would like to place on record that not only the young men and women training in the Army Foundation College and the other depots across the United Kingdom, but the men and women operating above the sea, below the sea, in Iraq, Afghanistan and right across the world will be standing guard and looking after our values and interests and allies while many of us are getting time off at home. I think this is the last Defence questions before our Christmas session, and, on behalf of my Department and my Ministers, I would like to pay tribute to them.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I reinforce that tribute to our armed forces, who will be serving throughout the Christmas and new year period. I welcome the report that the Secretary of State says he has had placed in the Library this afternoon, and his apology. I also welcomed his written statement last week after troops had begun to arrive in Mali, because on the Opposition side we strongly support the deployment of our forces to support the United Nations mission in Mali; I simply believe that any Secretary of State should report directly to, and answer questions in, this House before committing British forces to conflict zones.
I ask the Secretary of State now, if I may, to report to the House on another matter that for many is at the heart of forces life and aspirations: why is the forces Help to Buy scheme now helping fewer forces families than when it was launched six years ago? What action is he taking to fix the failings of this scheme, so that those who serve are not denied the same dream of home ownership as everyone else?
Mr Wallace
I would be troubled if fewer were being helped by it. That is not our intention and, indeed, one of the early things I did when I took this office was to extend the Help to Buy scheme, because it is a thoroughly worthwhile scheme. I will be delighted to look into the matter and present to the right hon. Gentleman why the numbers have dropped and what we can do to increase them.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
Mr Wallace
If the hon. Member has been an avid attender of Defence questions, she will have heard me say on a number of occasions that the lessons of the past for both Governments—including Labour Governments; I refer her to the National Audit Office report of 2010—are that we should not over-promise, be over-ambitious or underfund, and that we should cut our cloth accordingly. I have read not only the 2010 report but all the successive NAO reports and SDSRs going back to 1998, to learn what mistakes should and could have been avoided. That is why we have had this review and this record funding, and it is why the Prime Minister made the exception for a multi-year spending decision not only in CDEL but in REDL. This gives us the space to put things right that have been wrong and to ensure that we make long-term investments that match our ambition. I am sure the whole House agrees with that. I am always happy to take suggestions from hon. Members from all around the House about what we could do even better.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Mr Wallace
I will write to my hon. Friend. Obviously, defence co-operation with a range of countries benefits our mutual interests. For example, we often, even unofficially, in that we do not have a formal agreement, work with countries where a threat presents itself that poses a threat to our citizens and our interests. I will write to him about the specific details of the country he mentioned.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
As the hon. Lady says, the MACA request for Hull was approved on 1 December, and four military planners have been provided to support the Humber local resilience forum until the end of January with specific areas of covid-related planning. If that planning reveals a demand for further military resource, I am sure that a further MACA request will be forthcoming, and we will consider it on its merits.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
James Heappey
I know that the Minister for Defence Procurement, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), is itching to visit the company in my hon. Friend’s constituency. As for attendance at pass-out parades, I know how much my own family enjoyed my pass-out parade at Sandhurst. These are big, big moments in the lives of soldiers and the families who support them. We have to work within the Government’s guidelines, but as soon as we can get parades open to family and friends again, we will do so.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
Mr Wallace
The decision to grant a public inquiry in the case of Pat Finucane is a decision for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; as Secretary of State for Defence, I have no role in it. However, I am a former Northern Ireland Minister and a former member of the armed forces who served there. The hon. Lady will know that there have been numerous inquiries and inquests into a range of killings by both the state and terrorists. We take every case very seriously and examine the evidence before us, but we are also keen to make sure that we uphold the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, which is to help to draw a line under the troubles to allow the men and women of Northern Ireland move forward in peace. That does mean dealing with the legacy, but it also means making sure that when things have been examined we can all move forward together.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
James Heappey
The men and women of the Defence Medical Services have been real heroes throughout the pandemic, working in hospitals throughout the country. Many of them already have jobs in the NHS, which means they are not ours to flex in response to MACA requests. However, other military medics have been used in response to MACA requests from health trusts, and I am sure that if such a request was to come from my hon. Friend’s local authority, we would be happy to look at it.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
Mr Wallace
It means an end to an era in which successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, over-promised and underfunded. What is absolutely key is that the Prime Minister determines that this Government and this defence policy meet the threat and do not fund into everything else. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman makes a scissors gesture; I distinctly remember serving in the armed forces under a Labour Government and that is pretty much what most of the Labour Government did. If the hon. Gentleman turned his hand upright, that was the attitude to our armed forces of the Labour Front Bench under Jeremy Corbyn.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
James Heappey
Defence personnel have assisted across Wales during the pandemic, including in Wrexham and Clwyd South, by supporting the Welsh ambulance service, the planning and staffing of Nightingale hospitals and mobile testing. Currently, defence is supporting whole-town testing a little further south in Merthyr Tydfil. I am sure that the whole House will join me in commending the contribution of our armed forces, who have worked tirelessly to tackle covid-19 in Wales and across the United Kingdom.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
James Heappey
When we look at retention in the armed forces we are never complacent. We take continuous attitude survey responses very seriously indeed. Clearly, there are things we can do to improve the life of our service personnel, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that retention is a problem; in fact, retention is improving quickly.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) [V]
James Heappey
In line with the national cyber strategy, the Ministry of Defence works closely with the National Cyber Security Centre in support of national objectives to protect and defend critical infrastructure. The MOD has funded programmes to mitigate cyber-risks against our platforms, weapons systems and core digital infrastructure, and we are developing a cyber-aware workforce to embed cyber-security into our business and operations.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Mr Wallace
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this matter to my attention. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss it, and then we can discuss it with the Department and the commission.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
Over the past two years, we have made a real effort to completely redesign the mental health care provision for our armed forces personnel, both during their time in service and when they leave. I am delighted to confirm for the first time that this country’s armed forces will receive mandatory mental health training every year from 1 April next year. I pay tribute to the service chiefs who have led the way on this significant policy change.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady is making a brilliant argument for why we do not want to put borders between countries. Perhaps she could join our campaign to save the Union at the next referendum.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
What further support do the Government plan to provide, as part of the UK-Ukraine strategic partnership agreement, signed in October, to develop Ukraine’s navy and deliver maritime security in the Black sea?
Mr Wallace
Ukraine is incredibly important to the United Kingdom, not only as an ally, but hopefully as a future member of NATO, and it is important that we help those people defend themselves against Russian aggression. That is why our ships are often on tour and deployed in the Black sea. Indeed, only recently, a Type 45 was deployed in that sea. At the same time, it is important to help Ukraine build its own capability, so that it can defend itself against aggressive Russian tactics, which is why, under Operation Orbital, we are out there right now, training its navy in how to do that.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Military aerospace is incredibly important in my constituency of Dudley North, and across the west midlands. Can the Minister say what he is doing to promote our first-rate exports to our allies?
Mr Wallace
Only recently, I hosted my colleague, the Defence Minister of Qatar, who came to see the joint Typhoon squadron that we operate in the United Kingdom. That squadron, obviously, uses Typhoon, which is built in Lancashire and has a supply chain that reaches right across the north of England. That is why my hon. Friend, like many in this House, will welcome the announcement of the next generation of the future combat air system. Billions of pounds will be put into research and development for the next generation of fighter. This will mean lots of jobs for people in the United Kingdom—in the north, south and south-west of England, and in Scotland.
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.
UK-EU Future Relationship Negotiations and Transition Period
(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
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations on the UK’s future relationship with the EU and preparations for the end of the transition period.
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
I am grateful for this opportunity to update the House on the progress of our negotiations with the European Union.
Intensive talks continue. In fact, the United Kingdom’s negotiating team, led by Lord Frost, has been in talks with the EU almost every day since 22 October and is working tirelessly to get a deal on our future relationship. This also affords us in this place the opportunity to show our collective resolve to get a good deal, our expectations of what that needs to look like, and what we will not accept. While there has been some progress across many areas, familiar differences remain on the so-called level playing field, fisheries and governance. Of these, the level playing field issue is currently the most difficult.
On Friday, after an intensive week of talks in London, the respective chief negotiators, Lord Frost and Michel Barnier, issued a joint statement. This outlined that the conditions for an agreement had not been met, and that talks should pause briefly to allow the Prime Minister and the Commission President to discuss the state of play on Saturday. Following their telephone call, the Prime Minister and President von der Leyen issued a joint statement. It welcomed progress, but noted that an agreement would not be feasible if the issues on the level playing field, fisheries and governance were not resolved. They agreed that a further effort should be made by the UK and the EU to assess whether the outstanding differences can be resolved, and instructed the chief negotiators to reconvene in Brussels.
We are at a critical moment in the negotiations. Teams are negotiating as we speak, and the Prime Minister will call the Commission President later this afternoon to discuss progress again. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is in Brussels today, meeting the European Commission vice-president; they are meeting in their capacity as co-chairs of the UK-EU Joint Committee under the withdrawal agreement.
We are all working to get a deal, but the only deal that is possible is one that is compatible with our sovereignty, and that takes back control of our laws, trade and waters. While an agreement is preferable, we are prepared to leave on so-called Australian-style terms if we cannot find compromises. As the Prime Minister has made clear, people and businesses must prepare for the changes that are coming on 31 December, most of which are related to our departure from the EU single market and customs union, and not the outcome of these talks.
Mr Speaker, we will continue to keep the House updated as we seek to secure a future relationship with our EU friends that respects our status as a sovereign, equal and independent country.
Rachel Reeves
Last year, the Prime Minister said that to leave with no deal would be a “failure of statecraft”, so this Government must take responsibility for their failure if we leave without a deal. We will hold the Government to account for whatever they bring back—deal or no deal.
With just 24 days to go until the end of the transition period, let me ask a few basic questions about this Government’s and our country’s readiness. Trading on World Trade Organisation terms would mean tariffs on lamb exports of 40%, so what is the latest assessment of how many farms would go to the wall in the event of no deal? Tariffs on car exports would be 10%, so what is the viability of our great automotive industry if there is no deal on rules of origin?
The Office for Budget Responsibility said last week—I am surprised the Chancellor did not mention it at all in his spending review statement—that if we leave without a deal, GDP would fall by an additional 2% next year, unemployment would rise by an additional 1% and inflation would be up 1.5%. Those are not just numbers; this is about British industries and people’s jobs. The detail does matter, so will the Minister admit to the House how many of the 50,000 customs agents who the Government agreed are needed by the end of the year have actually been recruited?
Today, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa claimed that the oven-ready deal had already been delivered. If that is the case, it must have been sent to the wrong address, because the whole country is still waiting for the comprehensive trade and security deal that was promised to the British people at the general election less than a year ago.
Mr Speaker, you will remember that the former International Trade Secretary, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), once said that a trade deal with the EU would be the “easiest in human history”. Let me finish by asking the Minister: is that still the view of this Government?
Penny Mordaunt
I have some sympathy with Her Majesty’s Opposition today, because although I have been involved with various aspects of the negotiations and am vice-chair of the Joint Committee under the withdrawal agreement, I have not been in the room for these negotiations, and neither has any Member of this House. I understand that we have so much invested in getting a good result, for all the reasons the hon. Lady sets out. This is how it must have been for an expectant father waiting for news outside the delivery room. I can understand the tension and frustration many Members must be feeling at this critical moment.
We are all waiting for what we hope is good news, but we are not powerless in this. We are all active players and participants, and we should all be doing everything we can at this critical moment to ensure that our negotiating team are supported, and that we get the best result for this country. That means that we should provide clarity and resolve about what we want from a deal and what we are not prepared to accept, and show united support for our negotiating team. I hope that all Members of this House will join me in sending our resolve and good wishes to Lord Frost and his team as they continue to work on our behalf. We must also provide the necessary focus to get the negotiations over the line, which many Members of this House did by ensuring that we did not extend the transition period.
Sadly, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and her colleagues on the Opposition Benches have failed to do any of those things to help us secure a good deal for this country. That is fair enough if Labour does not have a position on Brexit, but it might like to get one in the next few days.
All of us in this House must show support and resolve to get the deal that the hon. Lady articulates, and that we all want for citizens and businesses, not just within the UK but throughout the remainder of the EU. [Interruption.] I am turning to her questions; there were not that many. The tariff issues are published on gov.uk. I know that she has recently written to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who will reply to her in detail, as he always does.
What I would say to the hon. Lady, having been involved with transition preparations, is that when we have got into some of the detail—site visits and so forth, and helping ports, for example, put together their bids for the port infrastructure fund—assumptions that have been made about what we will need have been reduced. In my own local patch, for example, we were looking at having to have 10 freight gates. We now need only three because we have had greater clarity about how things will work.
We will keep the hon. Lady and all Members of the House updated on this front, but I assure her that we are making every effort to secure a deal. That is our aim. That is what everyone, I think, in this House would want, but that deal must respect the United Kingdom’s sovereignty and its integrity as a nation. We want to be able to control our own borders, set our own robust and principled subsidy control system, and control our waters. Those things are not up for compromise. We will not compromise. If the hon. Lady and colleagues want to assist Lord Frost and his team in that, that is the message that they should send them this afternoon in this place.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement. I, for one, absolutely have confidence in Lord Frost and the Prime Minister, who are basing their negotiations on a manifesto that won us a huge majority at the last election. The British public voted for a sovereign departure—that is to say, that we would be a sovereign nation. She is right, therefore, and does she not agree that although this is entitled a trade discussion or a trade deal, the truth is that at the end of the day, as she said, this is essentially about sovereignty? To have continuing control of our laws, our territorial waters and, for that matter, our trade are matters of sovereign control, not just trade. Will she give that message back to our negotiators, and say that they have the Government side of the House completely behind them?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, and for saving my breath in saying that again. He is absolutely right. I think it has been a difficulty on the EU side to come to terms with the fact that we are a sovereign equal in these negotiations. We have made this point time and again. I know that many Government Members have made that point many times, but that is the sticking point. I hope that the EU negotiators, and all member states, have heard his message loudly and clearly.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
So here we are at the 59th minute of the eleventh hour, where we were arguably always going to be. What was supposed to be the easiest deal in history has become the biggest unconcluded disaster of modern times. The oven-ready deal was in fact a barely defrosted turkey. We still do not know if it is to be a low deal or a no deal. The chaos is due to commence in a few short weeks, and we still do not know the scale of the carnage that each sector will have to endure.
What we do know, I suppose, is that it will all be the fault of these Europeans. We know that even if it is a low deal it will cost every Scot £1,600 and Scotland’s GDP will fall by 6.1%, and we know, of course, that Scotland rejected this whole miserable project. Will the Minister concede that these negotiations have been nothing other than a shambles, that the Government simply do not care about the repercussions of no deal, and that the views of Scotland simply do not matter? If the Government do not care about the views of Scotland, why should Scotland endure this misery any longer?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman has surpassed himself today. As someone who has worked very hard with Mike Russell and other colleagues to ensure that their views and ideas are taken up by the negotiating team, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that throughout the course of the negotiations the position has evolved to take on board many aspects of what his colleagues have been asking for—for example, participation in programmes. The team changed their original position and have gone in to negotiate very hard on things that they have asked for. If we have good news in the coming days, I hope that he will give the UK Government the entire credit.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government point out to our European partners that under their own treaty there cannot be any kind of deliberate go-slow or disruption of UK exports to the continent, whether or not we have a free trade agreement, because under their own treaty they are obliged to pursue free and fair trade with their neighbours, and, under article 8(1), to pursue good neighbourliness? Both the UK and the European Union have also signed up to the trade facilitation agreement at the World Trade Organisation, which obliges us to ensure that trade flows and does not get blocked by people doing box-ticking exercises, which are basically unnecessarily.
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and is absolutely right. If our European partners were to do such a thing, they would also be disadvantaging the businesses in their own member states.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
We all wish the negotiators well, not least—as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) pointed out earlier—because of the assessment of the Office for Budget Responsibility that no agreement could reduce real GDP by a further 2% in 2021, on top of the adverse consequences that will come from Brexit anyway. Does the Minister agree with that assessment? If so, can she explain to the House why, in the middle of the worst economic crisis for 300 years, the Prime Minister still appears to believe that no deal would be a good outcome? British business certainly does not.
Penny Mordaunt
The right hon. Gentleman will hear no argument from me to say that no deal is going to be better than getting a deal, but everyone is working to get a deal; that is our objective. That is why Lord Frost, as I speak, is there with his team trying to secure that. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that delaying a decision and extending the negotiations—[Interruption.] Well, I think that is what he is driving at, but the facts are not going to change. We have all the information and the positions are as they are. It is only by continuing those negotiations, and by us continuing to put the pressure on for those negotiations to be concluded, that we will, I hope, arrive at a deal.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
We all want to see a deal, but the difficulties are not really about trade. Uniquely, we began these negotiations with an entire identity of regulations, of tariffs and of trade law, which is unprecedented in the history of trade negotiations and should have made this more straightforward. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not really about trade difficulties, but about EU politics? It is about ensuring that no country follows the United Kingdom in exercising their legal powers to leave the European Union, and about the desire of some in the EU to limit the competitive potential of post-Brexit Britain.
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is not just the issues that I have set out in the UK’s position that should be focusing the minds of the EU’s negotiating team and the Commission; it is also what is in the interests of their member states. Britain’s position—the United Kingdom’s position—is that we want this outcome not just for our own benefit, but for the benefit of all member states, and the businesses and citizens within them.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
According to the Cabinet Office’s leaked reasonable worst-case scenario document, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the supply of medicines and medical devices could be reduced by up to 40%. In the spirit of doing all we can, can the Minister advise us of which products might be affected and whether my constituents, and indeed the constituents of every Member in this place, should start to stockpile them?
Penny Mordaunt
As has been said at the Dispatch Box before, a reasonable worst-case scenario is not a prediction; it is the worst case that we need to prepare for and mitigate for. We thought it was right—as we do across many areas, including covid—to think through those consequences and put those documents in the public domain, and the reasonable worst-case scenario was a document that we published. Whether it is food supplies, medicine or anything related to the covid pandemic, we have put in place mitigations for all sorts of things that could happen and could go wrong. We are not anticipating disruption to those supplies, and the work that we have undertaken includes the stockpiling of certain goods, securing our own freight capacity and many other things.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
With regard to the fact that we are the first country in the world to have approved a vaccine for covid-19, does my right hon. Friend agree that we benefited from the ability to act quickly, nimbly and dynamically and that one of the key benefits of Brexit is that it will extend that ability across a number of different areas—for example, international trading relationships and social employment legislation? Will she assure me that, whatever happens come 31 December, we will have that ability and that power as a country to chart our own course and have a wonderful future?
Penny Mordaunt
I supported Brexit—I voted for it—and I think there are many positives and opportunities that will come from it, not least being able to increase our collaboration and co-operation with many countries around the world. Unless we eradicate covid, and unless we ensure that every nation has access to vaccines and can benefit from the science, whatever its provenance, we will not defeat this pandemic. We are an incredibly connected nation, and we need to do that. With the future that we have, we will be able to be a major player in ensuring that that happens.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Government are doing the right thing in resisting any demand from the EU to take the power to impose penalties on the UK at some time in the future if Brussels deems that we have not kept pace with laws made outside the United Kingdom. Taking back control is the whole point of Brexit. In resisting the level playing field demands of the EU, the Government must also ensure that the EU’s demand for Northern Ireland to be included in its level playing field is resisted. If the Government do not do that, we have not taken back control—we have surrendered part of the United Kingdom to EU demands.
Penny Mordaunt
The right hon. Gentleman makes very good points that he has made many times over. The level playing field is the most difficult issue facing the negotiating teams at the moment, and I thank him for his comments, which will have been heard by the team today.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
In simple terms, could my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK Government will not sign up to any agreement that compromises our sovereignty or our ability to reach new trade agreements with the many countries around the world that are very keen to do business with an independent Britain?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. The Prime Minister has been very clear on this point, and it is something that the EU negotiating team will be fully apprised of.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Minister might know that I am a member of the Select Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union, which will be abolished next week. As a member of that Committee, I have witnessed the sheer incompetence of the Government’s leadership. On Small Business Saturday this weekend, a businesswoman said to me, “We have suffered 1,000 cuts in the last year from covid. Why would any Government inflict another 1,000 cuts by coming out of Europe on the wrong terms, in the wrong way?”
Penny Mordaunt
What would be damaging for business is more prolonged uncertainty. Our businesses, as we have seen especially over the past year, are incredibly resilient and can cope with all sorts of things. What they cannot cope with is every eventuality as opposed to any eventuality. We need to give them certainty. I hope that we will soon be able to inform them of the remaining issues that the negotiating teams are working on. That will provide them with 100% clarity about the situation that they are facing. We will continue to support them to get ready for the transition.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
We all wish the Prime Minister, Lord Frost and the negotiating team every success in securing a deal with the EU, but should the trade talks fail, the Government’s reasonable worst-case scenario suggests that there might be significant issues with the flow of imported medicines in the first few months. Will my right hon. Friend therefore reassure all our constituents that, come what may, there will be no impediment to imported covid-19 vaccines and other crucial medicines—if need be, in the worst-case scenario, deploying military transport?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend and his constituents those assurances. This is an incredibly serious matter. The supply of medicines and medical devices, even without the pandemic, has always been a priority, going right back to last year and the potential no deal scenario planning that went on, with huge efforts. His question affords me the opportunity to pay tribute to the civil servants, military personnel, local resilience forums and many other people who have been planning and conducting exercises—and of course all the people who have been working on the winter planning assumptions around that. I can give him those assurances that we take this very seriously indeed.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Those assurances were flatly contradicted only last week by the head of the UK’s pharmaceutical industry, Richard Torbett, who said that border delays and, crucially, the absence of mutual recognition standards in the event of no deal will disrupt the supply of vital medicines to this country, including vaccines. Why should we believe Government Ministers rather than the man who heads our multibillion-pound medicines industry and knows what he is talking about?
Penny Mordaunt
There are many potential problems, but those problems have been methodically thought through. As I say, they range from administrative issues that the right hon. Gentleman refers to, right through to freight transport issues, including our securing back-up plans if commercial transport is not available or we have issues of pinch points on the key transit routes. In addition to that, and in addition to the phased approach to the border that is being taken next year, we have also, for the first few weeks, put additional measures in place to really try to ensure that there are no delays and no snarl-ups on those key freight routes.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
My right hon. Friend is right, of course, to observe that it is in everybody’s interests that there should be a deal, and that uncertainty is damaging for everyone. Will she bear in mind that that is particularly acute for the people of Her Majesty’s territory of Gibraltar? Will she ensure that they, above all, as we have responsibility in these negotiations, are not allowed to become collateral damage? Will she also undertake to ensure that the Government of Gibraltar are kept fully informed of all developments and every assistance is given to ensure that whatever the outcome, there is a smooth and flowing land frontier and the delivery of essential services for Gibraltar?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with all the points that my hon. Friend has made. I can assure him, from my involvement in the negotiations and keeping our partners informed, that all those issues with regard to Gibraltar are absolutely at the heart of our negotiating position. I thank him for raising that on the Floor of the House today.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
In the worst case of no deal, tariffs on food imports from the EU would on average be over 20%, but on beef mince they would be 48%, cheddar cheese 57%, oranges 12%—the list goes on and on. Over the weekend, however, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary said that the impact of tariffs would be “modest”. Will the Minister concede that that is not true for the third of children in Wales who live in poverty, or for poor children all across the UK?
Penny Mordaunt
As I said, information about tariffs has been published on gov.uk. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that we are negotiating to ensure that we can get a deal. I understand his concerns, but our efforts are to secure that deal. I hope he would join us in that effort and send a clear message today to the EU negotiating team that that is in the interests not just of his constituents, but of all citizens across the EU.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
There is no doubt that it is in the best interests of all parties to secure a deal. However, for many residents in Aberconwy who voted to leave, sovereignty was a key driver. It has been cited throughout the negotiations as a red line, so will my right hon. Friend reassure all our constituents that, come what may, deal or no deal, after we leave the negotiations, we will do so with our sovereignty intact?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. The Prime Minister has been very clear on that point and the EU negotiating team will recognise that it is a point from which we will not move.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows more than most how increasingly unstable our complex world is becoming. Does she agree that the threats we face, from both state and non-state actors, do not recognise international borders or the membership of political unions, and that no decision taken this week should diminish our collective security responsibility?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with my right hon. Friend absolutely. It is one thing I have never accepted about what has been said about the EU’s negotiating position. I do not believe that member states would tolerate their own citizens being put in the way of greater harm. The security and defence co-operation we have between member states and ourselves is highly valued, and I think that would be recognised by all member states in that respect.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
Does the Minister see the irony of UK negotiators trying to persuade our EU counterparts of our good faith when it comes to compliance with the rules of any new trade deal at exactly the time that the Prime Minister is today asking Parliament to vote to break international law by ripping up rules that were agreed barely a year ago? Can she tell us why the Government are apparently yet to agree to non-regression over current standards, when Ministers have repeatedly assured us that they intend to maintain and even enhance our own environmental standards?
Penny Mordaunt
I think that the trust for which the United Kingdom is renowned is deep. I think it is very well understood that the moves the Government have taken with regard to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill have had to be taken as an insurance policy to preserve the integrity of our country. The Prime Minister and the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) have been very clear, as has been the Secretary of State Justice, on why we are taking this particular course of action. I still think that the United Kingdom is held in very high esteem in that respect.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
A large number of colleagues have already mentioned the importance of parliamentary sovereignty, which we recognise as one of the most important cornerstones of our democracy. With people across the country voting overwhelmingly to get Brexit done, will my right hon. Friend assure Bishop Auckland residents and the House that any deal we sign will categorically not undermine our sovereignty and our ability to set our own border policy, or our ability to strike free trade deals with our global friends around the world?
Penny Mordaunt
Quite right. We have as a nation been on a rollercoaster over the past few years, and the British people have been absolutely resolved, as demonstrated at the last general election, that we are going to get this done. I think it would be a very difficult discussion to have with our constituents if we had gone through that rollercoaster for no upside. We have to secure these freedoms; we are a sovereign nation, and that is the future we must all look forward to.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Like the rest of the UK, Northern Ireland badly needs to see a deal, not least because no deal means the prospect of some tariffs being levied down the Irish sea interface. However, regardless of a deal or no deal, can the Minister give this House an assurance that the Government will work in good faith with the EU over the coming days to conclude the discussions in the Joint Committee around the implementation of the protocol, and that that will also include consideration of a grace or adjustment period for Northern Ireland businesses, which simply no longer have the time to prepare for 1 January?
Penny Mordaunt
Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman those assurances. Although we are talking about issues that are extremely difficult, particularly the three issues that I alluded to earlier, the talks and negotiations are constructive and they are continuing apace. I hope that we will have good news in the coming days.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
In light of the Opposition’s recent refusal to make any decision—as their constituents sent them to this place to do—in support of or opposition to the tier restrictions, what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of demands from some parts of the House for the Government to reach any deal with the European Union, while simultaneously considering voting against or not at all if any such deal is brought before this House?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with my hon. Friend that it only makes sense to keep one’s powder dry if one is prepared to accept no deal, but the position of the Opposition is a matter for them—I just hope they get one in the next few days.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
This is a shambles. I held a meeting with local businesses in my constituency about the impact of this ongoing uncertainty all year. One owner of a logistics company said to me that the damage has been done. She waited throughout November for the deal; it did not come, and her business has now been killed and her staff have lost their jobs. Will the Minister apologise to business owners such as my constituent for this utter mess?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the plight of the hon. Lady’s constituent. As I have reiterated many times before, I am available every day on covid or Brexit issues, if hon. Members want to talk. I am available at 10 am every single day and have been for weeks. I am not making a political point, but saying to all hon. Members, “If businesses are in difficulty for whatever reason, please do get in touch.” We would have liked this resolved earlier, but we are not prepared to compromise on matters that are of immense importance to many of her constituents. We will not compromise on those, but we are working incredibly hard to resolve the remaining issues, and I hope that in short order we will be able to provide her constituents and everyone else with the certainty that they need.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister has done a fantastic job over Brexit; he has taken the United Kingdom out of the European Union and I am absolutely confident that he will only bring back a deal to this House if it takes back control of our laws, borders and trade. In fact, I would bet my house that he will not betray those principles. However, may I ask the excellent Minister why the negotiations are still continuing? The EU said the absolute deadline for these negotiations was 31 October, and here we are on 7 December. Was the Minister hinting to us in her answer to the previous question that tonight we will get a decision one way or the other, a deal or no deal?
Penny Mordaunt
I am not hinting at that, although it would be jolly nice. In my opening response, I outlined what I am expecting to happen this afternoon in terms of the Prime Minister’s speaking to the Commission President. I am not raising that hope, but these negotiations are continuing because a deal is still possible, and we will continue to negotiate until that ceases to be the case.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Brexit has already cost our country billions, and we have seen investments slump in crucial sectors, a rise in unemployment, and some businesses leave our shores before we even reach the artificial, self-imposed deadline at the end of this year. How many more jobs will be lost? How much more economic damage will we suffer, and what further undermining of our international influence and national security will it take, before those who peddled the false promises of 2016 admit that they are simply undeliverable, in these negotiations or anywhere else?
Penny Mordaunt
I would ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on why he thinks that our nation, collectively and together, voted to leave the EU. I am sure there was a range of issues. Some were economic, because people may not have wanted to be tied to the eurozone, but there were many other reasons. For many, it was about sovereignty, and being able to shape our own future. The policies that we are carrying out and doing our best to secure a deal for, are what we have a mandate to do from the British people. We put the question to them, they gave us their response, and it is incumbent on all of us in this place to act on their wishes.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The Government are under huge pressure this week to secure a deal—any deal. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the long-term economic and political consequences of a bad deal that keeps the UK in the regulatory orbit of the EU and not as an independent sovereign state, would be far worse than any temporary short-term consequences that might flow from no deal?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with my hon. Friend. There has to be a point to all the upheaval that we have been through together as a nation over the past few years, and we can look forward to many positives with those new-found freedoms, including being able to make the right choices for this country. I say again: this is not just about the interests of the United Kingdom; I think that the negotiating position of the UK is also of benefit to the remainder of the EU.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The National Police Chiefs’ Council has said that losing access to criminal information if there is no negotiated agreement would have a “major impact” on counter-terrorism and serious organised crime. Obviously we all hope that a full agreement is imminent, but if an agreement is not reached on fish or level playing fields, have the Government drawn up proposals for a fallback security agreement? Does the Minister agree that if the UK and EU negotiators fail to secure arrangements that protect our citizens’ security, that would be highly irresponsible of both?
Penny Mordaunt
The right hon. Lady makes an excellent point, and that is one reason why a deal is in everyone’s interest, and why I have always thought that nations would not compromise on the security of their citizens. It is the responsibility of the Government on every aspect—whether on those issues raised by the right hon. Lady, freight transport, or whatever—to have thought through the consequences and prepared for them. That is the case for all issues, including the ones she raises.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
The 70% of my constituents who voted to realise this country’s potential four years ago want the negotiating teams to succeed in obtaining a deal. I represent communities that are heavily based on manufacturing, so can the Minister reassure me that the negotiating team will continue to negotiate robustly on the point about rules of origin, and that they will stand up for manufacturing businesses, such as those in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. The team have done a tremendous job, and I know the detail they have gone into on each sector on that issue. It is helpful that my hon. Friend has reiterated the importance of those matters to his constituents this afternoon.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
Even if there is a deal at this eleventh hour, it will be very thin, inflicting customs costs and delays on sectors that are already struggling to survive covid. The Minister has called on businesses to get ready, but the Government’s own IT systems are not ready; indeed, the fish export service will go live just two days before the end of transition. Does the fact that this Government are having to plan military flights to bring in medical supplies, including the vaccine, not make them pause for thought before such an act of self-harm?
Penny Mordaunt
It is right that we prepare for every possible contingency. There are all sorts of things that we have not mentioned this afternoon that are part of the Government’s in-tray—all sorts of contingencies that we have to think about. In the Cabinet Office, for example, I look after cyber issues. There are many things that we have to think about and many things that we have to prepare for, and it is right, particularly on medicines and medical devices, that we ensure that we have every contingency in place.
However, I would also point out to the hon. Lady that the border operating model and many things that businesses will need to do to get ready are not contingent on the final negotiations going on. We have invested heavily in support services for traders, businesses and citizens, and it has been right to do so. Again, if colleagues have issues with their constituents or businesses, please talk to me and I will do my best to get an official to talk to the business and put it in touch with the many webinars that are going on to help support businesses and citizens to make this transition.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]
I, for one, am delighted that we are finally going to reach a Brexit conclusion on 31 December. I am pleased to hear the continued commitment from my right hon. Friend to the red lines that have been set, and I know that many of my constituents will appreciate the stance taken by Lord Frost and the negotiating team. Will my right hon. Friend also recommit that, regardless of the outcome of trade talks, the Government will ensure that a UK shared prosperity fund is realised and that it finds its way to those places across the UK that most need it?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I do hope that next year, as we hopefully recover from the covid pandemic and make progress on the phased approach to the border and all the other things that we have been working so hard to put in place, we will really be able to turn to how we get economic growth happening across the whole United Kingdom and ensure that communities such as the one that he represents get the investment that they need and the opportunities that they deserve.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
Scottish Government modelling of a basic trade agreement of the type that the Government are still trying and, it would appear, failing to negotiate finds that Scottish GDP is estimated to be 6.1% lower by 2030 compared with continued EU membership. That equates to an equivalent cost of around £1,600 for each person in Scotland, and that now looks like the best-case scenario. What assessment have the Government made of the combined impact of Brexit on top of the already severe impact on business and those about to lose their jobs due to the covid crisis?
Penny Mordaunt
What we need to be focusing on is how we ensure that, in every part of the UK, we can get the economic growth that we need and the infrastructure investment that we need. There will be opportunities that come from some of the investments that are being made over the transition period, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to turn his energy and focus to those issues. We have left the EU. We will hopefully have news of a deal, but we will certainly have certainty for all our businesses and constituents in the coming days. We need to turn and look to the future and how we can help realise our constituents’ ambitions, and I encourage him to do that.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The 17.4 million people who gave such a clear instruction some four and a half years ago will look on with bemusement that there are still voices seeking to undermine that democratic mandate. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in order to respect that democratic mandate, despite all the negativity and the negative voices undermining our excellent trade negotiators, the verdict must be a binary one—either we will be sovereign or we will not?
Penny Mordaunt
There is no question but that we will be sovereign; this is not an issue we are prepared to compromise on, but, as he has mentioned leave voters, I will stick up for remain voters. I have said this before, but I will say it again: the greatest act of patriotism in the past few years was shown by them in accepting the democratic result of the referendum. I think that everyone in this country wants us to be successful and make use of the opportunities that will be there next year as we come out of this ghastly pandemic. I hope that all Members will be working positively in the interests of all their constituents to do that.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I confess that I find all of this very depressing, partly because if I understand the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs correctly, the anticipation is that if there is no deal, the Government will be paying Welsh farmers to burn Welsh lamb carcases next spring when they cannot sell them in Europe. If I understand all the police forces in the UK and the National Crime Agency correctly, if there is no deal they will not be able to have the same access to EU databases to be able to track down criminals and send them to prison. Even more worrying than that for me is that historically, this House and this country have always been good at doing deals. Frankly, we have always been the country that has compromised. We have always known how to get the signature on the paper, but every time another Member from the Government Benches stands up and demands more intransigence from the Government, the more likelihood there is that there will be no deal, and that will be a catastrophe for all of us.
Penny Mordaunt
I would say two things to the hon Gentleman. There are many things that we can point to. In fact, the Prime Minister has tabled a statement this afternoon—I think it was tabled before I came into the Chamber—that points to two things that he has offered the President of the Commission as a way of moving this forward with regard to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. We have at many stages compromised and sought to find ways to encourage the EU negotiating team forward, so, with all due respect, I reject the hon. Gentleman’s description of how the Prime Minister and the negotiating team have operated. They have operated in good faith and have compromised on many areas, but there are some areas we will not compromise on, because it is not in the interests or the integrity of the United Kingdom to do so.
Finally, I just point the hon. Gentleman to the plan that the DEFRA Secretary set out at the start of the weekend just gone about the opportunities that exist for UK farms. We have opportunities to look after the environment, to actually have scientists at DEFRA, as opposed to lawyers, and many other things that are hugely beneficial to UK farming and the environment. I encourage him to look at them.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May I convey my full support to Lord Frost and the Prime Minister for their stance during these negotiations? I genuinely do not think they have put a foot wrong throughout this entire process. Like the Minister, I want to see a comprehensive free trade deal with the EU, but certainly not any deal and definitely not a deal that leaves us shackled to EU rules and regulations in perpetuity. I urge the Government to stand firm in these negotiations to ensure that we deliver on the Brexit that so many people voted for and that so many of us campaigned for over so many years.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I absolutely can give him those assurances. His question also affords me the opportunity to pay tribute to not just to the negotiating team and Whitehall civil servants, but the very many individuals, politicians and civil servants in the devolved Administrations, the Crown dependencies and elsewhere, who have worked incredibly hard to get us this far. It is because of all those efforts that I want to ensure that we get this over the line. All the encouragement that my hon. Friend and others can give in that respect is gratefully received.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
The north-east region has consistently exported more than it imports, and the Government promised the people of the north-east an oven-ready deal with no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions—a deal that would safeguard workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protections and keep people safe through a comprehensive security agreement. With the negotiations now going late in the day, and those promises looking increasingly overcooked, what are the Government doing to ensure that businesses and individuals in the north-east are able to properly prepare for and manage these changes to come?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. I reiterate that we are working to get a deal. We will continue to negotiate until that becomes an impossibility, but I am hopeful that we will get a deal. We have invested a huge amount in ensuring that businesses are ready. Most of the things that businesses and citizens will need to do are already known and are not contingent on the final negotiations. I stand ready to assist if the hon. Lady’s constituents or businesses have particular issues, but an enormous amount of support is available—not just information but webinars and dialogue with experts and officials—to ensure that people have all the information. There is also, of course, the substantial campaign, which has been running for many weeks, to ensure that people are fully informed about what they need to do before the end of the year.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in congratulating the International Trade Department on the new trade deals with major markets, including Japan, Kenya and Canada, with many more to come. Will she confirm that nothing will be done in our negotiations with our friends from the European Union that will compromise our ability to do new trade deals around the world?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. That is one of the main motivating factors as to why people wanted to leave the EU. Many other reasons related to the EU’s trade policies, protectionism and their impact on developing nations in particular. I will happily join my hon. Friend in praising the International Trade Department, which has had a huge amount of work to do in not only forging new trade relationships, but rolling over and improving existing arrangements with many nations. That does not often make the press, but it is a substantial amount of work and the Department has done an excellent job.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The covid-19 pandemic has led to a tsunami of job losses in the British manufacturing sector, and thousands more will be lost if tariffs are slapped on British goods. What steps are the Government taking to help British manufacturers make the critical investment needed to save jobs and skills and to compete internationally in the event of a no-deal Brexit?
Penny Mordaunt
I reiterate that we are working to get a deal, and the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman are at the forefront of our mind as we do that. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has done a huge amount: it has sector committees and structures, and it is working hand in glove with the sector, listening to its needs. That is, obviously, informing policies produced from the Treasury and elsewhere. As we enter a new year and a new start, we want to ensure that exactly those types of businesses, particularly those that have been eroded in certain parts of the country, have what they need in order to have a renaissance. That will be our focus in the new year.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strength of solid support from the Conservative Benches for the Government’s negotiating position? Does she agree that a deal can be done, with all the necessary compromises that will entail on both sides, only if it starts from a point of fundamental acceptance of the United Kingdom as a sovereign, independent third country?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I thank him for his support and I thank all Members in this House who are getting behind the negotiating team and sending that clear message to the EU negotiating team this afternoon. There is huge support not only on these Benches but in our constituencies. Whichever way people voted in the referendum, they know that this is the way forward. They want to get these final issues resolved swiftly so that we can all get on with it in the new year.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The REAF—Renaissance of East Anglia Fisheries—project sets out an exciting vision for the renaissance of the East Anglian fishing industry. Two preconditions for achieving this are the certainty that significantly more fish will be available to land in ports such as Lowestoft and that there is a framework for promoting investment in ports and the processing sector. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that these two requirements are not being compromised in the negotiations that are taking place?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. Clearly, fish is one of the sticking points. The negotiating team are obviously working very hard, but it is a sticking point because we will not compromise on these issues. I have to say, in a former life I was coastal communities Minister and, having visited his constituency and discussed the potential that is there for the renaissance of that industry, I think that is a prize worth holding out for.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Government spend goodness knows how much money on radio adverts and newspaper adverts telling businesses to be ready for 1 January. A business in my constituency—a nursery that imports plants from Europe—wants to be ready to continue importing, but the C1800 form for handling freight imports is not available on the Government website so it does not know what inspection arrangements will be. Are there any inspection agents for plants? Where will inspections take place? Nobody knows what the conditions in road haulage will be for outgoing goods. Can the Minister tell me what I can tell my constituent about how his business can continue to trade successfully from 1 January, because it is not apparent from anything I have seen?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has done his homework and done his best to help his constituent. I do not know whether he has used the toolkit that was sent to his casework team on, I think, 26 November—[Interruption.] Okay. That will give contact details for him to get in touch with officials who are standing ready to talk to businesses to give them the bespoke advice that many of them will need. If he wishes to pass the details of the company to me after this, I will ensure that the relevant official can speak to them—I mean this very genuinely; I am not trying to get one over on him. We are making every effort to ensure that all Members of the House have the information that they need if people need further help than what is on gov.uk and the webinars and so forth that are going on. We want to ensure that every business is supported in these efforts and, if he passes me the details, I will ensure that his constituent is.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
What does my right hon. Friend say to those on both sides who seem to believe that now is not the best time to make a deal and that perhaps it will be better to come back next year when a better deal could be done? Surely that is ridiculous and this is by far the best time for a deal. It is pretty much now or a long time in the future.
Penny Mordaunt
I am tempted to say no, no, no. I think my hon. Friend makes a very good point. We know that delaying negotiations—extending the period of negotiations—is not a possibility now, but it is also the wrong thing to do. We need the focus and resolve for both parties to come together and agree a deal. It is very clear what that needs to look like from our point of view, but the negotiations are still continuing and I remain optimistic.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
Despite the recent re-signed fisheries framework agreement with Norway, there is currently no legal basis for UK fisheries’ distant water vessels to fish cod in the Norwegian economic zone from the end of this year, as they have been doing for decades. In the event of a no-deal Brexit, what are the Government doing to ensure continued access to these waters?
Penny Mordaunt
Our position is exactly in line with the existing precedent of the EU’s current fisheries agreement with Norway. We now have a seat at the forums that decide these matters—we have our UK seat back. On the specifics, I will ask a DEFRA Minister to write to the hon. Lady. If she wishes to give me any further details about a particular company that is having difficulties, I will connect it with the relevant official.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Beaconsfield businesses are bracing themselves for and embracing the end of Brexit and the transition period, but will my right hon. Friend provide further assurances of the plans and the support that is in place for supporting businesses, particularly small businesses in Beaconsfield?
Penny Mordaunt
As I have stated, all Members have special information that has been put together to help signpost any inquiries that come to their offices, but clearly we have put in place a huge amount of support for each sector. There is the Trader Support Service that has been stood up and the work that is going on in the relevant Departments for each sector. The officials have done a tremendous job and spoken to tens of thousands of businesses across the UK, through webinars and, in some cases, on a one-to-one basis, to talk through the issues. As I have said, we know about the bulk of things that businesses need to do. I also give a nod to the Central Office of Information, which has been running the campaign that colleagues have spoken about this afternoon. That has had a great effect in raising awareness and ensuring that people are ready by the end of the year.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
Orchestras in the UK are being hit by a double whammy of the covid pandemic and uncertainty around what they need to do to perform on tour after 31 December. The Northern Ireland protocol means that goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will require customs declarations. Orchestras that work between Great Britain and Northern Ireland have to transport their instruments to perform there. Can the Minister confirm whether an orchestra in this position will require carnets for their instruments after 1 January because orchestras have not been able to find out, despite the Government promising to give the information and support needed for the end of the transition period?
Penny Mordaunt
I suspect that there is more to it than all the information that I heard in the question, because I do not think that orchestras should require—if I have understood the journey correctly—any paperwork of that sort. Again, if the hon. Lady would like to give me the details of that case, I will get her a swift answer on that.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
I remain confident in the ability of Lord Frost’s negotiating team to strike a deal over the next few days, but it is right that my right hon. Friend and Lord Frost’s team stand firm on reclaiming our sovereignty. Can she confirm to me and the people of Workington who stand squarely behind her and Lord Frost that we will leave the transition period on 1 January 2021, on Australian terms if necessary?
Penny Mordaunt
As I have said, we will work until there is no hope left of getting a deal. I, too, have the same great confidence that my hon. Friend has kindly expressed in Lord Frost and the great team that are supporting him. None the less, it is very clear that if we cannot resolve these final issues, in particular the three that I mentioned in my opening remarks, we will not be able to conclude that deal. We must ensure that our sovereignty is not up for grabs. We have been crystal clear from the get-go on that, and I think that that is what the people of the United Kingdom expect.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers to the urgent question and also wish the negotiating team all the best for the next few hours, and perhaps the next few days. I have seen many concerning reports regarding the deals that have been done in reference to our seas. I ask for a clear and unequivocal assurance from the Minister on behalf of the fishing sector in Portavogie in my constituency that there will be no surrender of our seas or our rights to European fisheries and that we will bring the fishing industry back home, as was promised by our Government in the past.
Penny Mordaunt
I can give the hon. Member those assurances. Sometimes, people say that we should not be holding out on these issues, that this is a small contributor to the economy or that it has got some kind of talismanic status because of what went before many years ago, when we first went into the EC. It is not because of those things. This is an incredibly important part of the economy, but also of our communities and our identity as the United Kingdom, and we will not compromise on that. We are a sovereign nation, and these are our waters. We have plans for a resurgence of these industries, and he has my assurances that the Prime Minister will not compromise.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Exactly a year ago today, I was banging on doors in Ashfield telling people we were going to get Brexit done, and we are getting Brexit done, but there has been some speculation over the past few days regarding Brexit negotiations, which has led to a number of Ashfield residents contacting me with their concerns. Could my right hon. Friend please assure the residents of Ashfield and Eastwood that we will regain control over our borders, laws and fisheries, and our economic and political independence will be restored?
Penny Mordaunt
I hope that if the EU negotiating team have not heard the resolve of Members on these Benches this afternoon, they will have heard the resolve of my hon. Friend’s constituents. It is absolutely right that this has been confirmed not just in a referendum, but in a general election, giving a very clear mandate about what the British people expect us to deliver on. As we enter the final stages of these negotiations, I hope that is well understood by the other negotiating team, and the sooner they come to terms with that and the Prime Minister’s resolve, the sooner we will be able to get a deal.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Can I first congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work she has done in getting the country ready for the new regulations that are coming at the end of this month? I must admit that it seems a bit like the millennium bug, when everybody thought it was going to be a disaster, but we did the prep work and got there in the end. Could I ask her what plans she has in place for other things that may happen between now and 31 December that businesses will need to be ready for and what action plan she has, because the work she has done so far has been outstanding and I would not want it to stumble at the last hurdle?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for his very kind words. It would be remiss of me not to mention, in his absence today, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has done an incredible job, in addition to his work on the covid pandemic, with chairing XO—the EU Exit Operations Committee—every single day, I think. Since I have been in this post, I have been the default chair, but I have only chaired it on a few occasions. He has done that, he has done a huge amount of work in building rapport with his oppo on the Joint Committee on the withdrawal agreement, and I think he deserves huge credit for the immense efforts that he has taken both on the transition and on ensuring that the withdrawal agreement Joint Committee and its specialised committees are churning through the work that they need to do not just for UK citizens, but for citizens in the rest of the EU. So I shall take my right hon. Friend’s praise and pass it on to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
As I said, there will be very few things that are outstanding that businesses will need to be apprised of that are contingent on the final negotiations. We have put together comprehensive information for all Members in this House, and they will find that in their inboxes. We will also conduct webinars with their caseworkers if there is a demand for that. We have a programme already set up to do that. I would also put on record the incredible work of the border delivery group and civil servants in all Departments, who not just have ensured that we are ready for the transition and whatever comes to pass, but have been working to secure these negotiations. I thank all Members for putting on record in the Chamber today our resolve and our will to get a deal, but not a deal at any price.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We will now have a three-minute suspension to allow for the safe exit and entry of hon. and right hon. Members.
Hong Kong: Sentencing of Pro-democracy Activists
(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
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the sentencing of the Hong Kong pro-democracy activists Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Ivan Lam.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
We are deeply concerned by recent developments in Hong Kong. As the Foreign Secretary made clear in the most recent six-monthly report on Hong Kong, this has been and continues to be the most concerning period in Hong Kong’s post-handover history. The apparent focus of the Hong Kong authorities now seems to be on retribution against political opposition and the silencing of dissent. In the light of our concerns, we have taken decisive action in relation to the erosions of rights, freedoms and autonomy in Hong Kong, specifically in response to the national security law. This has included a new immigration path for British nationals overseas, suspending our extradition treaty with Hong Kong and extending our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong.
We have made clear our concerns about a number of ongoing cases, and that includes the sentencing of the pro-democracy activists Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Ivan Lam on 2 December and the charges laid against the major media proprietor Jimmy Lai on the same day. We understand that the three sentenced on 2 December pleaded guilty to inciting people to take part in an unauthorised rally last year. They were not charged under the national security law. As the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement of 2 December, prosecution decisions must be fair and impartial, and the rights and freedoms guaranteed to the people of Hong Kong under the joint declaration must be upheld. Hong Kong’s prosperity and way of life rely on respect for fundamental freedoms, an independent judiciary and the rule of law.
British judges have played an important role in supporting the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary for many years. That independence is a critical factor underpinning Hong Kong’s success. We want it to, and hope that it will, continue; however, the national security law that was imposed on Hong Kong in July poses real questions for the rule of law in Hong Kong, and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms promised by China in the joint declaration. It is therefore right that the UK Supreme Court continues to assess the situation in Hong Kong, and the position of British judges, in discussion with the Government.
We have raised our concerns about these and other cases with senior members of the Hong Kong Government and the Beijing authorities, and we will continue to do so. We urge the Hong Kong and Beijing authorities to bring an end to their apparent campaign to stifle legitimate opposition, and to reconsider their current course. The Government will continue to work with international partners to hold China to account, as we did recently at the UN Third Committee on 6 October, where 39 countries expressed deep concern at the situation in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet. The UK Government will continue to stand up for the people of Hong Kong and our historic responsibility.
Alyn Smith
I thank the Minister for his answer, and I find nothing to disagree with, but, as in previous discussions on Hong Kong across the House, we want more, and we want to see more action. The fact is that this is getting worse, not better, despite all the warm words that we have heard across the Chamber and, indeed, internationally. Joshua Wong was sentenced to 13 and a half months’ imprisonment, Agnes Chow to 10 months’, and Ivan Lam to seven months’, for offences that are at best trumped-up charges. That is a direct breach of the Hong Kong Basic Law, and of the Sino-British agreement, which guarantees one country, two systems.
These are not just breaches of human rights somewhere in the world of which we know nothing; they are direct breaches of the Sino-British agreement and direct infringements of personal rights, which the UK is guarantor of until 2047. We need far more action than we have seen. I do feel for our Minister. I have much respect for him. He did not make these decisions and he is not responsible for the internal workings of Hong Kong. We need to be realistic about what is achievable and what is not. For me, it is international action, concerted with our allies in the EU and internationally, that will force Beijing to change tack.
We have a number of ideas on what we can do now, here. We can push forward with Magnitsky sanctions. We have called for progress often enough; let us see some action on that now. We can do an audit of UK companies to check their involvement in slave labour with Chinese companies, because there is no question but that there are UK companies that are profiting directly from gross human rights infringements. We can take action on HSBC and other banks that are colluding with Beijing in order to enforce the national security law. We can also enforce further action in the fight against organised crime and fraud, which has been grievously weakened by events in Hong Kong.
We can also audit and shine a light upon the role of Confucius Institutes across our academic community within these islands, because there is no question but that they are involved in activities that go well beyond what their expected remit should be. On immigration, there is one point specifically that I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister on. Joshua Wong, under current UK asylum legislation, would be barred from applying for asylum in the UK by this sentence, which we do not respect. Can the Minister assure me— perhaps this is a question for his colleagues as well—that the UK will look at reforming the asylum process to ensure that Hongkongers will have access to this country, and not be barred by trumped-up charges?
So international co-operation will lead on this. The UK has not been idle, but a lot more needs to be done because we are bound to the people of Hong Kong and they will not be forgotten by this House.
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this question to the House. I know that it is a subject that we discuss on a regular basis, but it is only right that we do so, given our history with Hong Kong. He mentioned the case of Joshua Wong and the inability to claim asylum. There will, of course, have to be criminality checks for anyone who comes and claims asylum, but it would be perverse to turn away people from the UK because they have participated in democratic protests, like Mr Wong.
The hon. Gentleman talked about international co-ordination, and it is absolutely the case that we are working with international partners. We are focused on adding our voice to the widespread international concern to protect Hong Kong’s rights and freedom. We do not rule out any diplomatic options, and we will keep the position under review. He referenced sanctions; of course, we have had this discussion before. We are actively considering, and will continue to consider, designations under our global human rights sanctions regulations, but I am sure that he will totally understand that it would not be appropriate to speculate on who may be designated under the sanctions regime in future.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned HSBC. We do not comment on issues related to individual private companies. Businesses will make their own judgment calls, and they will be judged on those calls, but we made an historic commitment to protect the autonomy, rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, and so has China.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon.—or, rather, the hon.—Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) on bringing forward this question. [Interruption.] Who knows? I shall certainly, on the basis of this, be promoting him. I agree with pretty much everything he said about the Magnitsky sanctions, and the bad behaviour regarding these trumped-up charges, which are based on an old colonial piece of legislation that should have been done away with years ago, and that has been condemned by the UN.
I draw the Minister’s attention back to HSBC, which the hon. Gentleman touched on. I had the privilege of listening to one of the legislators from the Democratic party of Hong Kong who has fled Hong Kong, Ted Hui. He made it very clear that he came to the UK, having gone to Denmark first, because he was worried about the charges that would be levelled against him. In the meantime, HSBC and two other banks, obviously prompted by the Hong Kong Government and China, have frozen his accounts for no reason whatsoever. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government to condemn this action. This is not a bank started in China and based in China that has nothing to do with the UK; it is a bank that benefits from its location here in London, and that is highly thought of in the trading community. It has behaved in a disreputable and appalling way in freezing the accounts of an individual fleeing for justice. Surely this is an outrage that the Government can now say should stop.
Nigel Adams
I thank my right hon. Friend for his continued commitment to this issue. He speaks very powerfully, obviously, but as I have just set out, and as the Foreign Secretary has made clear, businesses, including HSBC in Hong Kong, will make their own judgment calls. People will also make up their mind about those judgment calls. We have made an historic commitment to the people of Hong Kong to protect their autonomy and freedom, and, more importantly, so has China. To reiterate the point, we will hold China to its responsibilities.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The arrest and sentencing of Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Ivan Lam sets a troubling precedent, and it is important that we send a united message in our opposition to attempts to erode the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. The Government have recognised that there have been two breaches of the joint declaration, and a series of troubling incidents, including the charges against Jimmy Lai; the freezing of the assets of a former Opposition politician and democracy campaigner by a British bank; and this morning’s arrest of students on charges relating to peaceful protest. Despite the steps that the Government have taken so far, which the Minister outlined, and broad international condemnation, the Hong Kong Executive and the Chinese Government have not changed course.
The Government are in danger of trying to pursue two competing and confused strategies. We would like to know to what extent the Minister still believes that constructive engagement is possible. Does he share the view of the United States that Hong Kong is no longer an autonomous region, and if he does not, what is his plan to persuade Beijing to change course? If he believes that diplomacy is still fruitful, will he tell us what conversations the Government have had with the incoming Biden Administration about the development of a co-ordinated response? Will the Foreign Secretary consider convening a dialogue among our Five Eyes partners—including the new US Administration—in the new year, so that we can agree a broader, co-ordinated response? If he does not believe that that is possible, has he explored legal avenues through which the Chinese Government can be held to account? What progress has he made on sanctions, which we have debated in this House over and over again?
The Minister mentioned the role of British judges in Hong Kong. A decision to withdraw British judges would be hugely significant; it would suggest that the UK cannot continue to grant legitimacy to what is in essence no longer considered an autonomous system. I hope the Minister can see why such a step would make sense only in that context; otherwise, we risk doing further harm to the people of Hong Kong by removing an important safeguard in an independent judicial system. That is why we must hear today a clear view from the Government, and a strategy to match. Otherwise, the measures that the Government have taken so far on British national overseas passport holders, and the contemplation of the removal of British judges, coupled with an incredibly weak stance on the role of British businesses in the region, will be seen by Beijing not as a firm stance but as a retreat, which will send a message to the Chinese Government that they can continue on that path. That would be an utter failure of our obligations to the people of Hong Kong. We need to hear a clear view and a clear strategy from the Government today.
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. She mentioned Jimmy Lai; we are of course deeply concerned about the Hong Kong authorities’ apparent focus on pursuing legal cases against well-known pro-democracy figures like Jimmy Lai. It is crucial that the new national security law is not misused to silence critics or to stifle opposition. The freedom of the press is explicitly guaranteed in the Sino-British joint declaration and the Basic Law and is supposedly protected under article 4 of the national security law. There are indeed deeply worrying ongoing arrests of students, which are being used as a pretext to silence opposition. We always raise our concerns directly with Hong Kong and with the Chinese authorities; we urge them to uphold their international obligations.
The hon. Lady mentioned the incoming Biden Administration; the Foreign Secretary will of course be having conversations with his counterpart, and our ambassador in Washington is already engaged in conversations to set that up.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the role that British judges have played in supporting the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary for many years; we very much hope that that continues, although the national security law poses real questions for the rule of law in Hong Kong and the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms promised in the joint declaration. As the Foreign Secretary discussed with the Foreign Affairs Committee on 6 October, appointments to the Hong Kong court are made independently, and we need to be mindful of that.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I, too, have concerns about HSBC and, indeed, Standard Chartered, both of which signed a petition supporting the draconian, authoritarian laws that have been introduced in Hong Kong.
On a wider note, I commend the Government on taking an ever-more robust stance on China. Its conduct over covid-19, with Beijing having tried to suppress the news of the outbreak; the militarisation of the South China sea; its debt-trap diplomacy through its one belt, one road, initiative; and now, of course, its actions in Hong Kong—all indicate how China is pursuing a competing geopolitical agenda. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the forthcoming integrated review will address the growing long-term threat that China poses, and will he say how we can work with our allies, not least the United States?
Nigel Adams
Absolutely. I thank my right hon. Friend for the leadership he has shown in this policy area. We can demonstrate that we are taking both practical and diplomatic actions with regard to China. I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks about the more robust approach we are taking. I can confirm that the integrated review will very much reflect the broader strategy globally—the Indo-Pacific tilt, as it has been termed.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
First, may I thank the Minister and his officials for meeting me regarding the plight of young Hongkongers who are not BNO passport holders? Many of those young people have bravely demonstrated, and fear for their and their families’ futures. In answer to such questions in this House and elsewhere, the Minister has mentioned the youth mobility scheme. As he will be aware, there are only up to 800 places on that scheme, which is open for 48 hours in February, and they will be chosen by lottery—at random—by UK Visas and Immigration. Does he agree that leaving such matters to chance is not desirable? Will he work with me and others to implement a better scheme, ideally extending BNO passport status to all Hongkongers, regardless of age?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Lady for visiting the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office last week to discuss this issue. That offer has been made available to other parties and is very much available to the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith). I would have been meeting the Opposition spokesman on Asia this afternoon had it not been for this urgent question, but I am sure we will be able to get that re-diarised.
We have made a very compassionate and generous offer in terms of BNOs, which has been broadly welcomed. The existing youth mobility scheme is open to people in Hong Kong aged between 18 and 30. There are currently 1,000 places available each year. Dependants of relevant BNO passport holders are allowed to come here, and youngsters aged between 18 and 30 will be eligible to apply for those 1,000 places. Individuals from Hong Kong will also be able to apply to come to the UK under the terms of the UK’s new points-based system.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) [V]
First, does the Minister at least recognise that it is probably only a matter of time before we pull UK judges from Hong Kong courts? Secondly, will he at least condemn the actions of HSBC? Frankly, its directors should hang their heads in shame. HSBC is freezing the accounts of Hong Kong citizens fearing oppression, and this afternoon, it has started freezing the accounts of churches in Hong Kong. Thirdly, he said that the new national security law should not be used to oppress people. Maybe I misheard him, but is it not patently obvious that that is what it is now being used for?
Nigel Adams
There were quite a few questions there. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to apply for a Westminster Hall debate or some such; given his expertise in this area, that is probably not a bad idea. As I said, British judges have played an important role in supporting the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary for many years, and we want that to continue. If there were no independent judiciary in Hong Kong, that would naturally play into China’s hands.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
May I remind the Minister that we in this House have a sacred duty? I was a member of one of the many all-party delegations that went to Hong Kong to persuade residents that they should trust China to keep its obligations on one nation, two systems. We have that obligation. The fact is that this quelling of democracy in Hong Kong is only the beginning. President Xi is an enemy of democracy worldwide who believes in world power and global economic and political domination. He has to be stopped in Hong Kong, because if not, he will not be stopped elsewhere in the world.
Nigel Adams
I hear exactly what the hon. Gentleman says. I am not entirely sure what the question was, but the UK Government are fulfilling our moral and political obligation to ensure that China respects its obligations under the joint declaration. I urge him to look at the action that we have taken on the new immigration path for BNOs. We consistently raise our concerns, such as the ones mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, with the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities; the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office did so with the Chinese ambassador on 30 November.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
It is very clear that nothing that has been said in this place, by this Government or by any Government in the international community about the crisis in Hong Kong has had any effect whatever on the actions or intentions of the Chinese Government. Piece by piece, we are seeing the stripping away of the freedoms and liberties of the people of Hong Kong. Does the Minister recognise that there is a moment here when the international community needs to do more? It is not about turning up the rhetoric and getting more bellicose in our statements. It is about practical action that shows the Chinese Government that we are serious, and makes them feel some of the pain that the people of Hong Kong are feeling right now.
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. In terms of international action, that is exactly why we and 38 other countries at the UN General Assembly in New York joined in our statement, which expressed deep concern at the situation in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang. The United Kingdom will continue to bring together international partners to stand up for the people of Hong Kong. It is absolutely imperative that we speak up and call out the violation of their freedoms, and that we hold China to account for its international obligations.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
This House watches with sadness any reduction of the freedom of expression—guaranteed under the joint declaration—in Hong Kong, although, as the Minister confirmed, these sentences were not under the new security law. Does my hon. Friend agree that Hong Kong’s importance as a centre of international business hinges on its independent rule of common law, in which UK and other Commonwealth judges play a key role; that, without that, the system of one country, two systems, which Deng Xiaoping and Margaret Thatcher pledged would endure for 50 years, would be sadly weakened; and that we should not lightly make things worse for the people of Hong Kong?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this point. I agree that the assault on Hong Kong’s autonomy, rights and freedoms tarnishes China’s international reputation. The prosperity of Hong Kong and its way of life relies on respect for those fundamental freedoms, an independent judiciary and the rule of law. We have been vocal and practical in standing up for the people of Hong Kong, and will continue to do so.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
China’s human rights track record is extremely distressing. From the gross human rights violations against the Uyghurs to the senseless arrest of peaceful protesters in Hong Kong, is it not high time that the Government followed in the footsteps of Canada and the USA and applied Magnitsky sanctions as a matter of urgency against perpetrators of human rights abuses in mainland China and Hong Kong? Just today, eight students were arrested for protesting peacefully on a university campus. What reassurance can the Minister provide that the Government will be doing everything they can to prevent further arrests of young activists in Hong Kong?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is right. We are deeply concerned about the situation this morning with the students in Hong Kong. The FCDO was carefully considering further designations under our global human rights regime, which we introduced in July. We will gather and keep under close review all the evidence and the potential listings.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Many of my constituents in Redcar and Cleveland have contacted me in support of the people of Hong Kong. In this country we have historic ties and responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong, so can my hon. Friend assure me that we will never look the other way while China undermines the joint declaration it agreed to?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We made a historic commitment to the people of Hong Kong to protect their autonomy, rights and freedoms. We have highlighted China’s breaches of the joint declaration three times since 1997, the first being in 2016, the second in June of this year when China introduced the national security law, and the third, most recently, in November, with the imposition of rules to disqualify legislators in Hong Kong. We will continue to hold China to the obligations it freely assumed under international law.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) for gaining this urgent question.
HSBC stands accused, yet again, of colluding in the implementation of the national security law in Hong Kong. Do the Minister and their Government agree with this point, and if so, what are they going to do about it?
Nigel Adams
As I said, the Foreign Secretary has made it very clear that businesses will make their own legitimate calls. We do not comment on issues relating to individual companies. However, the world will see that these companies will be making their own calls in this regard. We have made a historic commitment to the people of Hong Kong to protect their autonomy and freedom—and it is worth pointing out, yet again, that so has China.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
The people of Hong Kong were supposed to be protected by the Sino-British joint declaration, which consists of eight tenets, including a specific commitment to rights and freedoms such as those of the person, free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly and association. This declaration was subsequently registered with the UN as a legally binding international treaty that remains in force today. The Minister said that the issue of China’s abuse has been raised three times at the UN. Is it not now time to build a consensus among the 38 nations to ensure that sanctions are imposed on China that have a dramatic effect on the country and make it take notice? The only way for Hong Kong to survive is for the one country, two systems framework to succeed.
Nigel Adams
We are building, and have built, that international coalition with 38 other countries, and that is why the statement has been made at the UN. My hon. Friend refers to sanctions. I know that right hon. and hon. Members here today are very keen to know which sanctions this Government are considering under our regulations, but I am afraid that I am going to have to repeat that it is not appropriate to speculate. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for almost repeating my line. But this is an absolutely serious point: whoever is designated under the sanctions regime, it is not right to speculate on it, as to do so would reduce the impact of these designations. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Not too many conversations across the Chamber, please. We need to move on fairly promptly to the next piece of business, because a lot of speakers wish to contribute to that, so before we go to Sarah Champion, I make a brief plea for concise questions and answers.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
Pro-democracy campaigner and owner of Apple Daily newspaper, Jimmy Lai, is a British citizen, so can the Minister confirm that he is receiving consular assistance? Does he believe that denying a 73-year-old man bail is proportionate or fair for allegedly breaking the terms of a lease? What conversations is he having with Carrie Lam about the use of the law in this manner?
Nigel Adams
We regularly raise our concerns directly with the Hong Kong authorities in this regard. We are very concerned about the arrest of Jimmy Lai and others. Normally, we do not provide consular assistance to dual nationals in the country of their other nationality. China does not recognise dual nationality. It is therefore impossible to be granted permission to provide consular assistance.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Joshua Wong has been imprisoned for over a year for participating in an unauthorised protest. Under the Government’s current immigration rules, that would bar him from being able to claim asylum. Will the Minister commit to following the Canadian Government and ensuring that such charges are not a barrier to vulnerable activists being able to claim asylum in the UK?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady makes a very good point, one I think I answered earlier in response to the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who asked this urgent question. It would seem rather perverse if somebody involved in pro-democracy demonstrations were unable to claim asylum.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
China passed domestic law unilaterally to break the joint declaration. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the unilateral passing of domestic laws can never be an excuse to break international laws and agreements? [Laughter.]
Nigel Adams
I see what my right hon. Friend did there. All I would say is that we continue to raise our concerns with regard to Hong Kong and the way the joint declaration is effectively being abandoning. We consistently raise our concerns with the Hong Kong authorities, not least by bringing in the Chinese ambassador to be called by the permanent under-secretary.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister outline how he is offering support to the peaceful pro-democracy stand against what many claim is Beijing aggression? Does he believe we are fulfilling our moral and political obligation to do our utmost to ensure that China respects its obligations under the Sino-British joint declaration? Respectfully, I believe we can and must do more, and that a reaction to this sentencing will be telling by itself.
Nigel Adams
Again, the hon. Gentleman is no stranger to championing this cause. I do think we are fulfilling our moral and political obligation to ensure that China respects its obligations under the joint declaration. As he will be aware, this is in line with our new immigration path. We have suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
In light of the long-standing close relations between this country and Hong Kong, will my hon. Friend assure me that he remains committed to welcoming the holders of British national overseas passports to our shores if China continues these assaults on Hong Kong’s freedom?
Nigel Adams
Very much so. My hon. Friend is correct. We will continue to welcome people from Hong Kong. In fact, the route will open on 31 January 2021 for BNOs. It is a new immigration route and a major change to the UK immigration system. It will afford all those with BNO status, and their immediate family dependents, the right to live, work or study in the UK, and give them a path to full citizenship.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
This is so frustrating. We gather every fortnight and we all say all the same things from all the Back Benches, and the Minister says all the same things from the Front Bench about how he cannot speculate and how it would be terrible to actually do anything. The truth of the matter is that we are allowing the Chinese Government endlessly to ratchet up the repression against the people of Hong Kong. Now, we even have British-based banks co-operating in that. For the avoidance of doubt, can I make it clear to the Minister that I do not want him to speculate about using the Magnitsky sanctions, I want him to use them? Secondly, surely to God the least we can do as a British Government is bring in the chairman and chief executive of HSBC and say, “You must not co-operate with oppression in China.”
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is important that sanctions are developed responsibly and on the basis of evidence. We are, as I have said numerous times, carefully considering further designations. I will not use the word he refers to. It is not appropriate to second-guess who may be designated in the future, because, as I have said many times, it could reduce the impact of designations.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I am concerned that young Hong Kong demonstrators do not have BNO passports. Can my hon. Friend confirm that they will be eligible to apply for asylum in the UK, and that we will look on those claims favourably?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right to raise that. People are entitled to apply for asylum—that is, if they are outside their country and they fear that they could be in danger if they return.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
Countries such as Australia and New Zealand, for example, have largely clear and relatively consistent strategies on China. The UK’s position can at best be described as reactive and pretty thin. When can the Minister provide further detail of the actual strategy that the FCDO is adopting to press the Chinese state to grow within the international rules-based order and with respect for human rights?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but, as I have said previously in this session, our strategy is demonstrated by our action. We have taken both practical and diplomatic action with regards to Hong Kong; we also take international action and bring together our international partners, including Australia and New Zealand, to whom she refers. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is not in his place, when the integrated review is published it will very much reflect the broader strategy globally.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The legally binding joint declaration was signed by China as well as the UK and makes clear that Hong Kong will have a high degree of autonomy. Does my hon. Friend agree that China must respect that, and will he assure the House that the UK will redouble its efforts with international partners to ensure that China does not just hear words of condemnation, but feels appropriate acts that demonstrate our disdain for these despicable attacks on democracy?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. We consistently raise our concerns with the Chinese authorities, and the Hong Kong authorities as well. As I referred to earlier, we have raised our concerns at the UN, where 38 countries joined our statement on 6 October expressing our deep concern about Hong Kong, and we will continue to bring together international partners in that regard to stand up for all Hongkongers.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
What support is the UK Foreign Office offering to BNO passport holders who have been arrested by Chinese state authorities, and how are consular officials providing advice to BNO passport holders being held in Chinese prisons?
Nigel Adams
As I said in a previous answer, China does not recognise dual citizenship. Therefore, gaining access to provide consular assistance to BNOs is nigh-on impossible.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for all he has said so far today. Does he join me in welcoming the fact that already this year 216,000 BNO passports have been issued to Hong Kong residents, more than in any other year from 1997 to this point?
Nigel Adams
It is absolutely right that my hon. Friend raises that. From July 2020, BNO citizens and their dependants have been eligible to be granted six months’ leave outside the rules at the border to the UK. From 15 July to 14 October 2020, that number was over 2,115. My understanding is that it is now up towards 3,500, but obviously the data is not necessarily a reliable proxy for the number that may apply for the visa when it opens in January.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
My hon. Friend will know that sanctions and other actions are effective only if large groups of countries join in with them, so what steps is he taking to mobilise the broadest and biggest coalition of international support to demonstrate freedom for Hong Kong and ensure that China understands that the actions it is taking are totally unacceptable?
Nigel Adams
There is no greater sign of international co-operation than when we managed to get 38 other countries to join us for a statement at the UN General Assembly, to express our deep concern about the situation in Hong Kong. We will continue to work on international partnerships in that regard.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Our hearts go out to those who have been imprisoned in pursuit of their human rights, but they deserve more than that. They deserve to be remembered in our trade and in our purchases. Will the Minister support the human rights amendment to the Trade Bill, which is currently in the other place, and will he say how he will prevent companies that facilitate human rights abuses from being integrated into our supply chains?
Nigel Adams
We have made clear that companies should absolutely do their due diligence in terms of their supply chains. I do not think that the amendment to the Bill in the other place is the correct vehicle for such a provision. That is very much a technical Bill, and without its passing in good order we will not be able to take action on things such as the dumping of Chinese steel. The Bill is not the right vehicle, but other potential vehicles may be suitable.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I am deeply concerned by these sentences, as are the people of South Ribble, who share my concerns about the trend of Hong Kong authorities targeting pro-democracy activists. Will the Minister join me in urging the Hong Kong and Beijing authorities to stop this insidious campaign to stifle political opposition?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend could not be more correct in what she has said, and we are deeply concerned about the ongoing arrests, even as late as today. They are being used as a pretext to silence opposition, which is outrageous, and as I have said, we continue to raise our concerns directly with the authorities in China and Hong Kong. As they will have heard today, we as a Parliament are on the same page, and we are urging China to uphold the rights and freedoms that are protected in the joint declaration to which it is a signatory.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question. We will now have a three-minute suspension for the safe exit and entry of right hon. and hon. Members.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Monday 7th December 2020
(4 years ago)
Commons 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: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 7 December 2020 - (7 Dec 2020)
20:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 359 / Noes: 265 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:06 - The House divided: - Ayes: 360 / Noes: 265 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:23 - The House divided: - Ayes: 357 / Noes: 268 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 359 / Noes: 55 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 48, 49 and 50. If any Lords amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Having given careful consideration to Lords amendment 50, which refers to state aid and the Office for the Internal Market, Mr Speaker is satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 14 September. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendment is therefore deemed to be disagreed to and is not available for debate.
After Clause 1
Common frameworks process
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 2 to 7.
Lords amendments 8 to 19, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendment 20 to 29.
Lords amendments 30 to 34, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 35 to 41.
Lords amendment 42, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 43, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) to the words so restored to the Bill.
Lords amendments 44 to 57, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 58 to 60.
Lords amendment 61, and Government motion to disagree.
Paul Scully
This Bill has generated a lot of debate in both Houses, and rightly so. It is a Bill that is vital in providing certainty for businesses and for protecting the Union. It is a Bill that allows the continuing smooth functioning of our UK internal market at the end of the transition period. Our approach will give businesses regulatory clarity and certainty and ensure that the cost of doing business in the UK stays as low as possible, and it will do so without damaging and costly regulatory barriers emerging between the nations of the United Kingdom.
In the other place, the Government and peers had good discussions and debates on the principle behind the Bill, and they have come to very reasonable proposals in some areas. It is right that both Houses work constructively to scrutinise and improve legislation, and the Government are therefore accepting a number of Lords amendments. That is why the Government are disappointed that in some cases amendments put forward by the other place would do the opposite and generate more ambiguity and uncertainty. Other amendments put forward go further, in hampering the Government’s ability to protect the Union and our internal market, to level up the country and to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the end of the transition period. That is why today the Government are disagreeing with a series of amendments, to which I will now turn.
Regarding Lords amendments 1, 19 and 34, the other place and Her Majesty’s Opposition in this House have been clear about their strong support for common frameworks. I am pleased to hear that, because the UK Government are strongly committed to them as well. Joint work with the devolved Administrations to develop common frameworks is progressing well, and the first three frameworks are currently undergoing parliamentary scrutiny. The common frameworks programme represents successful joint working, ensuring that our shared objectives of making coherent policy, upholding high standards and supporting the distinct needs of each part of the UK can advance as one. They are evidence of our mutual respect for devolution.
I am pleased that work is well under way on the 33 frameworks that we expect to conclude jointly with the devolved Administrations. Thirty of those will be provisionally agreed by the end of 2020 and will then be scrutinised by Parliament and the devolved legislatures. A small number are likely to clear scrutiny by the end of the transition period, at which point they will become full frameworks.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is good that the Minister recognises the importance of common frameworks. All four nations of the United Kingdom have agreed a common framework on an emissions trading system, so why is the Treasury now considering imposing a carbon emissions tax instead, against the wishes of the devolved Administrations? Surely that does not respect common frameworks.
Paul Scully
Discussions on that are ongoing and it is right that we have them. On the common frameworks, the devolved Administrations and representatives of England in the UK Parliament have made their views well known.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We have a strong agrifood sector in Northern Ireland. There needs to be an understanding between the Northern Ireland Assembly and this place, to ensure that our agrifood sector can continue to expand and sell its products around the world. Will the Minister reassure us that that will happen and that nothing will hinder it?
Paul Scully
The whole purpose of this is that we can get the internal market right. We do not want to hamper any business, wherever it is in the UK, from being able to trade overseas with the opportunities afforded by global Britain at the end of the transition phase and beyond.
I want to make progress because I want to get across some detail and allow other Members to have their say. The common framework programme was never designed to be an all-encompassing solution to the maintenance of the internal market. This Bill will instead provide the additional legislative protection to internal UK trade, which is required for business certainty. As an aside, I note that half of the active frameworks have little or no interactions with this Bill, as they do not pertain to the internal market. That has sometimes been forgotten in recent debates.
The flexibility that underpins the framework programme is key to its success. It was set up in 2017 with an objective to manage regulatory coherence in specific devolved policy areas of returning EU law. While the frameworks are envisaged in very high-level terms in schedule 3 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, they are taken forward by voluntary agreement, which is the reason why neither the UK Government nor the devolved Administrations have so far felt the need to codify the common frameworks process in legislation. I thank the noble and learned Lord Hope for his considered contributions to the debate and for his thoughtful amendments to the Bill. However, while the Government have carefully considered the arguments made in both Houses about putting common frameworks on the face of the Bill, we feel that that may not sit well with the flexible and voluntary nature of the common frameworks programme.
In addition to their voluntary nature, we must also bear in mind that the current frameworks are jointly owned by the devolved Administrations. Any proposal to legislate them into this Bill would need to take into account their involvement in the programme overall. I am therefore concerned that the Lords amendments would automatically disapply mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles. This would create a very broad exclusions regime and uncertainty for businesses and consumers over the terms of trade within which they are operating. That is clearly not in keeping with the aim of this Bill, which is to provide maximum certainty and a stable trading environment.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I will just take the Minister back to his statement that the common frameworks were never supposed to be all-encompassing in relation to the internal market, because I am looking at the Joint Ministerial Committee communiqué from 16 October 2017, which says in its first principle that the common frameworks were to be
“established where they are necessary in order to…enable the functioning of the UK internal market”
The Government have gone back on that, have they not?
Paul Scully
The hon. and learned Lady will note that the document states “where…necessary”. As I said earlier, many of the common frameworks do not relate to the internal market. That was my point exactly.
It is a core point that none of us should wish to see internal barriers to trade erected inside our country to the detriment of jobs and growth. We have been clear in the other place about how we see the common frameworks programme and the market access principles interreacting with this point at the heart of the argument. While common frameworks are jointly owned, the UK’s full internal market regime can only be owned by the UK Government and overseen by the UK Parliament.
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) looks forward to completing the delivery of the common frameworks programme, discussing further with our partners in the devolved Administrations and the devolved legislatures how we can capitalise on working ahead through common frameworks and put these areas of co-operation on a sustainable footing for the longer term to the benefit of citizens and businesses. We welcome the support of right hon. and hon. Members in achieving that, but we have been clear that amendments 1, 19 and 34 are not necessary and have considerable drawbacks. I therefore call on the House to disagree with them.
To speak to Lords amendments 8 to 13, 15, 16 to 18, 30 to 33 and 56, the Government have taken positive steps to reach a compromise position that balances concern about delegated powers with the ability of the Government to act to protect our internal market. The Government have already made significant steps. We have removed the power, which is no longer considered essential, for the operation of flexibility in the internal market system. We have made further changes on transparency and accountability, such as a review mechanism on the use of such powers. In the other place, we tabled amendments to require consultation with the devolved Administrations before the use of key powers, reflecting our previous commitments. However, once consultation is undertaken, the right place for final decisions should be back in Parliament where parliamentarians from all parts of the UK can debate and vote on the proposed use of the powers. The Government are therefore disappointed by the decision in the other place.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
My understanding is that the Welsh Senedd will vote tomorrow to decline to approve the legislative consent motion for the Bill. Does that not indicate the problem with the British Government’s approach to consent? Consent means nothing without the power of veto.
Paul Scully
If the Welsh Assembly decides that way, that will be regrettable—[Interruption.] The Welsh Senedd. It will be regrettable, because it is important that we continue to work together and allow continuity of trade and business between Wales, Welsh businesses and, indeed, the other nations of the UK. That is what Welsh businesses have been asking us for as we have been talking to them. They want certainty, and this Bill will give them certainty.
The Government are disappointed that the other place did not take up our reasonable offer and removed key provisions needed to ensure the operation of the internal market.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Minister not accept that for places such as Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, common standards that allow free trade between those parts of the United Kingdom and their main market, which is probably in England, are an advantage to everyone? The provisions in the Bill should not scare or frighten anybody.
Paul Scully
The right hon. Gentleman puts it correctly. When I have spoken to businesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they have agreed with businesses in England. The main market for so many of these businesses is within the United Kingdom. We talk about global Britain, but we have to make sure that we have our internal market right. The opportunities for business, including those in Northern Ireland, are absolutely at the heart of this Bill, and I appreciate his intervention.
Removing the powers that I have outlined would make it difficult for the Government to respond to businesses and the wider stakeholder feedback and act rapidly to respond to changes in the UK internal market due to the shifting economic landscape. The other place also added in conflicting, inconsistent amendments accepting our consultation offer, but also adding consent mechanisms.
Moreover, the other place’s three amendments 12, 13 and 56 introduce a new system for excluding requirements from market access principles, based on a long list of legitimate aims. This new clause would render the protections in part 1 almost meaningless. The regulator or legislator could justify a very wide variety of discriminatory measures using the justifications in the new clause. It would result in uncertainty as to what is in scope and leave little protection from regulatory barriers for businesses operating across the whole of the UK. However, the door remains open to the other place to reconsider, and we have kept our offer on the table.
I will turn now to Lords amendments 48 and 49. Clauses 48 and 49 support the Government’s determination to deliver the commitments on which we were elected—levelling up and delivering prosperity for the whole United Kingdom and strengthening the ties that bind our Union together. They provide for a unified power that operates consistently UK-wide.
Paul Scully
I will just make progress for a minute.
The power will allow for strategic investment throughout the UK, underpinning the United Kingdom Government’s determination to see all parts of the UK flourish. It will make sure that we can deliver UK-wide replacements for EU funds, including meeting our manifesto commitment to replace EU structural funds, and allowing the UK Government to invest directly to support communities and businesses across all four parts of the UK.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Can the Minister explain how this can be strategic investment if the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament have no say in arranging it?
Paul Scully
As we said in the last debate in this place, this is complementary to existing spending powers in Wales and Scotland. We will always look to work for the good of the people there, which will reflect—undoubtedly, I am sure, on so many occasions, if not all occasions—the mood and direction from their elected politicians in the Senedd.
We need to make sure that we can deliver the UK-wide replacements for EU funds, including meeting our manifesto commitment to replace EU structural funds and deliver the UK shared prosperity fund, which will allow the UK Government to invest directly to support communities and businesses across all four parts of the UK. Previously in many of these areas, the EU mandated how our money had to be spent, with little say from elected representatives in the United Kingdom. The UK Government intend to take a much more collaborative approach in delivering any funding that replaces EU programmes.
The UK Government remain committed to working collaboratively with key partners, including devolved Administrations, in the provision of financial assistance under this power. Let me be clear that this power is in addition to the devolved Administrations’ existing powers. It will allow the United Kingdom Government to complement and strengthen the support given to citizens, businesses and communities in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. It does not take away responsibilities from the devolved Administrations.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The frustration at this utter confusion is that this actually circumvents the devolution settlement. Devolution has been in place for some 20 years, and it is Ministers in Wales who have been working with the European Union on how European funding is allocated within projects in Wales. This new system removes the decision making from Welsh Ministers and circumvents the devolution that has existed for more than 20 years. Can the Minister not understand the frustration on the Opposition Benches and the bewilderment of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers about why they are just not being consulted on priority projects in Wales and any of the other nations of the UK?
Paul Scully
I can understand the frustration if that is the wilful misinterpretation of what is actually happening. The EU mandates so much of this spending before it gets to the Welsh Senedd, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly and, indeed, here in England, from where we are speaking, but we will work collaboratively to ensure that so many of those concerns are met.
We are disappointed as a Government that the other place has decided to take out the power and hamper the Government’s ability to level up the country and drive investments into all parts of the UK. These Lords amendments also alter the financial arrangements made in this House, and I therefore call on this House to disagree with them.
Turning to Lords amendment 51, I emphasise the importance of the UK continuing to take a clear and consistent approach to subsidy control as we move away from EU state aid rules. The Government have always been clear in our view that the regulation of state aid and the EU’s approach to subsidy control is a reserved matter. This reservation does not change the devolved Administrations’ position in practice. The devolved Administrations have never previously been able to set their own subsidy control rules, as this was covered by the EU state aid framework, but they will continue to make their own spending decisions on subsidies, as they do currently. The effect of the amendment would be to create unacceptable uncertainty regarding the extent to which subsidy control is a reserved or devolved competence. This would potentially give rise to inconsistency if there were different regimes to regulate subsidies across the UK. Ultimately, that could undermine fair and open competition across our internal market, inevitably discouraging investment in the UK, bringing additional costs to supply chains and consumers.
This reservation will enable the UK to design a bespoke subsidy control regime that meets the needs of the UK economy. The Government have been clear that any future domestic regime will operate in a way that works best for all UK businesses, workers and consumers. In the coming months, we intend to publish a consultation on whether we should go further than our World Trade Organisation and international commitments, including whether further legislation is necessary. The House should therefore disagree with this amendment.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister will appreciate, having had some hand in the amendments, that I have an interest in this matter. He will have seen that a statement has been put out by the Government—following the meeting of the Joint Committee earlier today—in which they undertake that they would, in effect, remove clause 44 and deactivate clauses 45 and 47, which were the subject of some concern in this place. Will he confirm that that is the case? Will he also confirm that were there to be any like clauses included in the taxation (post-transition period) Bill, which may come before us, they should, at the very least, be subject to the same parliamentary lock as was inserted in this Bill, if they were to be required at all?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for his contributions not just here and now, but in the earlier stages of this Bill, which allowed for that important lock. The taxation Bill and this Bill work in lockstep as well, and I can confirm his interpretation. I will come on to that in a second regarding the statement earlier today.
After the transition period ends, Northern Ireland will and must remain fully integrated with the UK’s internal market. There should be nothing controversial about that. The protocol expressly recognises that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK’s customs territory and qualifying Northern Ireland goods will enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK market. We will never accept additional burdens or barriers on goods moving from Birmingham to London, and neither should we accept those on goods moving from Belfast to Liverpool. Moreover, clause 46 would codify in legislation the existing practice where state aid is notified to the European Commission by the Foreign Secretary via the UK mission in Brussels.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for the commitment he has made about goods travelling from GB to Northern Ireland. Can he tell us whether the same assurance will be in place for all goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB?
Paul Scully
I can indeed.
Part 5 of the Bill contains vital provisions to ensure that this will always be the case, whatever the outcome of our negotiations within the EU. Since these clauses were originally introduced, the UK and EU have worked constructively together through the withdrawal agreement Joint Committee discussions, which continue to progress, and final decisions are expected in the coming days. I can confirm today that if the solutions being considered in those discussions are agreed, the UK Government will be prepared to remove clause 44, concerning export declarations, from the Bill. The UK Government would also be prepared to deactivate clauses 45 and 47, concerning state aid, such that they could be used only when consistent with the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under international law.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I wonder whether the Minister could reflect on two points. First, I am relatively new to this place, but my understanding is that there has not been a bigger vote in the other place against a proposal from this House for many decades, if not centuries. Secondly, does he recognise that the majority of people and businesses in Northern Ireland want to see the solutions he set out work through the Joint Committee and not through any breach of international law? It is important that there should be a solid legal framework to enable businesses in Northern Ireland to conduct their affairs.
Paul Scully
Indeed, we all want this to be dealt with through the Joint Committee. That is why the discussions are continuing, and that is why, in these crucial hours of negotiations between the UK and the EU, we wish them well in that regard.
Sir Robert Neill
I will not trespass on the Minister’s time again, but will he confirm that the deactivation of clause 47 would remove one of the areas—the “notwithstanding” clauses—that caused most concern, particularly to legal commentators? Does he agree that that is a significant gesture of good faith on the part of Her Majesty’s Government’s and that it will hopefully remove some of the real concerns that have, for legitimate reasons, been expressed in other places? Does he agree that this demonstrates that we want to find a constructive way forward?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is right again. I know the debate that has surrounded the “notwithstanding” clauses, and it is important that we work in collaboration and partnership as we do these difficult negotiations, but, ultimately, that is where we want to solve these problems, rather than having to legislate for them in the first place. As I say, we will deactivate them when we get to the point that that is consistent with the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under international law. While we are hopeful of success, it is only prudent that until such time as the discussions have successfully concluded, we retain these clauses in their current form as a fall-back option.
As has been said many times, the Government are fully committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, and we have already taken many practical steps to do this, but these clauses will ensure that, irrespective of the outcome of our negotiations with the EU on implementation of the protocol, we will always protect Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. They will ensure that businesses based in Northern Ireland have unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom and that there is no legal confusion or ambiguity in UK law about the interpretation of the state aid elements of the Northern Ireland protocol.
Sammy Wilson
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I just want to get some clarification. Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol makes it quite clear that where the protocol does serious economic, societal or environmental damage to Northern Ireland, the Government have the right to act unilaterally. If this clause is to be removed and set aside, how will the Government be able to take unilateral action if changes in the protocol or demands from the EU do the kind of damage that is outlined in article 16?
Paul Scully
As I have said before in regard to these clauses, the changes that we set out in a statement earlier today work on the assumption that we have had success in the discussions and that we can solve this elsewhere. We hope that the “notwithstanding” clauses will never have to be used, and we understand the concerns that have been raised. Making regulations of this nature would not be done lightly. That is why, before this clause is commenced, this House, as we have discussed, will be asked specifically to approve a motion to that effect, and the other place will hold a take note debate. Any regulations made under this clause would be subject to the affirmative or made affirmative procedure, meaning that they will be subject to debates requiring a vote in both Houses.
Moreover, as the Prime Minister has made clear, in addition to taking these steps in domestic law, if we had to make it clear that we believed the EU was engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith as required and provided for under the withdrawal agreement and the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, we would seek an arbitration panel and consider safeguards under article 16 of the protocol in parallel. We must ensure that, in any scenario, we are upholding the economic integrity of the United Kingdom, maintaining the Belfast or Good Friday agreement and the gains of the peace process and protecting the delicate balance between communities in Northern Ireland.
These “notwithstanding” clauses are a limited and reasonable step that create a safety net to enable those aims to be met. They ensure that the UK Government can always act as necessary to protect and maintain our UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s integral place in it. That is entirely in keeping with what the Government have constantly said, including in public commitments from the Prime Minister, our manifesto commitments and our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland. That is why the Government cannot agree with the Lords amendments, which would remove what was part 5, and why I urge hon. Members to disagree with the Lords amendments and restore the critical provisions in full.
Ian Paisley
I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene in this way. Does he welcome the comments made by the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr Coveney, who said that, essentially, all the commentary for the past three years on erecting borders on the island of Ireland was basically a game of bluff by the Irish Republic? Does he welcome the fact that it has now conceded that point?
Paul Scully
I have not heard those words, so I will not comment on them. There has been a lot of commentary, but what is important is the reality. Northern Irish businesses want the certainty offered by this Bill and the unfettered access to the GB market.
I emphasise that the Government has been reasonable, and will continue to be reasonable, in discussions on this Bill. We have made many positive changes to the Bill and they are on the table, but the Government need to balance this with the need to deliver a Bill that provides the certainty that businesses want and need to invest and create jobs, to maintain high standards and choice for consumers while keeping prices down, to ensure that the Government can continue to continue to level up the whole of the United Kingdom and strengthen our precious Union, and, ultimately, to preserve the UK internal market that has been an engine of growth and prosperity for centuries.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Colleagues will see that there are a large number of right hon. and hon. Members who want to contribute to this debate. If we have any chance of getting them in, I will have to start with an immediate five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, but that may well have to go down.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be opposite the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). This big Bill began its life with the Prime Minister, then the Secretary of State and now it is a pleasure to be opposite him. I must say that I have enormous respect for him, but I did feel that I was living in a parallel universe when I heard him this afternoon. This Bill has been absolutely savaged in the other place. It has been absolutely savaged not just on international law, but on devolution as well, not just by Opposition parties, not just by Cross-Benchers, not simply by the former Lord Chief Justice or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but by the heart of the Conservative party—by Lord Howard, Lord Hague, Lord Clarke, Lord Cormack, Lord Lamont, and Lord Barwell, the former chief of staff to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) laughs from a sedentary position. He may not consider him exactly Conservative, but he is a Conservative peer. Believe it or not, Madam Deputy Speaker, even the Duke of Wellington spoke out against this Bill. I gather that he has recently left the Conservative party—and who can blame him?—but nevertheless, he said this:
“In a single piece of proposed legislation, the Government have managed to antagonise almost everyone, including a multitude of counterparties and international public opinion.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1342.]
The Duke of Wellington is right, and given his family history around our relationship with Europe, he is in a position to know. That is why we saw the largest defeat in a generation on this Bill, including 44 Conservative peers, seven former Conservative Cabinet Ministers and many other former Ministers.
I make that point because I think we heard the beginnings of the grinding wheels of the climbdown in what the Minister was saying. After three months of posturing, undermining our reputation in the world, today, an hour before the debate begins, we perhaps see some preparations for the brakes being applied before we go over the cliff. I am not going to give the Government any credit for that, and I do not take their word for it either. The one thing that this whole sorry saga has shown the world beyond any doubt is that this Government’s word is not their bond—they cannot be trusted, because they are willing to rip up international agreements they made less than a year ago.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I was going to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on endorsing the hereditary principle, which I did not know he was such a big supporter of. The real question I want to ask him is, what should a state do if it finds that its obligations under one treaty conflict with those under another treaty or its own constitutional law?
Edward Miliband
As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) says, do not sign it, but I make another point. This is an agreement that the Government signed, and as the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) exposed, under article 16 of the protocol, there is not only a Joint Committee set up but a capacity for unilateral action in the case of social and economic disruption. He asked whether the protection will still be in place for unilateral action if these clauses go away—I can answer him, since the Minister did not: yes, they will still be in place, because they were in place all along. This has all been a completely unnecessary charade.
It is not just on international law that this Bill was savaged; it was savaged on devolution as well. This is very important, because it goes to the heart of the way we are governed as a country and the heart of our future as a country. Like the Government, the Opposition believe in our United Kingdom, but many people—including Conservatives—feel that this Bill deeply undermines devolution. Let us just listen to Lord Dunlop. For the benefit of the House, Lord Dunlop is the Government’s devolution guru—he is the guy advising the Government on devolution. He describes the Bill as
“an unnecessarily heavy-handed approach to balancing the demands of free trade within the UK with respect for the roles and responsibilities of devolved institutions.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1336.]
He also says that the Government should
“think long and hard before overturning…on the back of Conservative votes alone, any sensible changes”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 585.]
made to the Bill on devolution. So on devolution and international law, the Bill has been savaged.
Something has changed in Government on the Bill during the last three months. The truth is that the top brass of Government are running a million miles from the Bill, not just on international law but on devolution as well. We learned a few days ago from the very reliable Paul Waugh that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has some thoughts on the Bill. He wrote:
“Even some Whitehall officials were baffled why the bill was drafted in the first place.”
He went on:
“Sources tell me that Gove has been looking at ways to either amend the devolution section of the bill, or ditch it altogether. If the whole bill is quietly left”—
Edward Miliband
The hon. Gentleman says that that is completely untrue. I hope it is true, in the following sense: unless we remove the provisions in the Bill on lawbreaking and amend the provisions on devolution, we are massively undermining the Union, because as I will explain, we are departing from the principles of shared governance that we have developed over 20 years.
It is not surprising that the Government top brass are running from this Bill. Has it succeeded in improving our international standing? No—it has been calamitous, embarrassing and toxic for our international reputation. President-elect Biden, among others, is deeply concerned about the Bill. Has it succeeded in upholding and strengthening the United Kingdom, which I know the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) supports? No, it has not—it has given a stick with which those who want to undermine the United Kingdom can beat the Government.
Has the Bill succeeded in getting the Brexit deal that the Government told us it would hasten? Remember what they said—that it would show we were standing up to the EU, show that we meant business and face them down. This is a very important day to be talking about this issue. Where is the deal then, less than a month before the end of the transition period? Where is the deal? As a country, we desperately need a deal for business, workers and our economy. It is 12 weeks since this piece of legislation had its Second Reading and still no deal has been struck. And on this of all days the Government choose to bring this Bill back to the House. Our message to the Government is simple: deliver the deal that they said was oven-ready so that business can plan, even in these short weeks. Deliver what was promised.
Let me turn to the detail of the Lords amendments from the Opposition point of view. I start by going back to the issue of the rule of law. As I said, Members across all parties in the other place worked together to defeat the Government on part 5 of the Bill. I cannot do any better than Lord Howard—I have never said that before—who said:
“I do not want”
the UK
“to be an independent sovereign state that chooses as one of the first assertions of that sovereignty to break its word, to break the law and to renege on a treaty that it signed barely a year ago.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1295.]
That is not some remoaner, as I think the saying goes—it is not some person who voted remain; it is Lord Howard, a Brexiteer and the former leader of the Conservative party.
The House could instead listen to Lord Cormack, who said
“this is shameful; there is no other word for it. I am deeply ashamed that a Conservative Government should have embarked on this course.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1301.]
I am proud to be defending the rule of law.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to give way on that point?
Edward Miliband
It is always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman, so I shall.
Sir William Cash
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman recalls the fact that section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 was passed not only by the House of Commons—by 120 votes—but by the House of Lords itself. That contained the same principle regarding the notwithstanding arrangements specifically in relation to section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Edward Miliband
I think the hon. Gentleman and I have had this exchange before. The fact is that the reason this Bill has caused such concern—among five former Prime Ministers and all the people in the House of Lords I have mentioned—is that it will rip up a treaty that we signed. That message has been sent loud and clear around the world. As I said, there is already provision in article 16 of the protocol for unilateral action in the event of
“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”.
The provisions are not only wrong, then, but unnecessary.
I wish to deal with the “insurance policy” argument that has been put forward—the Minister used the term “safety net”. This legislation is not a safety net or an insurance policy; it is a trapdoor for us, and I will tell him why. Let us say that the worst happens and we fail to get a deal, and we then trigger these provisions. What then? We set off an escalating dispute with the EU, and we do not know where that dispute ends; we further alienate President-elect Biden and scupper any chances of a US trade deal; and we destabilise the politics of Northern Ireland. This is no insurance policy; it is a guarantee of the destabilisation of our country piled on to no deal—in other words, the very last thing the country needs. That is why we will vote to uphold the Lords amendments that keep part 5 out of the Bill.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Of course we all want agreement and we all want a trade deal, but what happens if relations break down? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, first and foremost, the Labour party is a Unionist party that believes 100% in the economic integrity of the United Kingdom and will not act as a poodle for nationalists? Can he give me an absolute guarantee that if relations break down and we reject this Bill, we will not be in a very difficult place in terms of the economic integrity of the United Kingdom?
Edward Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman and I agree absolutely about the United Kingdom, and I am now going to come on to why I have such fear about this Bill. I fear that it is ignorant and blundering on the most important question about the way in which we share power across the United Kingdom. My fear about that and about the Bill is that it has given those who want to undermine the United Kingdom a further weapon with which to do so. That is why I want to turn to the devolution aspects of the Bill.
I particularly want to put on record my thanks to Lord Hope, former Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General, for his work on the Bill. The common frameworks are a complex issue, but it is worth spending some time explaining them. The common frameworks process—the Government deserve some credit for this—was established in 2017 to enable us to agree high standards across the United Kingdom and manage any divergence in those standards. The problem with the Bill is that there is no mention of common frameworks. Instead, it provides a blunderbuss principle that the lowest standard in one jurisdiction is the standard for all, with no voice for the devolved nations.
Take the issue of single-use plastics, which is a very concrete example. The Welsh Government want to legislate to ban the use of single-use plastics, but the problem is that the Bill as it stands enables the UK Parliament to simply come along, without discussion and without a voice for the Welsh Government, and legislate to stop them doing that. In a written answer earlier this month, they said very clearly that they believe that they will not be able to make that legislation stick. The Bill in its current form allows the UK Government simply to undercut the powers of the devolved Administrations in key devolved areas, including the use of plastics, other environmental standards, animal welfare and other consumer standards. That is very serious, because the common frameworks are a way in which we can both secure high standards—this is the intention of Lord Hope—and manage divergence when it occurs across the United Kingdom.
Jonathan Edwards
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very valid point. Does he agree that the problem with the Bill is that it enables the British Government, through its control of the UK Parliament, to become like a boa constrictor around the devolved Parliaments, restricting their ability to act in the policy fields for which they have responsibility?
Edward Miliband
However we describe it, I do not believe that the Bill properly respects the principles of devolution. These are principles that we have developed in a very British way, in a sense, over the past 20 years or so. The principles of devolution are, I think, principles that it is crucial that we uphold. I ask the Minister to think again. He should think again, and should agree to Lord Hope’s amendments, which put the common frameworks into the Bill. It makes no sense that the Governments of the four nations have spent three years working on the common frameworks only for them to make no appearance in the Bill.
Then we have a related issue, which is that in the absence of legislation for the common frameworks—the Minister mentioned this—amendment 12 seeks a wider set of exclusions for market access principles. The reason for that is very simple. In the absence of common frameworks, the market access principles apply with very narrow exclusions—on human, animal and plant health, I think—so if the Government are not willing to agree on the common frameworks, another way forward would be to have broader exclusions that allowed the devolved nations to uphold their powers. This is very important. It is about whether powers that have been devolved over 20 years are effective or ineffective, and whether this Parliament can simply override them without a voice for the devolved nations. These are deeply serious issues, and I think that their importance is recognised by Conservatives such as Lord Dunlop.
Let us be absolutely clear what will happen if the old version of the Bill is restored and passed into law—this is a sort of prediction, but I am afraid that this is what will happen: this is a recipe for a constitutional punch-up within a very short period of the Bill’s becoming law. Frankly, if that does not happen naturally, it will be provoked by those who wish to have the punch-up. The Government will find themselves accused, rightly, of undermining the devolution settlement, and it would be a disaster for those who believe in the United Kingdom—and I think that includes the Government. The most generous interpretation is that the Government have been cavalier and have blundered into this. [Interruption.] Yes, that may be too generous. I hope that they will put it right.
Alan Brown
On that point, the national infrastructure strategy has just been published, and under the heading,
“changing how decisions are taken”,
it says:
“Increasing the UK government’s ability to invest directly in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland through the UK Internal Market Bill”.
Does that not just smack of, “We’ll spend the money and we’ll make the decisions, and it won’t be collaborative at all.”?
Edward Miliband
I think there is a very legitimate anxiety, which I hope the Minister will reflect on. Again, it was expressed in the Lords. Yes, the Government were defeated in the Lords—all Governments get defeated in the Lords at some point—but we are talking about unprecedented margins, because of the depth and breadth of concern among their lordships about the Bill, including on devolution. In a sense, because the Bill went through so quickly here, there was less time for us to discuss the devolution issues, and the focus was more on international law, but there is deep concern about this.
It is the same on state aid. We support a UK-wide state aid regime, but once again there was no mechanism in the Bill to engage with the devolved nations on setting out this regime. Again, the best that can be said is that maybe the Government have blundered in; the worst would be that they simply do not believe in giving power away when it comes to it in practice; they believe in holding it here. We cannot overestimate the seriousness of this collection of devolution issues. I believe deeply in the United Kingdom; the way we uphold it is by upholding the settlements of the last 20 years, and recognising that commitment to shared governance, but that is not what this Bill does.
Ian Paisley
I make this point very genuinely. Fidelity to devolution is now being expressed from the Dispatch Box, but Members from Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly ask: where that was six, eight or 12 months ago? The Labour party was prepared to ride roughshod over the views of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of abortion, and to impose laws on Northern Ireland that are there forever, even though the Northern Ireland Assembly has a completely different view from this House on those matters. This fidelity to devolution rings very hollow tonight in many houses in Northern Ireland.
Edward Miliband
The hon. Gentleman and I have known each other a long time, and if one looks at the record of Labour Members on the devolution settlement, and at everything that has happened over the past 20 years, I think we have absolutely shown fidelity to that devolution settlement in what we have done. [Interruption.] I will conclude because lots of Members wish to speak.
This not just a technical discussion about the Lords amendments; it is about a much deeper set of issues to do with what kind of country we want to be. We must be a country that is confident of our place in the world, and in working with others on the basis of shared democratic principles. We must be a country that stands up for the rule of law, and that recognises that we will be better governed if we share and devolve power, and do not hoard it at Westminster. The Bill achieves none of those things. Indeed, it undermines them. I am afraid that is a mark of cavalier government—cavalier with our international standing, cavalier with the law, and cavalier with the United Kingdom. Labour Members will fight for the values that our country needs, and I hope that as the Bill proceeds back—and, I suspect, forth—from the other place, the Government will listen and work with us in the national interest.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We will now have a time limit of five minutes.
Sir William Cash
When I read the account of proceedings in the House of Lords, I found that the Lords were very strong on assertion, but empty when it came to the question of argument. I found that rather disturbing, because, after all, they have potential power under the Parliament Acts. I also appreciate that, towards the end of the proceedings, in reference to the powers in part 5 of the Bill, and the clauses under discussion regarding “notwithstanding”, Lord Judge said:
“‘We may need these powers at some stage’. Maybe we will; I hope not.”
He then said that it would be
“open to the Government to come back to us, to Parliament, to put before us emergency legislation.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1431.]
The circumstances that we face could not be more important and relevant, and my view is that what he said effectively conceded the principle.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I was going to make exactly that point. Lord Judge, very respected as he is, basically conceded the principle that we might need “notwithstanding” provisions to overturn the provisions in the withdrawal agreement. We are not talking about the principle anymore; we are just talking about when it would be appropriate to introduce the provisions. They might as well be introduced now with the parliamentary safeguard that the Government have conceded.
Sir William Cash
More or less the same took place in my exchanges with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who said very much the same. There is a threshold beyond which it would be necessary for us to take such action. Without going into the detail, I just wanted to put those two things on the record.
The issue is, and basically always has been, about parliamentary sovereignty. In the UK context, this is an internal law of fundamental importance, as expressed in article 46 of the Vienna Convention. It is by virtue of parliamentary sovereignty that we have taken the line that we have. I certainly have taken that line on many occasions, including in my proposal for section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which I referred to earlier, and which has the whole concept of “notwithstanding” built into it. Section 7A of that Act also deals with direct effect. Given that the Act was passed with a large majority in the House of Commons, and then passed again in the House of Lords without any dissent of any description, I find it quite extraordinary that this has been turned into a matter of such fundamental anxiety, without any supporting argument that I have ever seen.
When I read the debates, I found there was a great deal of posturing going on. I understand the emotional concern of some people who are quite incapable of accepting that we have lawfully left the European Union; that a series of enactments were passed by both Houses; and that, on top of that, we had a general election—not to mention that under the Salisbury-Addison convention, it would be inconceivable, in the context of a general election manifesto, for the Lords to take a stand against these clauses if the House of Commons passed them again tonight, and perhaps again on another occasion.
Why do I say all this about constitutional and international law? I will deal with that very briefly. First, in my judgment, the European Union has breached article 184 of the withdrawal agreement, which is about negotiating in good faith. It has manifestly multiplied that fault over the past few days by refusing to accept the manner in which the negotiations have been conducted so far. There is also the question of its demand to retain power over crucial aspects of our sovereignty—both economic and relating to our national interest—as a precondition to concessions on trade.
The EU has also, in my judgment, breached article 184 on the basis of the recognition, as it puts it, of our internal market. I believe in the basic principle that one party to a treaty cannot obtain from the other the execution of its obligations if it does not respect its own commitments. If the EU continues to act as it has done in the negotiations, particularly over the past few days, the United Kingdom would be entitled to terminate the withdrawal agreement on the basis of the EU’s breach of article 184.
Lastly, as I said in Committee and on Report, there is a long list of occasions when Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems, as part of the coalition, have agreed to override treaties. There are not just one or two quite explicit examples, but hosts of them. In infinite Finance Bills and Independence Acts, and in relation to prisoner voting and various other things, there have been quite clear and deliberate overrides of treaties. The EU, as well as the EU member states, frequently violates international law; the Western Sahara case, the defiance of security council rulings, and breaking the Lisbon treaty are a few examples.
Indeed, in conclusion, the EU grants supremacy to its own constitutional principles when they are in conflict with international law. In the Kadi case, the European Court stated:
“The obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot have the effect of prejudicing the constitutional principles of the…Treaty”.
So there it is. I say again that I strongly support the Government’s position, and reject the amendments by the House of Lords.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
In. Out. Reinstate? As the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has pointed out, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have dropped this, and it is left to the Minister to hold Dominic Cummings’s baby, and to front this up in Parliament. I almost feel sorry for him, but then I remember that both the Treasury solicitor and the Advocate General for Scotland have already resigned over this, because it is such a terrible move by the Government.
The House of Lords, as we have heard, has rightly carved up this disastrous, petty, grubby, law-breaking, power-grabbing Tory Bill—and after the announcement made just an hour before we came in here tonight, we can add “shambolic” to that as well. We welcome the Lords’ removing a number of threats to devolution from the Bill. We already know that the Tories hate devolution, as the Prime Minister has made clear.
Clause 42 authorises the UK Government to spend on devolved areas. The UK Government intend to use clause 42 for the purpose of a shared prosperity fund. However, as we have heard, we have yet to see details of that. I personally have been asking about it since 2017, yet we have heard nothing on it. As we have heard, we have also yet to see any sign of the long-promised consultation. It has been repeated over and over that there will be a consultation, but we have not seen it. Lord Thomas confirmed in the other place:
“It is therefore plain that the purpose of Clause 42 is to cut across the powers of the devolved Governments to provide financial assistance in areas such as economic development and commercial activities”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2020; Vol. 808, c. 276.]
That takes away a power from the Scottish Parliament. Baroness Finlay said that
“Clause 42 would enable the Government to work around, rather than work with, the devolved Governments”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2020; Vol. 808, c. 280.]
Andrew Bowie
The hon. Gentleman may disagree with the right of the UK Government to intervene financially on all the areas that have been specified, but he cannot say that this amounts to us taking away a power from the Scottish Parliament, because that is fundamentally untrue, and he is in fact misleading the House when he does so. [Hon. Members: “Withdraw.”]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not misleading the House.
Drew Hendry
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could have come back with a different response, but I appreciate you intervening.
The hon. Gentleman tries to say that this is not a power grab—not taking back powers from the Scottish Parliament. What I am quoting is not SNP folks saying this, and not even the Scottish Government—it is other people, as we have heard from around the different parties, including his own, right across the nations of the UK, and across the world. What he says really does not hold any water.
On clause 49, the Lords amendment removes the UK’s Government’s attempt to re-reserve state aid. Lord Thomas noted that
“unashamedly, the Government want to use this legislation to alter the devolution settlements…They are trying to make state aid a reserved matter by the device of expanding or extending the competition policy reservation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2020; Vol. 808, c. 317.]
Lord German confirmed:
“Blunting and reducing the power of the devolved authorities is deemed to be a price worth paying so that the UK Government alone can determine the route they wish to follow in directing the new regime. Yet we do not know what this regime will look like.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2020; Vol. 808, c. 319.]
Leading for the Government in the Lords, Lord Callanan confessed that
“Clause 44 reserves to the UK Parliament the exclusive ability to legislate for a UK-wide subsidy control regime.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2020; Vol. 808, c. 325.]
I can tell the House that the SNP will not accept this brazen power grab. State aid must remain a devolved competence.
Lords Amendment 11 means that devolved Governments must either give their consent to regulations within a month, or the Government could continue but would have to explain to Parliament why they were proceeding without agreement. Lord Bruce noted that it
“takes the need for consultation but adds to it by saying that there must be a requirement to secure consent.”
That is absolutely what is required. He went on to say:
“That draws on the common frameworks principles, which suggest that every sinew should be bent to secure consent.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2020; Vol. 808, c. 50.]
I stress: not consultation but consent.
On Lords amendment 57, Lord Thomas noted that
“the composition of the CMA should now reflect its different position and role under this Bill...it is critical that it commands the confidence of all the people of all the nations of the United Kingdom and therefore that it has representations from them.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2020; Vol. 808, c. 103.]
Lords amendment 1 seeks to protect the role of the common frameworks from the Bill. When moving his amendment on Report, Lord Hope summarised:
“Not only does the Bill ignore the common frameworks process but it destroys one of the key elements in that process that brought the devolved Administrations into it in the first place: it destroys policy divergence. It destroys those Administrations’ ability through that process to serve the interests of their own people, and to innovate.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 1432.]
Baroness Finlay warned that the Bill
“is not based on warm support for devolution but rather on hot resentment of the fact that the devolved Governments and legislatures can innovate at speed and take their populations with them.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 1434.]
That is something that this Government cannot do.
Lords amendment 8 removes sweeping Henry VIII powers that allow the Minister to alter the definition of key requirements for the Bill and in each case rewrite those principles substantially in secondary legislation. In the Lords proceedings, the Government accepted the argument and removed the Henry VIII powers from clause 3, but refused to remove them from clause 6. Under clause 6, the Secretary of State can act without the need to introduce new primary legislation or to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments, taking power away from them. As I have said before, the UK Government’s offer to consult is meaningless. “Consult” is not the same as consent, which is what is required.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The truth is that the Bill is an absolute abomination and drives a Trojan horse through the devolution settlement, but my hon. Friend is right to put his finger on that very issue. Brexit was supposed to be about Parliament taking back control. How does he reconcile the idea that Parliament is taking back control with granting these sweeping Henry VIII powers to the United Kingdom Government?
Drew Hendry
Indeed, it is the UK Government who are seeking to take back control from Scotland, and from Wales, with the Bill, which is a clear and utter power grab.
Jonathan Edwards
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for his forensic analysis of the British Government’s tactics in relation to the Bill. Essentially, the British Government are hollowing out devolution as the middle ground in the constitutional debate in Wales and Scotland. For the people of Wales and Scotland, the choice becomes independence or direct Westminster rule.
Drew Hendry
The hon. Member is absolutely right. It is no surprise that in Scotland we have now had 15 opinion polls in a row that show that a majority of people support independence. That has not happened overnight; that has happened because they have been watching what has been happening here, and have seen the contempt with which Scotland and Wales’s Parliaments have been treated. The result is the growing demand for us to protect our Parliament in that way.
When it comes to devolution, the Tories used to wear a mask to hide their contempt, but the Bill, and recent comments from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, have ripped it away once and for all. The Prime Minister recently told his MPs that devolution was a disaster and Tony Blair’s biggest mistake—the latest in a long line of statements that he has made to show his distaste. We all remember him saying that
“a pound spent in Croydon is far more of value to the country…than a pound spent in Strathclyde.”
The Leader of the House has called devolution a failure and is arrogantly dismissing it, while the Scottish social attitudes survey shows that only 7% of the Scottish people do not support devolution. As I have said, the Bill is an orchestrated attempt by this Tory Government to re-centralise powers.
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Member for giving way to me for a second time. I simply cannot sit here and listen to him describe this party and this Government’s position on devolution in the way that he is. Under the Calman commission and the Scotland Act 2016, we have devolved more powers to Scotland than any Government in the history of devolution. We have created police and crime commissioners across England and Wales. We have devolved power to our greater cities and regions across England and Wales. Next year we will publish our devolution White Paper. To stand there and say that the Government do not respect or believe in devolution is simply baloney.
Drew Hendry
This is the man who said:
“The UK Government is back in Scotland. Get used to it.”
We have seen the Tories for an awful long time. In Scotland, we have not voted Tory since 1959, I think. [Interruption.] Sorry, 1951. That is how long the Scottish people have seen what the Tories are at. We do not want a Tory Government making decisions for people in Scotland. That is why the vast majority of Scottish people voted, with a settled will, to have their own Parliament, and all polls and the social attitudes survey show that, more and more, they support not only devolution but independence.
The Government want to drive a wrecking ball through the devolved settlements. That is reflected by the fact that this Bill, as we have heard, has been ripped apart in the House of Lords. On the shared prosperity fund, it said:
“The Government should explain why such a broad power for the UK Government to spend money in devolved territories has been included in this Bill.”
It also said that the delegated powers in the Bill are “extraordinary” and “unprecedented”,
“and many of them are constitutionally unacceptable.”
Of course, we know from experience what happens when UK Ministers have control of spending. The former Tory Prime Minister John Major took much-needed cash from the highlands and redirected it to Tory marginal seats that were under pressure in the south-east of England. Decades on, nothing has changed. As we know from the pork barrel scandal whereby the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government directed funding to 61 towns that were key to the Tories gaining or retaining seats in the general election, priorities for Scotland will mean little or nothing to the Tories—probably the latter—unless they see some political advantage. Their naked intention to break devolution and break the law has been condemned across the world and even from their own Benches.
This Bill is not worthy of this or any other Parliament. Outside of Tory Government circles, it has been rightly and absolutely panned. Catherine Barnard, professor of European law at Cambridge University, said
“This is a remarkable piece of legislation and it expressly contravenes our international legal obligations to a point that the legislation itself says this is the intention”.
Imagine that. Steve Peers, a professor at the University of Essex, said:
“It is an obvious breach of international law.”
David Anderson, QC, tweeted:
“The Ministerial Code still mandates compliance with international law, despite a change to its wording, as the Court of Appeal confirmed in 2018”.
Simon Davis, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, said:
“The rule of law is not negotiable.”
Perhaps most tellingly, George Peretz, QC, tweeted:
“But it is hard to think of a better argument for Scottish independence than a UK government that is prepared to use Westminster’s unconstrained sovereignty to override a binding treaty commitment it entered into less than 12 months ago.”
Former Tory Prime Ministers, including a Member still sitting in this House, have savaged this shoddy piece of legislation. From their own Benches, the Government have been told that
“a willingness to break international law sits ill for a country that has always prided itself on upholding the rule of law.”
They have also been told by their own Members that it is an act of bad faith and that the rule of law is not negotiable.
The Bill has also been condemned in the United States. This is a Government who are really good at negotiating no deals, and it looks like they are about to negotiate another one with the US. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, said:
“The U.K. must respect the Northern Ireland Protocol as signed with the EU to ensure the free flow of goods across the border.
“If the U.K. violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a U.S.-U.K. trade agreement passing the Congress.”
We have also heard comments from the Taoiseach and others across the European Union. In America, Antony Blinken, the chief foreign policy adviser to Joe Biden, said that Joe Biden
“is committed to preserving the hard-earned peace & stability in Northern Ireland. As the UK and EU work out their relationship, any arrangements must protect the Good Friday Agreement and prevent the return of a hard border.”
Sammy Wilson
I am glad that the hon. Member is so supportive of the Belfast agreement, but would he accept that the Belfast agreement was all about ensuring that Northern Ireland stays within the United Kingdom as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish that to be the case, and a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, as is in this protocol, certainly does not protect the Belfast agreement and therefore does not even meet the criteria he has set himself?
Drew Hendry
Indeed, it should be the right of people living in any country to determine their own future, and he is right: if the people of Northern Ireland choose a different path, they should be respected, as should be the case for those in Wales and Scotland as well.
I will start to wind up my comments now, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could go on for much more time, but I know that you have packed Benches of Members waiting to come in. I was just about to talk about Joe Biden. He said:
“We can’t allow the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland to become a casualty of Brexit. Any trade deal between the U.S. and U.K. must be contingent upon respect for the Agreement and preventing the return of a hard border. Period.”
That is what he said.
This Bill continues to facilitate a race to the bottom on standards, threatens our quality food and drink, opens the door to genetically-modified beef and chlorinated chicken, among other products, and opens the door to privatisation of our water and our NHS. As I have pointed out, the House of Lords has rightly carved up this disastrous, petty, grubby, law-breaking, power-grabbing, messy Tory Bill. Its amendments must be respected and agreed. The Scottish Government have always engaged willingly to take forward the common frameworks progress this devolution-wrecking—
Drew Hendry
The hon. Member says “Rubbish”, but he knows that is not the case. We understand that the Tories have a very casual relationship with the truth, but we expect them to at least have a one-night stand with it.
This Bill confirms the contempt that the Prime Minister and his Government have for devolution. People in Scotland see this clearly. As I have said, 15 polls in a row are showing that independence is the only way to save our Parliament’s powers and the voice of the Scottish people, and as the Defence Secretary confirmed earlier, we can have that discussion in the referendum that is coming.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
There is a five-minute limit on speeches.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
When I voted to leave the European Union, it was not primarily over concerns with immigration or concerns about how we would divvy up the money that came back from the contributions we would not be making to the European Union; it was entirely as a constitutional lever. I believe in the principle that the people who live under the law should have the right to choose the people who make the law. Incidentally, that also shapes my views on how the House of Lords should be reformed. However, that principle could not survive as soon as we had the direct application of EU law and the use of the ECJ. Therefore, for me that meant that there was only one choice, which was to leave the EU. I explained that to an American audience by saying that, if in the United States there was a court in Ottawa or Mexico City that could override the US Supreme Court and there was nothing legislators could do in the US, how would they like it? They said, “Absolutely, we would never ever accept it.” That, for me, is the key principle.
When I first heard of this internal market Bill, I was at the World Trade Organisation in Geneva and, frankly, I was shocked to hear that the Government were intending to break international law. That was until I came back and looked at the provisions themselves, and found out that nothing whatsoever was actually being broken in this Bill. In fact, nothing was actually being done in this Bill, other than setting out a set of contingency measures, which is of course a well-accepted legal principle.
Sir Edward Leigh
There has been virtually no discussion during this entire debate about the fact that this is a safety net, which we hope will never be used. If we are on the high wire—and when we are dealing with the EU, we are on the high wire—we may not want to use a safety net, but it does no harm to have one.
Dr Fox
I entirely agree. I have used the analogy myself that this is a lifeboat that we hope we never have to launch. We hope the ship will never go down because we will reach a trade agreement, and we should reach a trade agreement because, as I said earlier in the House, there has never been a trade agreement that has begun with the two parties in complete identity of trade law, of tariffs and of regulation. It should be, if it was only about trade, an easy agreement to reach, but it is not just about trade. The main stumbling blocks are constitutional—the very constitutional issues that made me want to vote to leave the European Union in the first place.
There are those who have said that this Bill is outrageous and that it sets new precedents, but in fact it says only that, under certain circumstances, domestic law might have to be used to overrule treaty law. Is it revolutionary? Is it unprecedented? Well, on 12 February 2016, the German federal constitutional court said:
“Treaty overrides by national statutory law are permissible under”
the German constitution. It added:
“Under the system of the Basic Law, international treaties have the same rank as statutory federal law. Therefore, they can be superseded by later federal statutes that contradict them.”
That is merely the power that the United Kingdom Government are seeking to use as a contingency power, should they need it, yet nobody screams about the German Parliament being able to exercise an identical power.
In the short time that I have, I want to make a couple of comments about the value of free trade in the internal market to the Union itself. The 1707 articles of Union between England and Scotland, and those between Great Britain and Ireland in 1800, abolished all customs duties between the different parts of the United Kingdom. Free trade across the whole of the United Kingdom was not only integral to the development of the whole of the United Kingdom from the industrial revolution on, but it was particularly important to Scotland and Ireland, whose citizens could freely trade with the much bigger English market—something that exists today. That point was made very well by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) earlier in this debate.
It is easy, given how successful it has been, to forget how important that single market is, and how easily it could be damaged and what the what the implications would be if it were interfered with or restricted. Of course, that is why the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady)—I am sorry that he has left his place—was unwilling to engage in debate with me last week when I asked what estimates had been made by the Scottish nationalists of the break-up of the UK internal market in terms of the Scottish economy. He said, “We will come and make those arguments in due course,” because they do not want to hear those arguments aired in front of the Scottish people at the present time.
The devolved legislatures were created after the UK joined the European Community and then the European Union. Because the single market rules apply to regional Governments and legislatures as well as central Governments of member states, there was no pressing need during our membership of the European Union for specific UK-based rules maintaining the UK internal market against fragmentation. Brexit changes all that, and that is why I believe that we should reject the Lords amendments tonight.
However, in supporting the Government, I just ask this one question: when did the Government’s legal advisers advise Ministers that the withdrawal Act indeed, by direct application, threatened the internal market of the United Kingdom? It was not something that I heard discussed at the time, but I would like to know the answer to that question, as would many of us who are supporting the Government tonight and who believe that what we are seeing is proportionate contingency planning, fulfilling the duty of the maintenance of the UK internal market, the key part of the United Kingdom itself.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Who would have thought that we would be here on 7 December—there are 24 days to go—with the Government wanting to put these international law-breaking clauses back into the Bill and the Brexit negotiations still going? I have always thought that there will be an agreement, but I must confess that in the last few days I have felt a bit gloomy. I do not know whether the announcement in the last 20 minutes that the Prime Minister and Ursula von der Leyen are going to meet later this week to pore over the areas of disagreement should raise our hopes or not. What do they say? It’s the hope that kills you.
Anyway, the truth about this Bill is out. The offending clauses are nothing more and nothing less than a piece of negotiating leverage, which we now know will be dropped the moment a satisfactory resolution is found to the questions that the Joint Committee is properly considering. That was confirmed in the Prime Minister’s statement this afternoon.
The Prime Minister’s dilemma with this Bill and, indeed, with the talks is best explained in this way. Four and a bit years ago, he famously decided to publish the second of two articles that he had written about Brexit. One of them was for leaving the EU, and the other was against. When he made that decision, he climbed on the back of what I would describe as the Brexit tiger. It has taken him on quite a journey—it has taken him through the door of 10 Downing Street, which I am sure was his hope, but there is just one problem: it is not entirely clear he knows how to get off the tiger in order to secure a deal. He is the prisoner of the fateful decision that he made.
It is not that he was not aware of the consequences, because thanks to Tim Shipman, we now know what he wrote in the other article, which was not published. He said:
“Almost everyone expects there to be some sort of economic shock as a result of a Brexit. How big would it be?”
Well, we know the answer, because the Government have done their own economic assessment, and we saw what the Office for Budget Responsibility reported a couple of weeks ago: the economy is hit either way, but it is much worse if no agreement is reached.
The question now for the House and for the negotiators is, how do we get out of this? It is clearly not by the clauses that the Government are seeking to put back in the Bill. One of the reasons why the Government are having so much trouble with the level playing field negotiations is the existence of those clauses. Let us think about this for a moment. Why do Ministers think that the EU negotiators are so keen to tie down commitments that both sides will be asked to give in the negotiations? It is for the very simple reason, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) made clear in another brilliant speech, that we have shown that we are not to be trusted to keep our word. If a country is in the process of negotiating a new international treaty, it does not do wonders for its credibility if it is busy preparing to tear up part of the previous treaty that it negotiated with the same partners and signed just over a year ago.
The other issue is sovereignty, about which we have heard an enormous amount today. If sovereignty is absolute, and if we were to take it to its logical and absurd conclusion, for example, why should we be negotiating on fish at all? Would not giving any of “our fish”, as some people describe it, be a betrayal? If sovereignty is absolute, what are we doing in the World Trade Organisation? As the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) knows only too well, the WTO has a dispute resolution body that gives other countries, if they win a case against the UK, the ability to impose countervailing measures upon us, including tariffs. How could that be acceptable to a sovereign country that claims complete sovereign control? The truth, of course, is that sovereignty is not absolute. It is what we choose to do with it that matters, and we cannot avoid that choice. We cannot avoid that choice in these negotiations, because the only way out of this mess, in the interests of the country, is for both sets of negotiators to grasp the heavy responsibility that they have at this moment to make the choices that will secure the deal that the country desperately needs.
In conclusion, since German car makers, as was once rather fancifully suggested, are not going to turn up late in the day to rescue the negotiations, a bit like Blücher at Waterloo, we have to save ourselves. That is what we have to do at this point. Whatever the bluster, I simply say to those on the Front Bench that the country will not forgive this Government if they impose no deal upon us.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is always an enormous pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). For decades, the EU was a train that we had to stay on, and now Brexit is a tiger that we have to get off. There is not time to re-engage in the old arguments about sovereignty, but it was very telling that he thought the importance of sovereignty was what a country chooses to do with it, not what it is imposed with. There is no international organisation of which we are a member in the world that is like the EU, which imposes its will on us through our own laws and courts; every other international body—such as the WTO, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—is a voluntary association governed by international law, which is a completely different matter.
Sammy Wilson
As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) pointed out, one of the most important principles of the United Kingdom is to have a common market and trade between the different parts—that is where the prosperity that attracts people to be part of the United Kingdom comes from. My view, which I have expressed in the House many times, is that the withdrawal agreement undermines the United Kingdom’s economic integrity as well as of course undermining its constitutional integrity, because as a result of the withdrawal agreement part of the United Kingdom will now have its laws made in Brussels and not in London or, indeed, in Belfast. That is why I believe this internal market Bill is so important. First, it ensures that standards within the UK internal market are maintained and that each part of the United Kingdom, for maybe very selfish, very parochial and even very temporary reasons, may want to make differences in its laws, regulations and standards, and, in doing so, damage not only the internal market but their own markets as well.
When it comes to the controversial clauses, I believe that the Lords have done a great disservice to Northern Ireland. I believe, as someone has already pointed out, that they are strong on assertions but very poor on arguments. The withdrawal agreement, while it promises unfettered access, while it promises that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK customs territory, while it promises that the integrity of the United Kingdom will be maintained, in reality means that we will finish up with a plethora of trade barriers. We will finish up with laws made that are different from the laws in the rest of the United Kingdom. We will finish up with Northern Ireland being part of the EU single market, rather than the UK internal market.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
Does the withdrawal Act that has been put forward or the Northern Ireland protocol included in this Bill not send the message to those who are from the Unionist community, “Your views do not matter, but appease those who are nationalist and republican, and who are only interested in their links with the Irish Republic. Europe has done us a disserve in not giving us free access to both the Republic of Ireland and the UK, and forget about the links we have with the United Kingdom”? That seems to be the message they are sending.
Sammy Wilson
Any agreement that means laws can no longer be made in the United Kingdom, and puts economic barriers between ourselves and our main market, is bound to be a change in the position of Northern Ireland that is totally contrary to the Good Friday agreement, which requires consent.
Some have argued that the Bill puts a safety net in place and that some of the aspects—only some of the aspects; I have to make that very clear—of the withdrawal agreement which could damage the Northern Ireland economy can be countered through the measures in the Bill. That, by the way, is totally in line with the withdrawal agreement itself, which allows the UK Government to act unilaterally where there is economic or societal damage done by the withdrawal agreement. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said, “Well, there you are. You’ve got your assurance in the withdrawal agreement.” But all the withdrawal agreement states is that the Government will have the right to act unilaterally. They must have the means to act unilaterally. The provision in this Bill gives them the means to act unilaterally. Ministers, notwithstanding what is in the agreement, can make new regulations and new laws that protect the Northern Ireland economy and the Northern Ireland market. That is why it is so essential to have these provisions.
What disappoints me is that we now have the Prime Minister today saying, “By the way, once we have a negotiated settlement and the work of the Joint Committee, then we can withdraw this.” That fails to recognise the nature of what we have entered into. The safety net is there not just for a one-off event, but because we will be continually walking the withdrawal agreement tightrope. Northern Ireland is still going to be subject to the rules of the internal market. Indeed, the withdrawal agreement makes it quite clear that the work of the Joint Committee will go on and on. At any stage, EU officials could demand that checks be placed in Northern Ireland and that UK officials would have to adhere to that. If those demands become unreasonable, we will then need a safety net. If we need a safety net, we do not need it until these negotiations are over. We need it while any part of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol is in place.
I would therefore like an assurance from the Minister that if the Government intend to withdraw the safety net—if negotiations turn out fine this week—what protection will there be for Northern Ireland from the depredations of the withdrawal agreement in the future? That is important. I believe that this Bill is essential. The Government owe it Northern Ireland, having signed a disastrous agreement this time last year. If the integrity of the UK is to be maintained, the provisions in this Bill and, indeed, other provisions will be necessary.
Sir Robert Neill
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), although I fear that I cannot agree with him on one point. I understand the point of view of those who voted against the withdrawal agreement that they can attack what they regard as its inadequacy. I voted for the withdrawal agreement, as did pretty much everyone else on the Government Benches, and I take the view that one should not deviate or depart from it, save under the most exceptional and pressing circumstances. At the end of the day, despite a great deal of debate, that is pretty much where we have ended up. I would not be comfortable about doing so were it ever necessary. I would not find it attractive. Sometimes, though, events occur in the nature of international negotiations that may render it necessary.
The Government having reflected, as I am glad they did in the Bill’s passage through this House and added the parliamentary lock to clause 56, there is a proportionate means of dealing with such an unwelcome eventuality should it arise. It is not something that we should look to. It is not something that we should desire and it is not something that we should make easy either. It is something that should be done only if a high bar of evidence is met and if this sovereign Parliament—to use a phrase that has been much used—is itself satisfied of that. That is reasonable. It is also not inconsistent with the international law approach under article 46 of the Vienna convention where it is possible, in limited but urgent circumstances, to deviate from an international rule of law if it is necessary to maintain the fundamental internal rule of law of the state. This is not something that has been dreamed up without sound legal foundation, which is why, while I am normally most reluctant to disagree respectfully with two former Lord Chief Justices, Lord Judge and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, both of whom I regard as friends and admire greatly, I do take the view that they take a more restrictive approach than is necessary in this case.
To take a contingent power is not of itself a breach of international law, or of itself a breach of good faith. If that were used disproportionately, or without the sort of checks and balances and proper lock that we have now adopted, I can see that that would be the case. I do not believe that the taking of the power, which has not yet been brought into force and would not be without certain hurdles having been met, itself offends against the principle of the rule of law with every respect. Indeed, I hope that, in that respect, we have managed at all times to adhere to the rule of law. That is why, I am pleased to say, the Government intend to reinstate the parliamentary lock, which was removed by their Lordships as well as those clauses that they found offensive. That was perhaps surprising. I say charitably to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) that it was perhaps seen as consequential and inevitable if we removed the commencement part of part 5, to be kind.
The reality is that, because the Government have committed to, and reaffirmed today that they are committed to, restoring the parliamentary lock and gone further and indicated that, in subsequent related pieces of legislation, they will adopt the same approach, that does show an internal consistency, a logic, in what is being done. The situation makes me, as somebody who was a lawyer before I came here, and will, I suspect, still regard myself after I have left here, not happy but satisfied that the proper tests have been met in these exceptional circumstances. That is why I am content to support the Government in these motions to disagree tonight, but with the very profound hope that this is never necessary, that we never come anywhere near this, and that the Prime Minister is able to achieve a deal. If he does come up with a deal, he will have my wholehearted support, and the support of many others with a like view, because that is by far the best outcome for the whole country, for the Union and for business.
At the end of the day, I do not think that the clauses that the Lords sought to remove actually offend against propriety and, for that reason, I am prepared to support the Government tonight. They have shown willingness to be pragmatic, to make compromises and to listen. That should be something that one should applaud. I hope therefore that we will be able to return the Bill to their lordships so they can perhaps reflect that it is not necessary for them to insist upon their amendments.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). I feel that if anybody has a chance in this place of persuading the vast ranks of angry Lords in the other place that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) described earlier, it is him. Unfortunately, even he does not have much of a chance given the levels of consternation down the corridor at the clauses in particular that we have been discussing.
Unfortunately, to add insult to injury, this afternoon—while we have been debating—the Prime Minister has given the game away, because he has said that if the negotiations that we are all very concerned about are completed in a positive way, these clauses will not even be needed. I am worried about that because, as any parent knows, when it becomes clear that it is just a negotiation tactic and you do not really mean it, you have already lost. More seriously, I listened to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) describe the situation—he and I do not agree on much politically, I would think—and he said that, if these clauses are really needed, they are needed. If they are just able to be removed, depending on the negotiations, they are not really needed, and that is at the heart of the problem.
Their lordships have explained why the rule of law matters for its own sake. I am no great legislative or legal theorist, but I know why the rule of law matters for all our sakes. It is because of the terrible economic impact of the current situation that we all face. Unfortunately, the Chancellor, when he gave his statement last week, did not make much of it, but the OBR described it in all its horrendous glory—that on top of the gruesome impact of the pandemic on jobs and the economy of this country, the situation that we are facing next year with Brexit could be horrendous.
This matters, because this Bill describes exactly how economies function by common rules, by frameworks applying consistently to markets over space and time. They do that because there are institutions that police those rules, and therefore the institutions that we create matter, and the trust in those institutions matters. They matter not just for their own sake, but for the markets that they underpin, the jobs of the people who work in them and the fate of the people who are part of them. Every step that we take either builds those institutions or knocks them down. Every action creates trust or undermines that trust. Because trade is a repeated exercise, as others have mentioned, all of this debate makes it harder for us to agree new institutions, new frameworks and new rules in the future. That is how our reputation as an international party is won or lost. I know this: when we engage in this kind of madness, there is always a price, and not just some kind of theoretical, legalistic nicety of a price. There is a price in jobs for my constituents and there is a price at the shops every time my constituents do their shopping. So we can have no more of this.
Finally, on devolution, we have heard about the deep consternation among those in the devolved institutions about the clauses in the Bill that relate to them. It is about time we realised the connection between unpredictable and unreliable action from the UK Government, and the deep dissatisfaction in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I speak not only having heard those from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; I speak from Merseyside, where European structural funds made a profound difference to our economy. Why? Because the investment was predictable; it was possible to understand why that investment was being made; and it was possible to understand what would happen to that investment for the future. The European Union was a reliable investment partner. If the UK Government choose never to be reliable, the people in this country will pay the price.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to four minutes. With five minutes, I call Andrew Bowie.
Andrew Bowie
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern).
There is a distinct sense of déjà vu today. The House of Commons is debating Brexit legislation, and the Prime Minister is locked in talks with the President of the European Commission regarding our exit from and future relationship with the European Union, so hon. Members will forgive me if I break out into a cold sweat when the Division bell rings later today. It will bring back some rather tense memories for me in this place.
I will focus my remarks today on the devolution aspects of the Bill, but I want first to say a bit about the common frameworks. We know that there is still work to do regarding common frameworks. The Government and the devolved Administrations have already agreed the principles that will guide the development of common frameworks. Indeed, Lords amendments 1, 19 and 34 address the issues. However, I do not agree with those amendments, as they would have the effect of undermining the UK Government’s ability to set new rules and divergence through modifying appropriate exemptions to market access rules, and the power to ensure unfettered access for Northern Irish goods into Great Britain. That is why I will be opposing those amendments this evening.
Let me turn to devolution. It was a real pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). I believe him when he says that he is a passionate advocate for our United Kingdom. I remember him campaigning in the referendum in 2014. I disagree with him, however, because this is a very good Bill for the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I know that because the SNP is so vehemently opposed to it. If this was not a good Bill for our United Kingdom, they would of course be supporting it. This Bill is good for business, good for jobs and good for people, and it will bind the United Kingdom closer together. This Bill will deliver a significant increase in decision-making powers to the devolved Administrations. There will be no power grab, as we have heard time and again.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said that there is no power grab, but Lord Hope of Craighead, who is very widely respected in Scotland and across these isles, said in the Lords that when the SNP described the Bill as a power grab, he initially thought it was “hyperbole”, but
“having read the Bill and…report of the Constitution Committee,”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1361.]
he could very well see why the expression “power grab” is being used. Who is right: Lord Hope or the hon. Gentleman?
Andrew Bowie
There is disagreement about this Bill, of that there is no doubt. But we have debated this matter time and again in this place and in other places, and every time that it has been put to the Scottish National party, the Scottish Government or anybody else who opposes the Bill that the term “power grab” is false, they cannot in any way describe one power that is being taken away from the Scottish Parliament.
Andrew Bowie
I will give way because I like and respect the hon. and learned Lady.
Joanna Cherry
It is not as simple as listing a power. [Interruption.] No, it is the whole scheme. This is not my view. It is the view of Professor Michael Keating, a very well respected constitutional expert across these islands. It is about the cross-cutting powers that give not just this House, but this Government, the last say across a whole range of devolved fields that Donald Dewar devolved to Edinburgh.
Andrew Bowie
The hon. and learned Lady knows full well that this place will not have the last say over vast swathes of devolved powers. No powers are being taken back to this place. In fact, we are giving more than 70 powers to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government as a result of our leaving the European Union. Professor Keating, who I know very well, as he was a professor of politics of mine at the University of Aberdeen, knows that it will not be the first time I have disagreed with him on such a point.
Andrew Bowie
I will not, because I know there are far more people who want to speak.
It is not just me who says it is not a power grab. Former SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars said that
“Nicola Sturgeon has been dancing up and down on the ball saying, you know you’re stealing powers from us. The irony is that if she gets these powers, she wants to hand them all back to Brussels. That’s a massive contradiction in her policy position.”
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) cannot shake her head and disagree with that, because that is a fact.
Andrew Bowie
I am afraid I cannot, because we have not got very much time.
This Bill will amount to more money being spent in Scotland. That is a fact. As a result of the Bill, no powers are being taken away and the Barnett consequentials will not be affected. Jobs will be safeguarded as a result of the Bill. It does amuse me to hear Members of the Scottish National party defending and supporting amendments being put in the other place. I hope the Scottish National party one day will come in here and stand up for democracy and the democratically elected Chamber of this United Kingdom. When will the Scottish National party defend the democratic will of the British people?
I seriously urge SNP Members to reconsider their support for the Lords amendments and to stand up for the Bill because it is good for Scotland. But I know they will not. Frankly, the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government do not care that the Bill protects jobs and is good for business and for the country because it binds the United Kingdom closer together. That is why they do not like the Bill: it binds the United Kingdom closer together. That is the truth of it. They do not want the internal market to succeed. They do not want it protected. They do not want the United Kingdom to succeed, and they will sacrifice Scotland’s prosperity, Scottish jobs and anything else, as long as they achieve their aim of undermining the United Kingdom and achieving separation.
As if to make my point, on BBC Radio Scotland’s “Good Morning Scotland” today we heard from Mike Russell, the Minister for constitutional affairs in the Scottish Government. Like the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West—I congratulate her on her election, by the way—he is a member of the national executive committee of the Scottish National party. He said that the Scottish National party will not vote for a Brexit deal even if one is achieved. The SNP would vote against the deal. It has not even seen a deal, but it would rather say no, because it thinks that will further the cause for separation. SNP Members want the United Kingdom to fail, and that is why they are against the Bill this evening, and that is why they will vote against the Brexit deal if we get one in the coming days.
We want to level up the United Kingdom and, as my hon. Friend the Minister has set out, that is why we are disappointed that their lordships have in amendments 48 and 49 attempted to remove the power of the UK Government to intervene to provide financial assistance across the United Kingdom. It is a fact that formerly EU assistance powers now rest with the UK Government. It is right that through the UK prosperity fund, and with consultation with the devolved Administrations, we have the same powers now that the European Union had previously.
I have great respect for my hon. Friends and, indeed, some Members across the aisle for supporting the Lords amendments tonight. I disagree with them, but they have principled objections to the Bill, as do many of their lordships. Although I respect the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West personally, I am afraid I do not respect the position of the Scottish National party, which, as ever, is opportunist, divisive and seeks only to further the aim of breaking up our country, with everything that that means. I will back the Government today because this Bill binds our country closer together and is good for trade, good for jobs, good for people, good for Scotland and good for our entire United Kingdom.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
This was a controversial piece of legislation on Second Reading, so it is no surprise to find that our noble Friends in the other place have made historically substantial amendments to it. It is probably a sign of the remarkable times we are living in that the Government should attempt not only to table legislation that effectively breaks the law, but to do so in such a way as to destabilise a critical bilateral negotiation, the outcome of which will have a major impact on the lives of every single UK citizen.
According to announcements made while we have been here in the Chamber, the Government have so far been unable to conclude our negotiations with the European Union over a future trading relationship. To proceed with this legislation when these critical discussions are at such a crucial stage ought to be unthinkable, were it not for the fact that the Government have routinely ridden roughshod over every convention, broken faith with every promise and undermined every pillar of our society when they threatened to stand in the way of Brexit.
I feel somewhat relieved therefore that their lordships have inserted some normality into proceedings by taking as their first principle that legislation and legislators should not break the law. The Liberal Democrats wholly endorse their amendment that removes the whole of part 5 from the Bill, and we oppose the Government’s motion to reject the amendment.
Since 2016, the Conservative Government have repeatedly ducked the difficult choices required following their decision to implement the referendum outcome in the most damaging way possible. Many of us thought that these choices would finally have to be confronted once Brexit stopped being a right-wing dream and became a reality, but it comes as no surprise that the Government will break the law and destroy our international reputation in order to delay unpleasant reality for a little while longer.
We do not know what unintentional consequences will be unleashed by reinserting this clause into our national legislation, but if we as a nation break treaties, act in bad faith and undermine our international relationships, we should expect there to be a price to pay. This is a recklessly foolish action at a time when we urgently need to build and strengthen our links with other countries, not just because we need new trade deals, but because we urgently need co-ordinated global action to defeat coronavirus and fight against climate change.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I will, if I may, focus on the amendments that seek to remove the entirety of part 5 of the Bill, which is its most controversial part because of the remark by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that it would breach international law. That remark proved as incendiary in the other place as it did in Brussels, and I can well understand the consternation that greeted it at the other end of the corridor. However, we must remember that the purpose of the Bill, as the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) pointed out, is straightforwardly to ensure that trade can flow freely within the internal market of the United Kingdom.
The internal market is specifically preserved and protected by the Act of Union 1800. Equal access to the internal market is therefore a constitutional right of the people of Northern Ireland, as, in due course, will be parity of treatment in the future trade relationship with the European Union. Pursuant to the Belfast-Good Friday agreement, that right should not be disturbed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. However, considerable difficulties arise under the terms of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. It became increasingly clear during the negotiations with the European Union that the EU was intent on using the provisions of the withdrawal agreement as leverage in the negotiations on the future relationship. Those provisions could disrupt UK state aid policy and cause considerable friction in trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Part 5 of the Bill, and the forthcoming Taxation (Post-Transition Period) Bill, therefore seek quite properly to neutralise that potentially detrimental effect. However, it must be remembered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) pointed out, that the powers in part 5 do not come into effect until such time as the Secretary of State makes a commencement order, and that can happen only with the approval of this House.
The Government have a positive duty to safeguard the integrity of the UK’s internal market, and to take whatever action is lawful in order to do that. The Bill gives the Government the power to take necessary action to neutralise the abusive implementation by the European Union of the provisions of the withdrawal agreement, including the Northern Ireland protocol. Furthermore, the same provisions safeguard against the potential breach of the Belfast-Good Friday agreement by ensuring that the constitutional rights set out in article 6 of the Act of Union are not infringed.
There can be no doubt as to the constitutional propriety of Parliament enacting these provisions. Parliament is sovereign; that is the fundamental principle of the constitution of this country. Moreover, and importantly, it is a principle that is specifically reasserted in section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, the statute that brought the withdrawal agreement into domestic law, notwithstanding the direct effect provisions of the withdrawal agreement.
It is to be hoped that a free trade agreement will shortly be concluded. If it is, there will be no need to trigger the powers in part 5 of the Bill, but as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, this Bill acts as a safety net. It is therefore clearly in the national interest that these provisions be reinstated in the Bill, and I urge hon. Members to vote accordingly this evening.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
My 10-year-old son asked me what we were debating this evening. I confessed it was Brexit, to which he replied, “Not again! Haven’t you been doing that for a while?”. I tried to come up with an analogy to explain why we are still doing this, and I compared it with the Apollo programme, which had a commitment, an obvious mission—to land a man on the moon—a clear tactical goal with a strategic objective. Our 2016 referendum could not have been more different. Think back to the question that we were asked: “Should the UK remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”. In the case of the moon landing, the difference between success and failure was clear to absolutely everybody, but what “leave” meant was never formally articulated or agreed.
The world watched with trepidation as Apollo 11 completed its mission, targeting not just the moon, but a specific place on its surface. Years later, a global audience would witness another journey into the unknown. This time, it was Brexit that was given the green light to launch—but without our formally agreeing a specific destination. There was a vast spectrum to land in, and four years later, we continue to dissect the issue in detail. Now, with talks going down to the wire, we have to think the previously unthinkable and prepare for the possibility of no deal. To be clear, I absolutely respect the result of the referendum; I care, though, about where this project lands, and that is what we are discussing today.
If we step back from the details of the battle, we begin to appreciate the impact a no-deal Brexit will have on global Britain. The world order that we helped to create after 1945 and globalised after the fall of the Soviet Union is in decline. Threats are diversifying and becoming more complex at the very time that we are witnessing a decline in western resolve—in what we believe in, stand for, and are willing to defend. As the UK assumes the G7 presidency and hosts COP26, we will have the chance to stand tall with a new White House Administration, invigorated, and the chance to repair our frail world order and contest the rise of authoritarian state and non-state actors, which for too long have been given free rein to pursue their own agendas.
Yet here we are, seemingly willing to retreat from the world stage, potentially distancing ourselves from the continent and, indeed, the US by entertaining the prospect of no deal only a week after we cut our overseas aid budget. Our soft power, arguably the most influential in the world, has already been bruised by the UK’s willingness, however good our intentions, to flout international law by breaching the withdrawal agreement. Indeed, we are here today to put back the offending part 5, which was removed by the Lords because of the wider implication that the UK was willing to breach international law.
I am pleased that the Government intend to remove clauses 44, 45 and 47 in the event that a trade deal is confirmed, but it would be an abject failure of statecraft to leave the EU with no deal. If more time is required, so be it. We will live with the consequences for years—indeed, decades. We must summon the political courage to get this right. The west is about to regroup. Our voice, our experience and our leadership are needed on the global stage.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to follow that thoughtful speech from the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). I have a daughter who is younger than the Brexit negotiations, and I think she would probably concur with his son.
I have been around enough tortuous, protracted negotiations in Northern Ireland to know that when a U-turn is being executed, it is polite to let it be done, so I welcome the apparent acknowledgement that the clauses relating to the breach of the protocol will be removed, but it is fair to point out just how damaging their inclusion was in the first place. That proposal to breach international law has proven to be, as many of us said when we discussed this in September, cack-handed and a massive own goal. Threatening the operation of the protocol again through the Taxation (Post Transition Period) Bill would be equally wrong-headed, reckless and counterproductive, and I hope that that will be affirmed before legislation is taken forward. The Joint Committee is, as we all know, the place to resolve issues relating to the protocol. Far from showing that the UK is serious about a deal, as the Government tried to do with this Bill, they have shown that it is untrustworthy. That undermined the very UK negotiators who were trying, through the Joint Committee, to get resolution on some of these issues.
It is fair to say that nobody loves the protocol. It is not beloved in Northern Ireland, but it is a response to the challenges presented by Brexit—challenges that we and others have sounded the alarm on for years before and since 2016. It is a response to decisions made on the Government Benches. The irony is that that is the threat to the Union. I see that my colleagues from Northern Ireland are no longer here, but it is worth saying that those of us in the centre and nationalists in Northern Ireland were minding our own business in 2016 when this was thrust upon us. In fact, it is Brexit, laying out the imbalances in the United Kingdom, that is the threat to the Union. Those of us who got into politics not to bang on about constitutional change but to improve people’s lives can get on with doing that while others appear to make our case for us.
Neither the EU nor the UK is happy about what the protocol means, so we have to think about how it feels to those of us in Northern Ireland, but it is a necessary protection from Brexit. Businesses do not want it to be repudiated and trashed. They want it to be implemented. Moves such as those we have seen leave Northern Ireland more exposed. They leave us looking vulnerable to those who want to invest and are trying to develop their businesses. The point of the protocol was to take Northern Ireland and its complexities and fragilities off the table and try to manage those, rather than undermine them. It remains a fact—one that is always worth repeating—that if people really want to minimise the friction between Britain and Northern Ireland, the way to do that is a closer EU-UK relationship, but somehow that argument never gets made.
I turn to the amendments. We welcome the clear message that the Lords sought to send about good faith, the rule of law and devolution, including the need to enhance the duty to consult and co-operate with devolved Administrations. I will not repeat the points that I made when we discussed this legislation in September, but it is important to say that devolution—local decisions in local hands—is a fundamental part of the Good Friday agreement. The proposals in the Bill offend devolution, which is supported by people in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We agree with the Lords’ attempt to offer us protection against that direct overrule and trespass into that settlement.
All that is left to say is that it is time to get this done. I regret that in the biggest economic contraction in living memory, no deal is still somehow on the table, and I urge those who have this decision before them to make it and get this sorted.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) is a big act to follow. I rise to talk about the Lords amendments to part 5 of the Bill. Without this part of the Bill standing as it was originally intended, the United Kingdom risks being divided. We could get into a position where goods and services from Northern Ireland are treated differently from those in the rest of our Great Britain. That cannot happen. As Conservatives, we have a manifesto commitment, barely a year old, to give Northern Ireland unfettered access to Great Britain’s markets. Article 6 of the Northern Ireland protocol also states that. The Good Friday agreement states that Northern Ireland’s constitutional status cannot be changed without the consent of both communities. Even the Acts of Union 1800 stated it.
As an MP in the north-west of England, I know that the people of Northern Ireland are closely entwined with us, both geographically and culturally. It is a short ferry ride or a quick hop on a plane, and barely a street, let alone a community, does not have someone with an Irish accent. They are not separate; they are part of a wonderful whole, and for artificial lines to be drawn across our shared sea is unconscionable. For a business in Northern Ireland to have customs checks for its products, or to be treated differently, is not something I would propose, consider, or support.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher).
Noble peers in the other place have given the Government a chance to reconsider the irreparable damage that passing the Bill will do to Britain’s international reputation by undermining the rule of law. We must be clear that using the powers in the Bill will break international law, and attempts to justify that by saying that it will be done only in a limited and specific way are laughable. When it comes to deciding what the impact of the Bill will be, I prefer to listen to two Lord Justices and five former Prime Ministers regarding the rule of law.
The Bill will also affect Britain’s ability to influence matters globally. As the former Conservative party leader, Lord Howard, asked: how can the UK reproach Russia, China and Iran for their conduct, when it is prepared to break international laws? That runs contrary to the principle of good faith set out in the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which governs so many international treaties and allows nations to enter agreements with free consent and good faith.
Why should anyone trust negotiations by a nation that gives itself permission to go back on its word? I think we found the answer to that today, when the Prime Minister decided that he would remove the offending clauses if a deal is done. Such a stance is hampering negotiations by fostering mistrust in other nations. Is that not a further erosion of Britain’s place in the world? The rule of law, keeping one’s word and the sanctity of treaties were once bywords for Britain’s respectability, yet we now see a Government who are trashing Britain’s reputation. The Lords recognised that, which is why they voted to remove part 5 of the Bill.
Measures in part 5, which peers rightly voted to exclude, give Ministers the power by secondary legislation to disapply powers to Northern Ireland, in clear breach of the Northern Ireland protocol. In doing so, Ministers will, without any scrutiny, be able to subvert the rule of law and break international law. The measures in the Bill are also contrary to the dispute resolution articles in the withdrawal agreement.
Government Members have in recent weeks been complaining about the lack of scrutiny and opportunity to challenge the Government’s restrictions imposed on England due to covid-19, yet they seem blithely willing to surrender power to the Executive and have Ministers make decisions away from Parliament. This is not so much taking back control as relinquishing all power. What is worse is that the measures will be put beyond any meaningful judicial review.
The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is a bad Bill, which the noble Lords in the other place have tried to salvage. There can be no rational dispute with the logic that they have applied in trying to get part 5 removed. The Bill disregards the rule of law, trashes Britain’s international reputation and gives power to the Executive, away from parliamentary, public and judicial scrutiny. The Lords amendments go some way to fixing this mess, but if the Government seek to disagree with them I will vote against.
Liz Saville Roberts
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous). I have spoken on numerous occasions about the invidious creeping damage that the Bill will do to devolution; therefore the decision to press ahead without changing course, while unsurprising, does nothing but drive home the disregard that the Government have for Wales and its people.
First, the Bill attacks the devolution settlement by hollowing out and reserving the Senedd’s powers—powers for which the people of Wales have voted not once but twice. This is not merely an abstract argument about constitutional arrangements; the Bill paves the way for the deregulation of goods and services. That means that in the coming years we can expect a weakening of devolved standards in Wales, with bad consequences—from substandard beef finding its way into the diets of people in Wales to landlords providing inadequately regulated services in the private rented sector.
Turning to the Lords amendments, I support the exemptions from market access principles for existing regulatory divergence, as agreed under the common frameworks approach, as they safeguard existing Welsh standards and policy divergence, such as the minimum unit pricing for alcohol. However, the amendments do not offer protection to future legislation, and offer no protection, therefore, to future divergence.
The Lords’ removal of clauses relating to additional financial powers is also welcome. These measures are completely disproportionate to the aims of the Bill and act as a cover for further centralisation of power by the UK Government. The removed clauses would reserve state subsidy powers to this place, while undermining a future Welsh Government’s ability to manage and invest in the economy, cutting across devolved areas such as health, education and housing.
Lord Thomas said it well when he said that clause 42 is unnecessary and
“will enable the UK Government to spend funds in ways that the UK/English Government think best, but which the people of Wales, for example, may have rejected. That is not democracy. In effect, it would give legislative underpinning to the now discredited principle that the Government in Westminster know best”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 574.]
The Senedd’s Finance Committee has noted that the constitutional and financial implications of the Bill passing unamended would undermine devolution and set in motion the means for the UK Government to reduce the Welsh block grant in future. We should be alert to that. In addition to the Finance Committee, two other Committees of the Senedd have called on the Senedd to withhold its consent to the Bill. Consultation without consent is a deceit. Consultation without the power of veto is worthless.
The removal of clauses in part 5 related to the Northern Ireland protocol is welcome. Plaid Cymru, of course, unequivocally supports upholding our international commitments in the EU withdrawal agreement. The Government’s disregard for the rule of law internationally, coupled with their bulldozing of the UK devolution settlement, exemplifies their totalising approach to governance, with power and control at the heart of their modus operandi. When the Prime Minister described devolution as a disaster he insulted our young democracy as a disaster. The Bill is entirely consistent with the contempt in which the Government hold Wales. If the Government can talk up sovereignty and taking back control, then Wales can seek our sovereignty, our control and our independence.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I rise tonight to support the Government in their approach to handling the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which is incredibly important for this United Kingdom. I shall also speak in favour of disagreeing with the Lords amendments.
There are a couple of reasons behind that for me. The first is the issue of high standards. In this place, we constantly hear lots of myths about what we will be doing with our high standards post Brexit as if the European Union was, of course, some sort of beacon for food and animal welfare standards. We see a live issue with fur in the EU. Back in 2002 we outlawed the production of fur across the United Kingdom, but because of single market restrictions we cannot ban the import of fur across the country. The same applies to things such as live animal exports or the sale of whalemeat. When we leave the single market at the end of the transition period and have our own single market across the United Kingdom, we will be able to ban those things, increasing animal welfare protection to a much higher level than in the EU. We need only look at the last couple of months in Denmark, where we saw millions of mink being culled because of intensive farming that has meant that they have been infected with coronavirus. Such standards, which we would not accept in our own country, are things that we will be able to outlaw after the end of the transition period.
Where the single market has held back the United Kingdom’s high standards, the UK will be able to become a world leader when the transition period is over. Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said that for him the reason Brexit was so important was the constitutional settlement. For me, it is about clauses 48 and 49, which will enable this country to fulfil our manifesto commitment about levelling up. I look at communities across my constituency—I have mentioned MG Rover several times in this place, including on Second Reading—and the opportunities that have been lost there for many years. We can spend this money in the United Kingdom to offer jobs, opportunities, skills and training in communities that have felt left behind for far too long. When we look at places such as GKN Aerospace in my constituency, which unfortunately is closing, we need to look at ways in which we can upskill and retrain people who have worked for 20 or 30 years in the same factory unit, giving them the opportunity to move on and work in new jobs and new industries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) set out earlier why it is important that we have this safety net, because the EU has acted in bad faith over the last days, weeks and months. It is important that this Union, through its internal market, continues to provide the economic and social benefits that it does. Seeing the democracy dodging from some of the separatists on the other side of the House, for whom 2,000 people in an opinion poll are more important than 3.6 million people in the 2014 independence referendum and millions of people across this country who voted for our manifesto last year are less important than a couple of hundred unelected peers down the corridor, I think it is very important that we get this Bill through.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
What are we being asked to do by the Government this evening? We are being asked to break international law, albeit in a “limited and specific” way. It is still breaking international law. It tears up a deal that was negotiated by this Prime Minister, put to the people of this country by this Prime Minister and voted on by every single Member of the governing party earlier this year. It is not just about breaking international law; it is a breach of trust with the same partners with whom we are now 24 days away from ending a transition period and with whom we desperately need to conclude a deal. Did not those Government Members who are sitting laughing at the prospect of no deal and its effect on the jobs and prosperity of their constituents anticipate the European Union’s reaction to the Government’s proposal to breach international law? Did they not know that one of the key elements of negotiation is to understand what the negotiating partner will ask for? Is it any surprise that they have asked for level playing field protections, given the breach of faith and the breaking of international law?
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that many people around the country will find it absolutely staggering that the Government can make an agreement one year and go back on it the next?
Bill Esterson
That is exactly right, and it was the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) who pointed out to Government Members that they all voted for the withdrawal agreement that they now want to abandon. Most people believed the Prime Minister’s guarantee—that he had an oven-ready deal for them—when they voted for him in last year’s general election. This is not about ignorance or dishonesty, as the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) would have us believe; it is about the shameful abandonment of the trust of the people of this country. If no deal is the consequence, people will remember the promise made by Conservative Members when they were elected last year on the back of the Prime Minister’s promise.
They must move on from this. They have 24 days left and the clock is ticking. No deal will be disastrous. It will be disastrous for those workers in the car industry, whom the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) mentioned. It will be disastrous for livelihoods and for national security as well. It will be disastrous for security in Northern Ireland if the Good Friday agreement is upended, and it will be disastrous for the prospects of future trade agreements. In the United States, President-elect Biden has already made clear what it would mean to him if the Good Friday agreement is threatened by this Bill.
As for our reputation and authority on the world stage, prior to this debate we had an urgent question on Hong Kong. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) mentioned those countries mentioned by Lord Howard. We will be in no position to lecture anyone on the world stage if we go ahead and break international law. Our credibility will be shot. How will investors be able to trust that their investment will be safe in this country if we are prepared to tear these things up so readily? Who will trust our word? Who will believe anything we say? Who overseas will believe in this country?
Our people deserve better than this. For the sake of the jobs and livelihoods of the people I represent and the people that those on the Government Benches represent, I say to the Government: do not allow no deal to happen. If they fail, the British people will remember who was responsible and they will blame the Prime Minister. They will hold him responsible and they will hold Conservative Members responsible, too.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The withdrawal agreement, as agreed by the UK and the EU, contains a statement, under section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, that preserves parliamentary sovereignty. To be clear, section 38 states:
“It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign”,
despite sections 1, 5 and 6. This means two things in my opinion: that this Parliament is quite within its rights to propose its own laws, as the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill does; and that, as a consequence, any such proposal that detracts from sovereign control is contrary to section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act itself.
The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill ensures that, if a trade agreement is not possible, sovereignty is preserved, given that the withdrawal agreement does itself detract from parliamentary sovereignty, such as by giving the ECJ binding powers of interpretation. Unfortunately, Lords amendments 48, 49 and 51 are but examples of how sovereignty is diminished, as the EU would control how taxpayers’ moneys are spent in the UK. We know that this is a stumbling block for the EU negotiations, and clearly it is the preference of some Members here and in the other place for the EU to retain control.
Much has been reported about control of our fisheries. Control over our territorial waters is important for our fishermen, even though many detractors of this argument seek to ridicule the amount it contributes to GDP. Yes, the contribution to GDP is in fact small, but that is because our fishing industry has been decimated since we relinquished control of fishing rights to the EU. Aside from the GDP argument, those who use it miss the point completely. It is about who exerts control over our waters, and a sovereign nation must have that control. This is what my constituents of Dudley North and the rest of the country voted for.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
To present this appalling Bill to the House once was outrageous, showing contempt for our European friends and neighbours, trampling all over international law and riding roughshod over devolution. To push it through for a second time, deliberately putting back in place all the same flaws as before, is therefore simply shameless, but that is exactly what the Government are attempting to do today by way of these motions to disagree. The Government simply are not listening to some of the most serious, widespread and weighty criticism that any Government Bill has received in recent times, and they certainly are not listening to the devolved Governments and Parliaments. Every single one of the reasons for rejecting this Bill previously remain equally valid now as reasons for opposing these Government motions.
Like others, I will focus on the amendments that relate to international law and to devolution. On the former, the House of Lords did what had to be done by taking out the clear breach of international law and the attack on the rule of law that part 5 represented. It bears repeating again that the Government are expressly asking us to pass legislation in breach of an agreement they signed just months ago with a counterpart they are still negotiating with. That is simply astonishing, and we cannot let it be spoken about as if this is no big deal or in any way normal. Proceeding in this way represents a
“very real and direct threat to the rule of law, which includes the country’s obligations under public international law.”
These are not my words, but those of the Law Society and the Bar Council. When these provisions were first introduced, it seemed simply a totally cack-handed and counterproductive negotiating tactic, but, embarrassingly, here they are still pursuing this reckless possibility and offering up the removal of these clauses as part of negotiations on the future relationship changes nothing. It simply confirms that the Government are happy to threaten to go back on their word as a means of trying to get their own way. What an astonishing way for any Government to behave.
On devolution, all the House of Lords did was to water down the clear, obvious and extensive power grab on devolution. It did this through some modest obligations around consultation and giving the common frameworks process priority over ministerial diktat. It ditched the reservations of state aid and powers to bypass devolved Governments and devolved public spending. It provided greater scope for divergence on environmental, social and other grounds. None of that should be controversial, but, again, shamefully, the Government are seeking to restore the power grab to its fullest extent. Doing so undermines the possibility of policy divergence and the opportunities for the devolved Governments to deliver policies that protect and advance the interests of their citizens, and it restores the grim prospect of a race to the bottom. These Government motions are anti-devolution and they are anti-democratic. Again, they should be rejected.
In conclusion, let us be clear about what these proceedings tell us about the UK Government and the UK constitution. They tell us that Governments can, and that this one will, rip up international agreements signed just months ago. They tell us that power devolved is as exactly as was promised: power retained, with the devolved settlement to be amended or deleted at the will of the UK Government. Finally, with the UK out of the EU, the human rights regime under review, judicial oversight under attack, the second Chamber in reality toothless, this Chamber a rubber stamp for the Government, and devolution undermined, we say that the checks and balances on the UK Government have never, ever been weaker. In short, the Bill shows us that the UK’s political system and constitution are not fit for purpose, and that the sooner we are out of it, the better.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald).
We are in the middle of a public health emergency and an economic crisis, yet as always the Government are doing their assignment the night before it is due, or maybe later. Now is the time for competence and consensus, so the country can move on and recover. Instead, the Government have introduced legislation that knowingly and openly breaks international law, and will frustrate the process of getting a deal further still. It is unnecessary, it undermines the rule of law, it undermines devolution, it is internationally damaging to our reputation and it threatens to undermine the Good Friday agreement.
I have had 80 constituents write to me ahead of the debate expressing their disgust at what this deal is attempting to do and urging me to support the amendments made in the other place. They are representative of constituents across Putney, across London and across the country. It is not just my local constituents who were left bemused by the first publication of the Bill. President-elect Joe Biden made it crystal clear that the Good Friday peace agreement in Northern Ireland cannot become a casualty of Brexit. He has made it clear that a future trade deal hinges on that. The Bill will end up undermining trust in us as a country.
I therefore urge colleagues to accept Lords amendments to part 5 of the Bill. For those of us who still believe in the rule of law, the amendments are crucial. As the motion from the convenor of the Cross-Bench peers, Lord Judge, stated:
“Part 5 of the bill…would undermine the rule of law and damage the reputation of the United Kingdom.”
He said that by supporting it, Parliament, which is responsible for making the laws and expects people to obey the laws it makes, would be knowingly granting power to the Executive to break the law.
The strength of feeling on this from the learned and noble peers in the other place cannot be ignored. In Committee, Members in the other place voted by 433 to 165 to remove clause 42. That vote was the largest in terms of turnout since remote voting was introduced in the other place and the third largest since the House was reformed in 1999. How can we ignore the disappointment and anger in the other place? How can the Government expect the public to follow lockdown restrictions or China to respect the Sino-British joint declaration, when they grant themselves a mandate to break the law? States and citizens alike are going to rightly think that it is one rule for them and another for us.
This is about Britain’s reputation, not Brexit. Do we want to be a trustworthy nation that stands by its commitments? Do we want to be able to strike good trade deals with other countries? As we deal with the economic damage inflicted by the pandemic, we need to be winning international friends and not alienating them. Brexit has actually done enough damage already. In my own constituency, businesses have already had to close and jobs have already been lost. Let us not compound that by not accepting the Lords amendments this evening. I welcome the Lords amendments and I urge colleagues, for Britain’s sake, to support the Lords amendments to part 5 of the Bill.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of the Government and against the Lords amendments. I do so as somebody who campaigned and voted in the referendum for the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union. I believe passionately that a close, positive relationship with our friends and allies is very important to us and very important to them for the future.
However, it seems to me that, in addressing these issues tonight, we need to be enormously pragmatic. Those of us on the Government Benches, when we fought an election and accepted that our plan was to acknowledge the decision of the British people and to put it into effect, accepted the responsibility to make the decisions that would enable that to happen. Taking the stand that the Government are on this matter this evening is, in my view, a crucial step on that journey.
Stephen Farry
I want to focus largely on the Lords amendments to part 5 of the Bill and to speak in support of them. I am conscious that we may well be part of a charade this evening, in the light of discussions that are happening elsewhere, but it is surely self-evident that no deal with the European Union can be concluded, let alone ratified, if the offending clauses remain part of the Bill. If we end up with a no-deal situation—I very much hope that we do not—the UK will face huge economic damage and will be forced back to the negotiating table. I think most people privately would recognise that that is the reality. Once again, these issues will have to be addressed and overcome.
Since this House last debated the Bill, we have had the very welcome election of Joe Biden as President of the United States. It is clear that there is no prospect whatsoever of a trade deal with United States if there is any threat to the Good Friday agreement, in particular from this Bill or, indeed, the subsequent taxation Bill that may well follow. Obviously, that is of fundamental importance to the UK going forward. I think that the Biden Administration will be very much open to a deal with the United Kingdom, but that will not come at the price of undermining the Good Friday agreement, which Americans of both parties are extremely proud of in terms of their role in and contribution to. The internal market Bill is not helping those negotiations at all. At best it is a distraction from them, and certainly not a source of leverage, but at worst it gives the indication that the UK cannot be trusted with regard to agreements. In particular, if there is a sudden deadlock around issues of governance, the European Union will be very reluctant to give too much in that respect, given the very sad precedent that has been set. Again, the UK is shooting itself in the foot in terms of crucial negotiations.
I want to stress that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the majority of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the majority of businesses in Northern Ireland do not want the UK breaking, or threatening to break, international law on their behalf. The outcomes from this Bill are of course very seductive, but they represent a false solution. The only way to address these issues is via the withdrawal agreement and the Joint Committee on the Withdrawal Agreement. To achieve these flexibilities and derogations, we must again look to that word “trust”, which is again being undermined by these actions. That will make it more difficult to reach a conclusion through the Joint Committee processes.
Breaking international law may give some short-term relief to businesses, but it actually ends up hurting them because it puts them in the situation of not having a secure legal environment in which to do business going forward. That is of fundamental importance to businesses. It also potentially risks the return of a border on the island of Ireland. I know that some people want to dismiss that, but the difficulty comes from the fact that if there is not a guaranteed alternative system via the protocol, the pressure from the EU to protect the integrity of its customs union and single market falls back on the island of Ireland. That is one of the key concerns in terms of how the Good Friday agreement may well be breached through this Bill.
Some people seem to think that everything can stay the same as regards how things operate across these islands. The difficulty is that this reflects the choices made by the UK and its Government around Brexit and the nature of Brexit. Northern Ireland is a different place, and because of those choices special arrangements have to be put in place. The backstop was a better alternative, but the protocol is where we have landed, warts and all in terms of the negative consequences from that.
Alan Brown
Yet again we have been reliant on the Lords to try to remedy matters in this Bill, which from the outset has shown a complete disregard both for the rule of law and for devolution. The fact that the Government are going to overrule the Lords amendments tonight prompts the question: what is the point of the Lords even when it is doing good work?
In this Chamber, right from the outset of the debates on the internal market Bill, we have been treated to Back-Bench Tories standing up and telling us that they are proud Unionists. However, saying that they are proud Unionists wedded to the idea of the United Kingdom and the Union jack while supporting a Bill that rides roughshod over devolution shows that they do not really care about the Union, and they do not care about Scotland, or understand Scotland. That goes for the Prime Minister, in particular. We know that the Lords has Unionists, and the Lords has told the Government that this Bill puts the Union at risk. Are the Government and their sycophants wilfully stupid or just naturally stupid, because they are certainly not listening?
I want to focus on Lords amendments 48 and 49, which aim to delete the clauses with the same numbers. This is the real power grab about spending in Scotland. Lord Hope summarised the debate:
“It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this Government regard devolution as an inconvenience”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 1468.]
As a matter of balance, I will quote Lord Forsyth, who reckoned:
“The…Act of Union…has brought about more than 300 years of prosperity.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1323.]
If the Union has been so successful and brought so much prosperity, why are this Government having to embark on a levelling-up agenda? Why do Scotland and other regions around the UK have to rely on EU structural funds to plug the gaps from Westminster over the years? Incidentally, the EU has never imposed a single project on Scotland against its will, whereas this Bill allows the Government to create projects and spend money against Scotland’s will. Where is the shared prosperity fund anyway? Sadly, it is missing in action.
If the Union was so successful, why are this Government legislating for support for cultural activities, projects and events that Ministers consider benefit the UK and devolved nations? The same goes for sport, education and training activities. What kind of education projects do they want to impose in Scotland? Why do they think that that should be in the Bill in the first place? It is clear that they want to subject us to a Union jack fest, but I can tell the Minister that that will not go down well in Scotland either; actually, it will help our cause.
We have also been told that infrastructure spending will mean additional money coming to Scotland, yet when we look at the spending review we can see that we have just suffered a 5% cut to our capital budget. It is quite clear that that the Government will top-slice the Scottish budget, take some money off and then recirculate it in Scotland with a Union jack. It is so transparent, and the fact that the national infrastructure policy says that the Bill allows the Government to spend directly in the devolved nations tells us that it has been planned all along.
The consequential clause 49 remains a complete affront. Basically, the UK Government can interfere and spend money in Scotland on projects that might not be wanted by the Scottish Government, and clause 49 then allows them to impose repayment conditions on the taxpayers in Scotland. That is ridiculous—it is a con. Any Scottish Tory who argues that this is not a power grab and who thinks that these conditions are acceptable must be completely devoid of self-respect.
Lord Dunlop, a former Scotland Office Minister, said:
“I hope the Government will think long and hard before overturning in the Commons, on the back of Conservative votes alone, any sensible changes”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 585.]
There is no long and hard thinking being done on the Government Benches, but there is by the people of Scotland. Those who voted no in 2014 are changing their minds rapidly, because they know the contempt with which this Government treat Scotland.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I am pleased to speak in support of the Lords amendments and thankful to Members in the other place for trying to restore a shred of decency to this legislation. Sadly, the Government seem determined to destroy the rule of law, Britain’s international reputation and the devolution settlement that holds the UK together.
The provisions that were removed in the other place would
“enable ministers to derogate from the United Kingdom's obligations under international law in broad and comprehensive terms and prohibit public bodies from compliance with such obligations”—
not my words, but those of the Law Society of England and Wales. Such a legislative statement would be unprecedented, cutting across the precedent that political and judicial bodies uphold the rule of law.
Turning to devolution, I am deeply troubled to hear that if the Government vote to reintroduce the parts of the Bill that the other place so sensibly removed, the Welsh Government’s proposed ban on single-use plastics would be prevented. That would be another ground-breaking step by the Welsh Government stopped by this Government’s complete disregard for the devolution settlement. If it is plastics first, what next? This legislation will prevent the Welsh Government from standing up for Wales’s interests, legislating to ban chlorinated chicken or hormone-injected beef, or setting higher standards on house-building or the environment. By proposing mutual recognition without legally underpinning minimum standards, the UK Government are proposing that the lowest standards chosen by one Parliament must automatically become the minimum standards across all nations.
There are also significant concerns about the financial aspects of the Bill. By legislating to allow the UK Government to spend in devolved areas, the Bill undermines the devolved Governments’ ability to outline their own spending priorities. Of course none of the devolved Governments would be opposed to having more money to spend on their citizens, but this Government have had numerous opportunities to increase the amount received by each Government or reform the Barnett formula, yet they have chosen not to.
This is not kindness, but a cage. The Welsh Government have said that they are open to negotiating common frameworks, but they must be worked out in common and must contain mutually agreed minimum standards. A UK single market is vital to the continued internal trade of these islands, but if this is how the UK Government go about ensuring it, they will soon be the Government of England only.
The Welsh Government have called the Bill
“an attack on democracy and an affront to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have voted in favour of devolution on numerous occasions.”
I implore the UK Government to act as a Government for the whole United Kingdom, not just for themselves.
Joanna Cherry
I want to concentrate my remarks on the Lords amendments in relation to devolution, but first I will say something about the reports that the Government may yet agree to the removal of part 5 of the Bill. That is all very well and good, but the problem is that the damage is done. It is now known across Europe and internationally that this British Government are prepared to break their word on an international treaty in order to get their own way. Of course, we knew that this Government were prepared to break their word in Scotland already—and, for that matter, so did the Irish—but now everyone knows it across Europe and the world, including the new American Administration.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Wera Hobhouse; please resume your seat at 8.50 pm.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The desire and the right of the UK as a sovereign nation to trade unhindered with all its regions and nations is undeniable, but it is what was part 5 of the Bill that is highly politically charged and controversial. It has serious implications for the relationship between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and, most importantly, represents a direct challenge to the rule of law.
The rule of law is not just a domestic obligation, but applies to our international obligations, including the principles of good faith and co-operation with the withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister himself signed only a year ago. If the Bill is unamended, it will severely undermine the UK’s reputation across the world and have a long-term global effect. Not only will it damage the UK’s current trade talks with the EU, which are on a knife edge; it will have severe consequences for any trade deals with any country. So why is it here?
I wonder to this day why those who so uncompromisingly campaigned to leave the European Union ever gave a serious thought about Northern Ireland. At the core of the Good Friday agreement is the ability of the people of Northern Ireland to look both ways—to the United Kingdom and to the Republic of Ireland—and of people, goods and services to move unhindered across boundaries. EU membership greatly facilitated the Good Friday agreement. The balance was always going to be severely upset by leaving the EU, and to this day Tory Governments of any shade have not solved the problem. With the unamended Bill the current Government have chosen the nuclear option not only to upset and destabilise a domestic settlement between all four nations but to blow to bits the remaining good will between the UK and the EU—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. My apologies to the seven Members who did not get in to speak. I call the Minister.
Paul Scully
I thank everybody who spoke in the debate today and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have engaged with the Bill throughout.
From many speakers, especially at the beginning of the debate, we heard about exactly what businesses and people throughout the country have wanted—the certainty and consistency that the Bill will deliver. Unfortunately, we have heard, as we have throughout the Bill’s passage, a lot of inconsistency from Opposition Members. We have heard the SNP talk about the fact that we are not going to get a trade deal with America but, by the way, when we do, we have to accept chlorinated chicken. Neither of those things are true.
We have heard that people want the Government to change and negotiate and work with the European negotiating team, but when we reach out to them to explain what part 5 of the Bill is all about and the fact that we will not need a safety net should we get successful talks in the Joint Committee, it is described as shambolic. Which would people like? Would they like change? I think we want certainty.
People have talked about the need for devolution in Northern Ireland and the need to respect Northern Irish businesses and the parties in Northern Ireland and give their businesses certainty, but Opposition Members will vote against part 5 and, in doing so, vote against unfettered access for Northern Ireland into GB.
We heard an SNP Member describe the UK Government as a boa constrictor, yet they want independence from the UK Government and from the other nations to go back to the boa constrictor that is the EU.
We need the Bill and these clauses now because parliamentary time dictates as much and we want the legislation to be ready for the end of the transition phase, whatever happens in the remaining days of discussions with the EU. I wish both sides well in their discussions.
To conclude, the UK’s internal market has been the bedrock of our shared prosperity for centuries. It has enabled businesses and individuals to thrive and has been the source of unhindered and open trade throughout the country. It has helped to demonstrate that our country is greater as a Union than the sum of its parts.
The Government are committed to safeguarding the Union. We fully support devolution and continue to put the Union at the heart of everything we do. I very much believe that the four corners of the UK are stronger together and that the Bill supports and respects the devolution settlements. Some Members have said that the Bill is a threat to devolution, but in reality they are trying to further their narrow political arguments rather than look at the wider political arguments. Their narrow political arguments about independence have nothing to do with devolution.
I stress that the proposals in the Bill are designed to ensure that devolution can continue to work for everyone. All devolved policy areas will stay devolved and the proposals ensure only that there are no new barriers to UK internal trade. Indeed, at the end of the transition period hundreds of powers that are currently exercised by the EU will flow back to the UK. Many of these powers will fall within the competence of the devolved Administrations, and this flow therefore represents a substantial transfer of powers to the devolved Administrations that they did not exercise before the EU exit.
The Bill is vital in preserving our internal market and continuing to provide certainty for businesses as we seek to recover from covid-19, prepare for the opportunities after the transition period and protect jobs. It will ensure that UK businesses can trade across our four home nations in a way that helps them to invest and create jobs, just as they have for hundreds of years. I want to emphasise again that the Government have been, and will continue to be, reasonable in discussions on this Bill. We made many positive changes, and they are on the table, but ultimately the Government need to balance this with the need to deliver a Bill that provides the certainty that businesses want and the need to invest and create jobs. I therefore call on hon. Members to support the Government in these objectives, which I believe we all share, when they vote today.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As Madam Deputy Speaker informed the House earlier, Mr Speaker has given careful consideration to Lords amendment 50, which refers to state aid and the Office for the Internal Market. He is satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by the money resolution passed by the House on 14 September. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendment is therefore deemed to be disagreed to.
Lords amendment 50 deemed to be disagreed to (Standing Order No. 78(3)).
Lords amendments 51 to 57 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 61 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 7, 20 to 29, 35 to 41 and 58 to 60 agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1, 8 to 19, 30 to 34, 42, 44 to 57 and 61;
That Paul Scully, Michael Tomlinson, Jo Gideon, Mark Fletcher, Ed Miliband, Gill Furniss and Drew Hendry be members of the Committee;
That Paul Scully be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Mike Freer.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
PARLIAMENTARY WORKS SPONSOR BODY
Ordered,
That, under the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, Sir Robert Syms having resigned as a Parliamentary member of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, Ian Levy be appointed to the Body in his place.—(Mr Rees-Mogg.)
Kenyan Civil Service Pensions: Non-payment
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this debate. I thank the Minister and his colleagues for their assistance to me and other Members—a number are in the Chamber this evening—as we seek justice for our constituents. I hope that tonight’s debate might push things a little further.
In April last year, I was approached by my constituent Mr Balbir Singh Sekhon. I have known him since 1984, the year he took up work as a traffic warden with the Metropolitan police and I became his local councillor. He migrated from India to Kenya in 1956. For 18 years, from 1957 to 1975, he was a secondary teacher in Kenya. He was offered and took up British citizenship during that time. For the last 12 of the 18 years, he taught English language and geography at Nairobi Technical High School.
Mr Sekhon retired in the UK 1994. A couple of years later, he asked the Kenyan high commission about his Kenyan civil service pension. He was relieved to learn that he would receive a pension of £1,154.07 per year, paid through Crown Agents. He received monthly payments thereafter—in the year ending 5 April 2019, he received £1,546.45—but then the payments stopped. Crown Agents says it has not been paid by the Kenyan Government.
I wrote to the Kenyan high commissioner in June last year. He replied very quickly, within a couple of weeks, and asked Mr Sekhon to provide “urgently” a number of documents to the high commission. Mr Sekhon did so, but he is still waiting for the money he is owed.
Other Members have constituents in a similar position. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has devoted a lot of effort on behalf of two people, both former teachers in Kenya before they came to the UK in 1975. They claimed pensions in the mid-1990s. Later on, they inquired whether their payments would be adjusted for inflation, and at that point the payments stopped.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who has led this campaign with great energy on behalf of her constituent Mr Sohan Singh. He is in the same position. His Kenyan pension has not been paid since 29 March 2019. Crown Agents says it has not received the payment. My hon. Friend took Mr Singh’s case up with the former Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). Her advice—to raise it directly with the pensions department of the Kenyan Treasury—was not very helpful. Both Mr Sekhon and Mr Singh had tried that already, without success.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before I call Seema Malhotra, I want to remind everybody of one of the more interesting procedures: because the debate started before 10 o’clock, the Adjournment has to be moved again at 10 o’clock, so do not be frightened when I call order at that time.
Seema Malhotra
I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate, which, as he said, is a matter of great concern for many of our constituents. I want to acknowledge and thank Mr Mangal Chudha in my constituency, who also brought this matter to my attention, along with two others.
My right hon. Friend just made the point that the UK Minister has told our constituents to write to the Kenyan Ministries. May I raise a concern and ask my right hon. Friend’s view on it? When I wrote to the Minister last year, I received this reply:
“While this matter is the responsibility of the Kenyan authorities, the British high commission in Nairobi has written to the Kenyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the head of the department for pensions in the Treasury seeking an explanation for non-payment of pensions and lack of increase in line with inflation.”
I was very surprised to see subsequent responses to parliamentary questions—for example, that tabled by our hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). That answer, in February, said:
“This matter is the responsibility of the Kenyan authorities. However, the British High Commission in Nairobi has written to the Kenyan Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Head of the Department for Pensions in the Kenyan National Treasury seeking an explanation for non-payment of pensions to former Kenyan civil servants and the lack of increase in line with inflation.”
Our hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) received exactly the same response in July. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is for the Government to be doing more to support our citizens?
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is quite right. There is no evidence of any reply having been received to those inquiries. I do not know how many times the question has been asked, but perhaps the Minister can shed some light on what is going on.
After that initial response, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West did receive a further letter from the Minister, which explained something that I thought was helpful and worth informing the House of. To quote from the reply to her:
“In very broad terms, HMG accepted responsibility for the pensions of those who were employed in Kenya on expatriate terms (i.e. had paid leave passages outside the country during their employment) and who were not citizens of Kenya on 1st April 1971 or the date of retirement if later. The pension of anyone who did not meet the above criteria above remained the responsibility of the Government of Kenya. This is why some pensions are paid by HMG and others, such as”
the constituent
“by Crown Agents on behalf of the Government of Kenya.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing this forward tonight. He and I talked last week about the issue. Does he not agree that in each constituency, my own included, where we come across injustice that we are unable to correct ourselves—and in a case where, I guess, this House has influence, and the Minister as well—there is a moral imperative that we use it for those we represent, such as his pensioners who have been abandoned by their Government and must not be abandoned by this one?
Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I think he raises an important point. Of course, today their Government is our Government; in the past, they were living under another Government, and we do not quite know what has happened or why these payments have ceased. However, he is absolutely right, and I am grateful for the way he has expressed it: it is right for Members of the House to raise these issues here in the hope that the Government can prevail and that their influence can ensure these payments resume.
There was a further letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth from the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who moved to the Foreign Office in the reshuffle that summer, which said, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) has already told us, that
“the British High Commission in Nairobi has written to the Kenyan Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Head of the Department for Pensions in the Kenyan National Treasury seeking an explanation for non-payment of pensions to former Kenyan civil servants and the lack of increase in line with inflation.”
That Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge)—assured my hon. Friend that his officials would be in touch when they received a response. As far as I know, nobody has ever heard any information about that response, whether or not one was received, but in any case there was no progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West tabled a written question on 21 February. The Minister, who I am pleased to say is in his place tonight, replied that his Department had been in touch, again, with the Kenyan Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the head of the Department for Pensions in Kenya for an explanation, and he added in that answer that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was now helping the Kenyan National Treasury to contact Crown Agents Bank to expedite the reinstatement of the pensions. That was encouraging, but, over nine months later, the situation remains unchanged: the pensions have not been paid.
There is some history here. In 2009, Vince Cable tabled a written question to the Foreign Office, to ask the Foreign Secretary
“what recent representations he has made to the government of Kenya on the non-payment of pensions to retired Kenyan civil servants with British citizenship who are resident in that country.”
The Minister, Ivan Lewis, replied:
“The Government are very concerned by the Freezing Order issued by the High Court on 23 October 2009 on accounts belonging to the Government of Kenya held by Crown Agents Bank. The freezing of these accounts affects the payment of pensions to former Kenyan civil servants. We are raising the issue with the Government of Kenya who are fully aware of their responsibilities in the matter.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2009; Vol. 501, c. 880W.]
So this is not an entirely new problem. On 9 July 2013, the then Member for Brentford and Isleworth asked what recent discussions the Foreign Secretary had had with the Government of Kenya. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mark Simmonds, answered:
“In recent years we have raised this issue with Kenyan Government officials on a number of occasions, including—”
Seema Malhotra
My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. He raises the very confusing issue of why we have not been able to get an answer to the questions around the non-payment of pensions to former civil servants, but also the lack of the increase in line with inflation, which I understand was part of the agreement many years ago between the British and the Kenyan Government, I think in 1977. A constituent has highlighted to me that he is one of 300 people who have not received an inflationary increase since 1991, and then from last year he has not been receiving his pension, so there has been some confusion over a number of years. Without answers to these questions, it is very difficult for people who are now in their 80s or sometimes in their 90s to be getting these answers directly from the Kenyan Government, which is what our Government are advising them to do.
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I must say, I think my constituent has received inflation increases. There does seem to be some variability about who has received them over the last couple of decades. Who knows what the reason for that is?
I was just reading a written answer from 2013, which concludes:
“British high commission staff in Nairobi asked the Kenyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs about public sector pensions on 2 July 2013 and are awaiting a response.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 143W.]
That was seven years ago. Whether any response was received at that time, I do not know, but I certainly do not think any Member here has seen a response to any of these questions, which clearly have frequently been asked.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this late-night, niche, but important debate on the non-payment of Kenyan civil service pensions. In addition to the other examples raised, I want to highlight the case of my Slough constituent Amrik Singh Banse, who was a former civil servant in the teaching profession and whose pension sadly stopped without notice over a year ago. He has also informed me that, astonishingly, he has received no increment since 1992. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is simply unacceptable that individuals who have worked so tirelessly throughout their career are being left high and dry in such an egregious manner, and that is why our Government must intervene?
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no dispute at all that our constituents are entitled to these payments. A promise has been made to them, and the Government of Kenya need to honour their promise to his constituent and to all the others.
Coming forward to this year, last month, I co-signed a letter to the Minister with my hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Feltham and Heston and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), who I see in his place, asking that the Minister meet us to discuss what further steps the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will take to ensure that these pensions are reinstated and uprated in line with inflation. The Foreign Secretary confirmed to me in Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions last month that he would look to arrange the meeting, so we look forward to that.
I wonder whether the Minister can clarify the following tonight. First, how many people living in the UK does the Foreign Office think are affected by the non-payment of Kenyan pensions and, perhaps separately, by the issue that has been surfaced in this debate about the non-uprating of some of those pensions that have been in payment?
Secondly, can the Minister tell the House what recent discussions he has had about this with his Kenyan counterparts? Clearly the Foreign Office has asked about this on quite a few occasions. Has it received an answer from the Government of Kenya to any of its inquiries? What does the Minister make of it all? Why is it that our constituents have not been paid at all since the spring of last year? Lastly, what is the Department’s plan should the Kenyan Government continue to withhold these payments to which our constituents are entitled?
Our constituents have not received the pension that they are entitled to for almost two years. Some have been waiting longer. Many, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston has said, are elderly. They are entitled to their pension, and there is an issue of dignity here. These people have worked and they are expecting to receive the fair pension that they are entitled to.
Seema Malhotra
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as being an administrative nightmare for our constituents, it is also highly distressing for people to have to battle for something to which they have a right? This is something that they have earned through their hard work and commitment to the Kenyan Government and through their public service to the Kenyan nation. They should not have to fight for it in their retirement. This is the time when we need our Government to step in and help them.
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She sums up the message of the debate extremely well. I hope that the Minister will provide some hope for our constituents that this matter will finally be resolved, and I look forward to hearing his answers after others have contributed to the debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Paul Bristow has sought and received the permissions of the relevant bodies to make a short contribution to the Adjournment debate.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing this debate. The non-payment of Kenyan civil service pensions is not a high-profile issue, but although it might not be a well-known problem, it is a very real problem for individual constituents. There are people affected across the country, represented by Members on both sides of the House, and our debate tonight is hugely significant for them. The right hon. Gentleman spoke very eloquently on behalf of his constituent. He covered the basic issues well, and I do not intend to retrace that ground, beyond agreeing with the undeniable principle that those who worked diligently for the Kenyan Government over many years should be paid their pensions. It is entirely wrong for these relatively small sums of around £40 a month in many cases, which are still of huge value to individual constituents, to be withheld, because, small as they may be, it matters both morally and practically to these former Kenyan civil servants who have settled here in the UK.
My involvement, like that of other hon. Members present, stems from local casework. My constituent, Mr Darshan Chana, stopped receiving his pension in April 2019. No explanation was provided by the Kenyan Government or by the Crown Agents Bank, which administers his pension along with the others. Mr Chana came to me because, in his words:
“All attempts to all concerned have been entirely unsuccessful.”
I want to place on record my gratitude to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and in particular to the Minister for Africa—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge)—for his efforts on Mr Chana’s behalf. This is, of course, a matter for the Kenyan authorities to resolve, but I know that the British high commission in Nairobi has been directly in touch with Kenyan Treasury officials. Similar contact has continued with the Kenyan high commission in London. We all hope that this saga can be drawn to a close, and that our constituents can have their pensions restored and backdated. I look forward to the Minister’s response, so that I can quickly provide a further update to Mr Chana. After 20 long months without his pension, perhaps we can finally provide some hope for the future.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I too would like to express my gratitude to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done on advocating for pensioners as chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. I would also like to thank the other hon. Members who have raised individual cases from a number of parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Minister for Africa is frustrated that he is missing this debate, but he is currently travelling on ministerial duties. It is therefore my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government. I will try to answer as many of the questions raised as possible, but there may well be details to which I am not able to respond in this debate; I hope that Members will forgive me if that is the case. I will try to provide more complete responses later if there are gaps.
The individual constituents referred to today were previously dedicated civil servants working for the Government of Kenya. They have not received their pension payments—in some instances, for over 18 months. Prior to that, as has been mentioned by a number of hon. and right hon. Members, they have not had a pensions uprating since 1992. There have been previous occasions where pensions payments have been withheld, but not for this duration. Of course, a prolonged period of withheld payments has real-world consequences for the day-to-day lives of the people involved, and there is a risk that this will push individuals into a position where they face the unacceptable choice about which basic essentials they should forgo. The people we are speaking about have worked often lengthy and distinguished careers in public service, with the promise that they would receive their pension benefits. I therefore join the House in voicing our frustration at the harsh and unfair reality with which many of these individuals have been forced to grapple.
In 1963, the Government of Kenya inherited both the assets and liabilities of the pre-independence era, including the payment and administration of public service employees’ pensions. In 1970, it became clear that it was becoming an increasing burden on Kenya, and—as an aid initiative and in recognition of our history with Kenya—Her Majesty’s Government announced that they would assume responsibility for the award, control, administration and payment of pension benefits of certain former public servants and their beneficiaries. As the right hon. Member for East Ham mentioned, these were people employed on expatriate terms—that is, those who had paid leave passage outside the country during their employment and who were not citizens of Kenya on 1 April 1971 or on their date of retirement, if that were later.
The pension of anyone who did not meet these criteria remained, and still remains, the responsibility of the Government of Kenya. It is this second group that we are discussing today. In response to the right hon. Member’s question, our estimate is that there are 229 retired civil servants who fall into this category. Some of these pensioners, whose payments are the sole responsibility of the Government of Kenya, now reside in the United Kingdom, and are our constituents and those of other right hon. and hon. Members.
The Government of Kenya appointed Crown Agents Bank as the global paying agent for their pensions liabilities, and it is Crown Agents Bank that is entrusted to make payments to those owed pensions by the Government of Kenya who are based overseas. However, in April 2019, the Government of Kenya ceased releasing funds to Crown Agents Bank, which was therefore unable to make the pension payments to the relevant former officers of the Kenyan civil service. We understand that there are a total of 286, with 229 residing in the United Kingdom.
The Government of Kenya have, as yet, not provided any explanation for the suspension of the payments. Her Majesty’s Government, specifically the former Minister for Africa, were first made aware of this suspension of payments at the end of May 2019 by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who had received letters from affected constituents. From the speeches and interventions this evening, it is clear that other right hon. and hon. Members were approached by constituents in similar circumstances.
When it became clear that this was not an isolated incident, and indeed not a short-lived incident, a number of months later Her Majesty’s Government immediately got in contact with the Government of Kenya. We have regularly made both official and ministerial representations to the Government of Kenya, including on a number of occasions throughout 2019—I am making sure that I do not inadvertently pre-empt part of my own speech—and up to 3 December 2020, when the Minister for Africa raised this issue. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in London lobbied the Kenyan high commissioner and our high commission in Nairobi liaised with the pensions department of the Kenyan National Treasury, as well as raising the issue with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In all those exchanges, we asked for an explanation as to why payments were stopped, and called on the Government of Kenya to resume payments and backdate them as a matter of urgency.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. During all those exchanges with the Government of Kenya, and given that this is a moral and ethical issue, did our Government Ministers explain to the Kenyan Government that this will become a matter of great shame for them? Even given the small amounts and the small number of individuals involved, it will still be a historical blot of non-compliance and non-payment to hardworking individuals who have served Kenya so tirelessly throughout their lives.
James Cleverly
I have not been privy to the details of the conversations, but I think it would be unimaginable for the Kenyan Government not to realise that when there is interest from Members of the UK Parliament, it will become a high-profile issue and it will have reputational implications for them.
The Government of Kenya, unfortunately, have never proactively raised this issue with us. Our high commissioner in Nairobi raised the issue with Principal Secretary Kamau from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 1 December, sharing with them the copies of the note verbale we had previously submitted on the subject. My colleague the Minister for Africa also raised it with Kenyan Cabinet Secretary for National Treasury and Planning Yatani on Thursday 3 December and pushed again for pension payments to be resumed and backdated.
We have been in regular contact with Crown Agents Bank and understand that in recent months it has made progress with the pensions department of the Kenyan National Treasury. Crown Agents Bank provided additional information at the request of Kenyan authorities but as yet the funds needed for payments to resume have still not been released.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for the detailed response he is giving. Do the Government have any sort of taskforce that is dedicated to trying to get a resolution on this issue and to pursuing that doggedly? Will they keep those in the UK who are retired and affected up to date? I make the point again about the distress and strain for them, their children and their wider families, and the concern about whether, if people have passed away, their entitlements will still go to their relatives, because their families should have received them.
James Cleverly
My understanding is that we do not have a specific taskforce, but we do raise this issue at both high commissioner and ministerial level. My hon. Friend the Minister for Africa will be travelling to the region and raising this issue again with his Kenyan counterparts when he has the opportunity to do so. The matter is being dealt with at both senior official and ministerial level. I hope that shows the House that the Government take this issue very seriously indeed.
We understand that the Kenyan Treasury is now taking the matter forward with Crown Agents Bank. Quite frankly, progress has not been made anywhere near as fast as we would have hoped. In his contacts with the Kenyan Government my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa is urging swift resolution to this matter to ensure that payments to all individuals affected resume and that the outstanding sums are made good. He will have noted this evening’s debate, and I hope that the Government of Kenya will have done so too and ultimately will do the right thing for the public servants who worked with them in the past.
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 |
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 |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Mark Spencer |
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 |
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 |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (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 |
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 |
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 |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Gavin Robinson |
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 |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
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 |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
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 |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (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 |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Draft Social Security Co-ordination (Revocation of Retained Direct EU Legislation and Related Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security Co-ordination (Revocation of Retained Direct EU Legislation and Related Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr Gray, and to serve under Wiltshire’s finest. The draft regulations, which concern policy areas within my Department and Her Majesty’s Treasury, and which apply UK-wide, were laid before both Houses on 16 November. They are required to clear the way for the legislation that will implement our new system of social security co-ordination with the EU, European economic area states and Switzerland.
The current EU SSC—social security co-ordination—regulations operate to facilitate the EU’s free movement rules. They ensure that individuals pay social security contributions in only one member state at a time, set out which member state is responsible for the payment of social security benefits, require the export of some benefits to claimants resident in the EU, and provide for the aggregation of social security contributions when claiming certain benefits and the state pension. The rules require equal treatment for citizens across the EU, overriding any domestic legislation, and have continued to apply to the UK throughout the transition period. As hon. Members will be aware, the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 came into force on 11 November, and section 6 of the Act provides a power to modify the SSC regulations, which have been retained in UK law.
Before I go into the draft regulations in detail, I will provide some further detail on the context in which they are being made. The system of social security co-ordination across the EU relies on reciprocal arrangements. None the less, the unilateral provisions retained and fixed under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in that area would have provided a measure of short-term protection for citizens, to the extent possible, in the event that there were no withdrawal agreement in place. Now that the UK has left the EU with a withdrawal agreement, those retained provisions are not necessary. Citizens who are covered by the withdrawal agreement and related agreements with the EEA and Switzerland will be unaffected by the regulations for as long as they remain covered by those agreements. Arrangements in this area for UK and Irish nationals who move between the UK and Ireland will also continue unchanged, under a recent reciprocal agreement with Ireland.
The Government are negotiating future arrangements with the EU, similar in kind to the UK’s social security relationships with nations outside the EU. Such agreements are not, of course, as extensive in coverage as is required under the EU SSC regulations, which operate to facilitate free movement, as I have set out. That means that there will be changes in social security co-ordination policy with the EU from the end of the transition period, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations. The Government have been clear about that, including during the passage of the ISSC Act and in public communications.
Our new system will support workers who come into the UK under the new immigration system who are contributing to our economy. As the Committee will be aware, negotiations with the EU are at a very advanced stage. The Government’s position is that new rules should take effect from the end of the transition period, whether or not there is a future agreement. We still hope to secure a future agreement with the EU, including reciprocal provisions on the state pension and national insurance contributions. Good progress is being made, but of course wider negotiations are ongoing, and we have been preparing for all outcomes. The draft regulations are a core part of our legislative preparation, and will stand whatever the outcome.
We are also in discussions on future social security co-ordination rules with a number of EEA states and Switzerland. The absence of a future agreement with the EU would not preclude agreements with any EEA states or Switzerland from being concluded.
I will summarise the draft regulations. Part 1 sets out that the regulations come into force at the end of the transition period, apart from some of the amendments being remade in part 4, which will come into force on the day after the regulations are made. Part 2 revokes the EU SSC regulations retained under section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and those unilateral fixing statutory instruments made under section 8 of that Act. The fixing SIs were, as I said, brought forward for a scenario in which the UK did not leave the EU with a deal, and they would have enabled the UK to operate some of the retained SSC regulations unilaterally, as far as possible. That means that the rules for individuals not covered by the withdrawal agreement and who move between the UK and the EU, the EEA states and Switzerland after the end of the transition period will be determined by any new international agreements that are in place—be they with the EU or with individual countries, such as that which the UK has signed with Ireland.
Where there is no provision in any international agreement or no international agreement, the relevant domestic law in each country will apply. In respect of UK benefits, this means the UK will no longer export child benefit to children living in the EU, with the exception of Ireland, delivering on the manifesto commitment. As the Government have set out previously, we expect that arrangements in relation to, but not limited to, disability and unemployment benefits will be less comprehensive in all scenarios, reflecting long-standing UK policy in that area of EU requirements. As we have also set out, industrial injury disability benefit is payable worldwide and will therefore be payable in the EU, EEA and Switzerland in all scenarios.
In respect of national insurance contributions, the change means that, where no reciprocal agreement applies, the rules on the payment of national insurance contributions for individuals moving between the UK and the EU, EEA and Switzerland will be the same as the rules for the rest of the world. That arrangement will ensure a consistent approach to the EU and the rest of the world by making sure that workers and employers have to follow only a single set of rules when moving between the UK and another country. That means that employees and their employers cannot be required to pay social security contributions in more than one country at the same time after someone’s first year overseas.
The regulations will, however, make four limited savings from the general revocation of the retained SSC regulations at part 3. First, they will save the retained SSC regulations relating to the co-ordination of benefits in kind, namely healthcare, which is a policy competence of the Department of Health and Social Care. The Department has made separate secondary legislation in respect of the reciprocal healthcare aspects of the retained SSC regulations.
Secondly, the regulations save the existing debt recovery provisions, which will enable the UK to collect overpaid Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs benefits and social security contributions on the behalf of a foreign social security authority where the individual or the employer is present in the UK. This saving will be made so that the provisions are available only where the UK has accepted a debt recovery obligation from a foreign authority on a reciprocal basis as part of an international social security co-ordination agreement, such as that with Ireland.
Thirdly, the regulations save the retained SSC regulations to the extent necessary to provide for continued operation of the agreement on social security between the Governments of the UK and Gibraltar. It is the intention of both Governments to agree a new relationship not based on the EU SSC regulations. Once that has been implemented, this saving will no longer be required and will be revoked a later date.
Fourthly, the regulations save provisions relating to the aggregation and uprating of the state pension. This saving would not be needed should the UK reach a future agreement with the EU, EEA states and Switzerland. However, in the absence of all such agreements being in place by the end of the transition period, the saving will provide for continued state pension aggregation and uprating in the EU, EEA states and Switzerland up to the end of the financial year 2021-22. In the absence of a future agreement with the EU, the UK would seek to put in place reciprocal arrangements on social security with individual EU countries instead, some of which the UK had agreements with prior to our or their accession to the EU.
Even where such negotiations are progressing well, it may well be that the saving is needed for a short period beyond March 2022 in order to finalise and implement bilateral agreements. The saving is therefore not time-limited; it is, however, a strictly interim measure targeted at those who move to the EU, the EEA or Switzerland after the transition period while future arrangements are put on a reciprocal footing.
Part 4 makes related amendments to other EU exit legislation, including by bringing forward the day on which amendments will be made to section 179 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and section 155 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. Those amendments were previously made by the Social Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Social Security (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which are not revoked by the draft regulations. The amendments were otherwise due to come into effect at the end of the transition period, and will provide the option of delivering a future agreement with the EU on social security co-ordination through an Order in Council before the end of the transition period, should that be needed.
Although the UK has left the EU, we are not leaving the European convention on human rights. In my view, the provisions of the draft regulations are compatible with the convention.
In summary, the draft regulations, which are technical in nature, will make changes to prepare the statute book for the end of the transition period, particularly in relation to preventing the unilateral export of benefits. They will deliver on our manifesto commitment to prevent people from claiming child benefit for children living outside the UK, and they will ensure that the Government have the option to make a future social security co-ordination agreement with the EU through an Order in Council before the end of the transition period, should that be needed. I commend them to the Committee.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Gray. As I think is reasonably obvious, the Opposition will not oppose the draft regulations. Social security with the EU and EEA countries will be vital post Brexit, and the temporary unilateral measures that are ended by the regulations are clearly not a basis for that ongoing co-ordination. We support bringing forward the changes to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to the extent that that facilitates agreement on ongoing social security co-ordination. However, I have to note the absurdity of the circumstances under which we are discussing the statutory instrument. It is now 7 December 2020. On the 31st, the transition period will come to an end, and we still do not know whether there will be a deal between the UK and the EU—
The Chair
Order. The hon. Lady’s remarks must be strictly in the context of the draft SI.
Ms Buck
—let alone whether that deal will include social security co-ordination or whether it will replace the regulations being ended by the draft SI. It is testimony to the Government’s entire approach to the negotiations that the draft instrument has come before the Committee so late in the day and under such continuing uncertainty. The time to discuss these measures is when a deal has been secured and the future framework of co-ordination that will replace the regulations that are being ended is a known quantity, but that is not the situation that we are in.
We therefore need clarification of the implications of the draft regulations in the event of a deal and in the event of no deal. First, I am sure that the Minister will be happy to confirm that in the event of no deal, nothing in the draft regulations will in any way alter the social security protections afforded to resident EU, EEA or European Free Trade Association citizens under the withdrawal agreement.
Ms Buck
Secondly, can the Minister clarify the implications of the draft regulations for EU citizens living in the UK who are not covered with the withdrawal agreement provisions, in relation to such matters as accidents at work, maternity pay, state pension contributions, access to the NHS and benefit entitlement? Will they enter a legal no man’s land until future reciprocal agreements are negotiated? What are the implications for UK social security expenditure in the event of no deal?
The draft regulations will be made under the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020. The Home Office’s explanatory notes on the Bill note:
“The power to make regulations under Part 2 of the Bill has the potential to be used in a way that could change the cost to the public sector in terms of social security co-ordination. It is not possible to quantify precisely what those costs may be at this stage, but there is the potential for costs that are more than merely notional.”
Why have the Government not provided an impact assessment to enable us to assess that?
On part 4 of the draft regulations, which brings forward the date on which changes to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 come into effect, the explanatory memorandum states that
“subject to the outcome of the negotiations with the EU, and the details of any agreement, it may be necessary to use the powers in section 179 of the SSAA 1992 and section 155 of the SSAA(NI) Act 1992 to make a reciprocal agreement with the EU prior to the end of the transition period. This instrument brings forward the changes as a precaution given that the amendments in the Social Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Social Security (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 only take effect from the end of the transition period, as a consequence of the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”
I read this as saying that if there is to be an agreement on social security as part of a deal, the necessary amendments to the 1992 legislation will need to already have come into force beforehand. The question is, have the Government only just realised this? Have they have been negotiating on social security all year without noticing that they did not have the powers to do a deal until after the transition period? Some clarity on this important point would be welcome.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see a son of Glasgow in the Chair, Mr Gray. I will not detain the Committee for particularly long, and will not be forcing a vote on today’s proceedings either, but I want to put a couple of quick points on the record.
The explanatory memorandum states:
“The territorial application of this instrument is the entire United Kingdom. The changes being made to DWP areas of social security policy, which is transferred in Northern Ireland and partially devolved in Scotland, are in this context subject to the foreign affairs reservation.”
However, it is our view that the revocation of retained EU law that has effect in respect of devolved social security benefits is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The DWP has obviously made these regulations with UK-wide extent, but with no carve-out whatsoever for devolved social security matters, on the basis that it considers the draft regulations to relate entirely to reserved matters, by reference to the foreign affairs reservation. In our view, the UK Government have construed the foreign affairs reservation in part I of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 far too widely. The modification, including repeal, of retained EU law on social security co-ordination, insofar as it has effect in respect of benefits, is devolved by the Scotland Act 2016. It is quite clearly a devolved matter.
I ask the Minister to confirm whether these powers are indeed fully devolved or not, but sadly the United Kingdom Internal Markets Bill, which runs roughshod over the devolution settlement, will make that point moot, as every aspect of devolved Government is undermined and could be overruled. It therefore follows—before I veer too far off course, Mr Gray—that these draft regulations will be ultra vires and thus ineffective in relation to devolved benefits.
It was only on 16 November, three weeks ago, as the UK Government laid their regulations, that the need for a Scottish statutory instrument became clear. Failing an agreed approach, Scottish Ministers were left with no choice but to table an SSI, which they have now done. The outcome is undesirable, as it will result in UK and Scottish legislation seeking to achieve the same result in relation to devolved benefits. Not only does that mean less legal clarity; it is a further example of the UK Government ignoring the needs and wishes of a democratically elected devolved Government. No disrespect to the Minister, who I have met with before, but I feel that the approach thus far has been high-handed and arrogant, which has increasingly frustrated Scottish Unionists, even those from his own party.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the two hon. Members for commenting. First, on the timing, to be clear, this is a technical rectification, as part of the amendments in part 4, so that was always going to be the case. Although it is late in the transition period, good progress has been made in this area and we hope to get the deal over the line. EU negotiations are renowned for going down to the wire, and the sticking points are well documented. We do not take it for granted that there will be an agreement, and the Government are prepared for all outcomes and have been communicating to citizens the importance of being prepared for rules in this area to change in all scenarios.
These affirmative-resolution regulations offer an opportunity for the House to approve the changes we are making in social security co-ordination before the end of the transition period. It would clearly not be appropriate to continue the unilateral export of benefits that are only paid overseas due to EU rules after we have left the EU and the transition period in the absence of reciprocal provisions. The principle of reciprocity is widely recognised as the basis on which international agreements on social security are operated. Therefore, the Government would seek to put in place reciprocal agreements with member states swiftly if no agreement can be reached with the EU.
Clearly, some member states attract a higher proportion of UK state pensioners and UK-based employees than others. The UK previously had 20 bilateral agreements with the EU, EEA states and Switzerland, including reciprocal provisions on the state pension and national insurance contributions—priority areas for my Department and HMRC that cannot be effectively operated on a unilateral basis.
The Government have committed and remain committed to publishing an updated impact assessment once the outcome of negotiations is known. The relevant people covered by the withdrawal agreement are not impacted by this instrument. The measure does not impose any costs on businesses and ensures, once SSC rules cease to apply between the UK and the EU, that businesses can apply the standard rest-of-the-world rules for national insurance where no reciprocal agreements is in place.
Citizens do not need to have moved by the end of the transition period, and that has been consistently clear in communications. Those who move after the transition period and are subject to new social security rules may also be subject to new immigration residency requirements imposed by the country in question. My Department has been undertaking a communications campaign in this area since before the summer. Guidance is included in the gov.uk transition checker tool for anyone thinking of moving to the EU, EEA or Switzerland. In November, we launched advertising on post office screens in more than 250 locations across all four nations of the UK targeting those who may be undertaking activity in readiness for a move to the EU, EEA or Switzerland.
My Department is ready to implement changes from 1 January and has been preparing for a variety of outcomes while working closely and collaboratively across Government with other Departments. We have new processes in place to ensure that the right rules are applied to the right customers. While DWP policy is transferred in Northern Ireland and partially devolved in Scotland, the Government’s position is that the foreign affairs reservation applies in this context and the revocations are UK wide, and I have exchanged written correspondence with the relevant Scottish Minister on that specific point.
The regulations are an essential part of the legislative programme and have been laid in preparation for the end of the transition period as we reset our relationship with the EU. Not proceeding with this legislation would result in the UK unilaterally operating EU rules after the end of the transition period, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations. That would be undesirable for the reasons I set out in my opening speech, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection From Eviction and Taking Control of Goods) (England) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction and Taking Control of Goods) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1290).
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. The statutory instrument prevents enforcement agents—bailiffs, in plain English—from entering residential premises in England to execute a writ or warrant of possession until 11 January, except in the most serious circumstances.
The purpose of the measure is to protect public health by preventing people from being evicted from their homes by enforcement agents at a time when the risk of virus transmission is high and when local authorities and NHS services are typically under additional strain over the Christmas period. The instrument builds on the Government’s previous guidance on enforcement activity during the national lockdown in England, which was introduced by the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020, and on the intention to have a winter pause on evictions, which the Government announced on 10 September. The instrument before the Committee also prevented enforcement agents from entering residential properties to take control of goods during the national lockdown that ended on 2 December. It applies to enforcement action in England only.
The Government took unprecedented action to ensure that renters were protected from eviction at the height of the coronavirus pandemic, including by providing significant financial support and agreeing with the courts to use powers relating to court procedure to stay possession proceedings for a total of six months, until 20 September. That stay could only ever be temporary, however; the civil justice system and the rules that underpin it must be accessible, fair and efficient for tenants and landlords alike.
Ahead of the end of the stay on possession cases in the courts, the Government put in place a number of measures to manage the resumption of cases carefully, so that the courts were not overwhelmed and could make decisions; so that the most vulnerable could get the help and support they needed; and, in particular, so that tenants could have access to legal advice and support. The Government also worked with the judiciary and others to put in place new court arrangements to ensure appropriate support to all parties. Those court arrangements are in place and are working well, and I pay tribute to the working group convened by the Master of the Rolls and chaired by Mr Justice Knowles for the key role that it has played.
In addition, the Government took legislative action. The Minister for Housing laid a statutory instrument on 28 August to amend schedule 29 to the Coronavirus Act 2020 to require landlords to provide tenants with six months’ notice in all but the most serious cases. That approach ensures that tenants will remain safe and have additional time to find new accommodation, while empowering landlords to take action where necessary—if a tenant’s antisocial behaviour is severely affecting their neighbours’ quality of life, for example.
We have also taken some targeted action on the enforcement of evictions to protect public health during the extraordinary circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic. In September, guidance was issued to bailiffs to request that the enforcement of possession orders did not proceed in areas where local lockdown regulations restricted gatherings in residential properties, to prevent tenants being forced out of their homes at an unsettling time in areas where public health risks could be greater.
The Government also announced in September that we would take steps to prevent eviction action taking place over the Christmas period, ensuring that vulnerable tenants are not forced from their homes at a time when public and local authorities may be dealing with the usual level of increased demand on services. Bailiffs were issued guidance that they should not enforce writs or warrants of possession, other than in the most serious circumstances, between 11 December and 11 January, during the winter pause I mentioned. That is the necessary context—forgive me for setting it out in some detail, Sir David, but it is important.
At the beginning of November, following the introduction of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020, enforcement agents were asked not to enforce evictions nationally at a time when the risk of transmitting the virus was high and a number of significant restrictions were in force. As the national restrictions were set to end just before the end of the national winter pause, the Government decided that it was appropriate to build on the guidance not to enforce evictions in England during that time with the legislative measure before the Committee. We therefore laid this instrument in Parliament on 16 November, to come into force on 17 November. We were able to do so because it was an urgent matter taken under the public health legislation. Today’s proceedings are now required to ensure that this made affirmative legislation continues to have effect.
The instrument is consistent with the policy that the Government have adopted since the start of the pandemic. It aims to strike a balance between prioritising public health and supporting the most vulnerable, while ensuring that landlords can access and exercise their right to justice in the most serious cases. For that reason, the instrument contains some limited exemptions from the ban on the enforcement of evictions. These exceptions relate to circumstances where the Government feel that the health risk is lower, or the competing interests of preventing harm to third parties or taking action against egregious behaviour are sufficient to outweigh the public health risks in enforcing eviction.
The instrument provides the following exemptions to the restrictions on enforcing evictions: first, where the claim is against trespassers who are persons unknown, and secondly, where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of antisocial behaviour or nuisance, false statements, domestic abuse in social tenancies, substantial rent arrears equivalent to nine months’ rent that predate 23 March 2020, or the death of a tenant where the enforcing agent attending the property is satisfied that the property is unoccupied. The Government believe it is important that there is a clear, uniform and transparent process for establishing whether an exemption to the ban on evictions applies. For that reason, the instrument contains a requirement for the court to be satisfied on a case-by-case basis that an exemption applies.
The measure will be in force until 11 January. New rules require that all bailiffs must give 14 days’ notice of an eviction, which means that in most cases evictions will not resume anywhere in England until 25 January at the earliest. We continue to keep the position regarding the enforcement of evictions in local tiers under review, following the expiry of the national restrictions over the midwinter period. I know there has been significant interest in the House in the effect of removing tenants’ protection from eviction, which was provided by the stay on possession proceedings between 27 March and 20 September this year. Concern has also been expressed by hon. Members about the impact of these restrictions on the rights of landlords, who are dealing with difficult situations in which there is no reasonable alternative to possession proceedings.
The statutory instrument also set out a nationwide prohibition on enforcement agents taking control of goods inside residential properties while the national restrictions are in place. The measure did not prevent enforcement agents from taking other steps to enforce debts and fines under the taking control of goods procedure, including making contact via remote means such as telephone; visiting, but not entering, properties; taking control of goods located outside homes or on the highway; and enforcement at business premises. The Government believe that such steps may be safely undertaken in line with the Government’s published covid-secure guidance for enforcement agents using the taking control of goods procedure. The Government’s view, therefore, is that this policy strikes a proportionate balance between protecting against the risk of transmission and allowing the continuation of the administration of justice.
Forgive me for one moment as I find the next part of my speech.
Alex Chalk
Thank you for that kind offer.
I will close by saying that the courts remained open throughout the national restrictions in November. The court rules and procedures introduced in September will ensure protections for both tenants and landlords. For example, landlords are required to send the court information about the impact that the pandemic has had on their tenant; a new review stage has been introduced so that tenants can access legal advice; and landlords are required to reactivate any existing claims that were in the system before 3 August. The Government have published comprehensive new guidance for landlords and tenants to explain all these new arrangements and their impact on the court possessions process.
Our approach strikes the right balance between prioritising public health and supporting the most vulnerable renters, while ensuring that landlords can access and exercise their right to justice. Landlords can action possession claims through the courts, but evictions will not be enforced apart from in the most serious cases. This instrument provides tenants with protection from eviction, ensuring that vulnerable tenants are not forced from their home at a time when public and local authorities may be dealing with the unusual level of increased demand on services. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Peter Kyle
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, on this cool Christmas evening.
I will start with the aspects of the instrument that the Opposition consider positive. The measures in the regulations will come as a relief to people up and down the country. No one wants to see people evicted from their homes in the middle of a deadly pandemic. As we are all too aware, many have found themselves in perilous financial situations this year and struggled to pay their rent from week to week. The Opposition think it essential that none of those struggling households—those in both the private and socially rented sectors—are forced out of their homes this Christmas. It would be not only deeply immoral but hugely dangerous and counterproductive to deny people the safety of their home while the virus persists.
In March, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government promised that
“no one should lose their home as a result of the coronavirus epidemic”
and the Opposition agreed wholeheartedly. During the first wave, the Government attempted to live up to that promise by introducing a nationwide ban on evictions. Following pressure from the Opposition, they extended the ban twice. In the run-up to the ban ending, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), repeatedly warned that the Government would have to extend the ban yet further. The Housing Minister assured her
“we are moving out of the worst of the epidemic”—[Official Report, 22 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 2170.]
but all the evidence at the time showed and subsequent events have shown that the Opposition were, unfortunately, correct.
It was scandalously and deeply myopic of the Government to lift the evictions ban just when the evidence was showing we were heading into a second wave. Just when renters and homeowners needed protection the most, the Government decided to take it away. The Government went against the advice of the Opposition, the chief medical officer and various other public health bodies, who all warned of a rise in covid infections if they forced people into homelessness or serious overcrowding. If they had listened to that advice, the original ban on evictions still be in place and these regulations would not have been necessary.
Let us be crystal clear: the regulations are not a ban on evictions; they simply prevent enforcement agents from carrying them out. They prevent enforcement agents from physically taking possession of a home, but they do not stop eviction notices from being sent to homes. Meanwhile, the courts remain open to hear possession claims. After a year of unimaginable hardship, eviction notices will be landing on thousands of doormats this Christmas, reminding people that they could be homeless when January comes and the effect of these provisions ceases. That is simply scandalous. What is more, it could so easily have been avoided had the Government chosen to follow the Opposition’s advice and reinstated a national ban on evictions.
The regulations provide some protection to tenants who would otherwise have nothing, so we will not oppose them today, but they will only delay, rather than prevent, the looming evictions crisis. We need a long-term plan to ensure that nobody loses their home because of coronavirus. That starts with early planning. I would therefore appreciate the Minister answering some questions.
What are the Government doing to prevent illegal evictions, reportedly up by 50% since the beginning of the pandemic? Do the Government recognise that figure? Do they collect data on illegal evictions? I cannot tell whether they do. What are they doing to ensure that local authorities have the financial resources to pay vital discretionary housing payments to those who are struggling? Will the provisions of the regulations continue in tier 2 and tier 3 areas after 11 January, or will people in those areas be left high and dry, just as they were in September?
I turn to the second aspect of the regulations: the taking of goods. During the first lockdown, the Government passed legislation to prevent enforcement agents from entering properties and taking control of goods. Following the end of the first national lockdown, the restrictions on taking goods were lifted, just a few days before the second wave took hold. As with the lifting of the eviction ban, that was a stunningly short-sighted decision which Labour vehemently opposed.
Following the second national lockdown, from 5 November until 2 December, the Government legislated to ban enforcement agents from taking control of goods inside residential properties. Unfortunately, that ban was only effective for the time the national lockdown was in force. Given that the national lockdown has now come to an end, bailiffs will be permitted to enter homes in tier 1 areas and conduct visits to homes in tier 2 and 3 areas. The current arrangement is purely a voluntary one, between the Lord Chancellor and the Civil Enforcement Association. It could be fudged or broken at any time. We believe that it is simply wrong that, through a lack of legislation, the Government are placing many clinically vulnerable people at increased risk of catching covid as a result of allowing bailiffs to visit their homes. That is in stark contrast to the Government’s approach to the enforcement of evictions. Why does the Minister think it is necessary to stop enforcement of evictions but not necessary to prevent enforcement agents from visiting homes?
During a deadly pandemic, especially at Christmas, enforcement visits are both dangerous and unnecessary. They also force those who are already struggling into even further debt, as each visit by an enforcement agent adds £235 to a person’s debt, even if the purpose of the visit is not achieved. At a time when the Government should be focusing on economic recovery, these visits will force vulnerable people into further, deeper debt.
This Christmas will be hardest that many people experience, even without the additional fear of a knock on the door from the bailiffs. With that in mind, will the Minister answer the following questions? Why is the Government’s approach to the taking of goods so different from their approach to enforcing evictions? Will the Minister commit to passing legislation to ban bailiffs from visiting properties until at least January? If not, will he at the very least legislate to prevent agents from entering homes in tier 2 and tier 3 areas? Finally, will he commit to implementing the recommendations of the Justice Committee’s April 2019 report and appoint an independent industry regulator?
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Member for Hove for his helpful observations.
The hon. Gentleman asked about illegal evictions. If an eviction is illegal, it is absolutely right that proper action to be taken. It is a cruel and frankly wicked thing to evict someone illegally, without due process. I am proud that this Government have been increasing resources for policing. If there is a breach of the law, there will be more police officers available to take action where that is appropriate.
The hon. Gentleman asked about local authorities and their funding to assist people with local housing allowance. I am glad that he raised that, because he is right: local authorities across the country, including the one in my constituency, face additional pressures. That is why the Government have allocated £4 billion to assist local authorities. On the specific point about local housing allowance, there will be an additional £180 million to allow councils to make discretionary housing payments to individuals who are finding it difficult to make rent payments. In fact, a total of £700 million will be allocated this year, with more next year, also to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.
As the Committee will be aware, councils have also been provided with funding to support hardship funds, so if individuals have difficulty meeting council tax payments, they can apply to their local authority for assistance. A huge amount of money and will is being put behind trying to assist people in difficult circumstances to meet their financial obligations. All that stands above and apart from the other measures in place, such as furlough and the self-employment income support scheme, to ensure that people have money going into their pockets to meet their obligations.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the distinction between eviction and taking possession of goods. Respectfully, I would say there is a clear distinction. When individuals knock on a door seeking to evict someone from the home they live in, that is manifestly different from taking possession of goods inside the home. It is right that we ensure that each issue is taken on its merits and in the round. In this House we are of course mindful of the impact on the people behind the door, but equally we have to remember that there are those who have the right to access the justice procedure to ensure that debts are honoured and obligations met. It is right that we consider not a one-size-fits-all approach, but an approach that takes account of the implications of the enforcement action. There is no similarity between removing a possession and removing a home.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the proper question that the Justice Committee raised with respect to independent scrutiny of enforcement agents. The Government will return to that matter in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Tobacco Products Duty (Alteration of Rates) Order 2020
(4 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I am required to remind hon. Members of the social distancing regulations. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you sent any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk rather than sending hard copies.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Tobacco Products Duty (Alteration of Rates) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 1256).
The order increases the excise duty rates on tobacco products. The duty charged on all tobacco products will rise in line with the tobacco duty escalator, with an additional 4% rise for hand-rolling tobacco and an additional 2% rise for the minimum excise tax. As hon. Members will recall, the Government committed in the spring Budget to maintaining the tobacco duty escalator, which increases tobacco duties by 2% above retail prices index inflation each year until the end of the Parliament. The order therefore specifies that the duty charged on all tobacco products will rise by 2% above RPI inflation. In addition, duty on hand-rolling tobacco will rise by an additional 4% to 6% above RPI inflation. The order also specifies that the minimum excise tax—the smallest amount of duty to be paid on a pack of cigarettes—will rise by an additional 2% to 4% above RPI inflation.
Let me take the opportunity to provide some context on the steps that we are taking and to explain the rationale behind them. The UK already boasts comprehensive and globally admired tobacco control legislation that has led to a decline in smoking rates. However, too many people still class themselves as smokers. Smoking remains the biggest cause of preventable illness and premature deaths in the UK, killing approximately 100,000 people a year and about half of all long-term users, and the country spends large amounts on covering the health costs of smoking. All those factors mean that we need to continue to encourage more people to kick the habit. We have already set out plans to reduce the number of smokers from 14% of the population to 12% by 2022, and we have announced that we aim to curb smoking once and for all by 2030 in England.
We are also taking more measures to stamp out the underground trade in illicit tobacco. Hon. Members may have seen the Government’s recent consultation on tougher penalties for tobacco tax evasion, including proposals for £10,000 fixed penalties and escalating fines for repeat offenders. The Government have also committed to strengthening trading standards and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs so that they can even better combat the illicit tobacco business. That work includes creating a UK-wide HMRC intelligence-sharing hub.
The measures that I have outlined will all play their part in helping to reduce the prevalence of smoking. However, all the evidence shows that increasing the cost of tobacco products through taxation is also an important deterrent. Indeed, the World Health Organisation has found significant increases in the taxes on and the prices of tobacco products to be
“the most cost effective measure to reduce tobacco use.”
That is why we included a commitment in our recent tobacco control plan and our prevention Green Paper to continue our policy of maintaining high duty rates for tobacco products.
In the absence of a Finance Bill, we have decided to implement the increases to tobacco duty rates that I have outlined via the order. I acknowledge that a statutory instrument is not the usual mechanism for increasing tobacco duties. However, hon. Members may recall that such a method was used to amend rates in 2008, so it is not without precedent. The order will protect up to £100 million of revenue—money that we would forgo if duty rises were delayed until the spring.
These measures constitute additional protection for public health, while providing a boost to the public purse. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is nice to see you chairing the sitting, Mr Efford. On behalf of the shadow Treasury team, I welcome the opportunity to address the order, which will increase the rates of excise duty on tobacco products to take account of inflation and the Government’s commitment to the tobacco duty escalator, as the Minister outlined. In the 2020 spring Budget, the Government announced that they would continue with the tobacco duty escalator in this Parliament, even though, as of 1 January next year, the UK would be well within its rights to depart from the European Union directives that presently cover the structure of tobacco duties.
The Government’s justification for this instrument and for maintaining high duty rates on tobacco is that they are seen as an established tool to reduce smoking and to ensure that tobacco duties continue to contribute to the Government’s revenues. The official Opposition recognise and welcome instruments that support the public to make healthier choices and help the UK towards being smoke-free by 2030. However, this instrument feels a little blunt. It will place the burden of public health on the shoulders of individuals who are most likely to be in the grip of, and paralysed by, addiction.
The Government’s justification for this instrument states that the higher rates of tobacco duty will be welcomed by health lobby groups. The shadow Cabinet has been working closely with experts from the health sector, who have told us what they would welcome. Year on year, the health sector has listened to the Government’s statements about prevention being better than cure, and we are waiting for the Government to properly and sustainably fund the services that prevent ill health. Even before the pandemic hit the UK, local public health services were struggling to keep up with the growing demand, and health inequalities were rising.
This instrument will place duties on tobacco and will support the public purse. However, there has been a disproportionate increase in the duty on hand-rolling tobacco, by over 7%, in comparison to a little over 3% on all other tobacco products, including cigars. I am no smoker, so I wonder whether the Minister can explain the rationale behind that.
The Government have cut the public health grant by more than a fifth—22% in fact—since 2015-16, despite a growing and urgent need for investment in public health and prevention. The public health grant funds local authorities to deliver functions and services that promote health and prevent ill health in the most deprived areas. Those areas have poorer health outcomes, and therefore have the greatest need for local public health activity and funding, but they have had the greatest reduction in spending.
The Minister mentioned some data from the World Health Organisation. Data from Cancer Research UK shows that cuts in the poorest areas have been around six times greater than in the least deprived, further compromising the delivery of equitable care and the Government’s levelling-up agenda. In 2020-21, the public health grant was valued at £3.2 billion, which was about £80 million higher than the previous year’s grant. This year’s spending review said that local authority spending through the public health grant will continue to be maintained, which suggests that it will not get a real-terms increase. The Government must deliver an increase, with a sustainable, long-term funding settlement for public health in England. Based on analysis by the Health Foundation, at least an extra £0.9 billion per year is needed to restore the cuts made in 2015-16. However, a greater level of investment is also needed to support a greater focus on preventing ill health and reducing health inequalities.
It is true that comprehensive tobacco control functions that reduce smoking uptake and support smokers to quit are essential to achieve the Government’s ambitious smoke-free commitment by 2030. Despite political support for tobacco control remaining strong, local investment has decreased over recent years. Experts say that among the local authorities that still had a budget for stop smoking services, 35% had cut it between 2018-19 and 2019-20—the fifth successive year in which more than a third of local authorities had to cut that budget. Can the Minister inform me what assessment has been made of the effects of public spending cuts on the provision of those services?
To add weight to the stats that I have mentioned, more than three quarters of local authorities have reported that the biggest threat to their tobacco control budgets is funding cuts. In 2019, local smoking cessation services, which offer people the best chance of quitting for good, were universally available only in just over half of local authorities. The order does not recognise or take into account the sheer scale of the problem or the fact that smoking, like all other addictions, requires a thorough, in-depth, holistic public health approach. Smokers need to be supported to quit, not punished for dependency issues.
The economic benefits from treating smoking with a public health approach and as a preventable disease are also significant, which further strengthens the case for investing now in local public health and prevention to prevent significant economic costs in the future. In England alone, smoking is estimated to cost society £12.5 billion a year, which I would say is a substantial amount of money.
Smoking rates in England are at an all-time low, which shows the success of initiatives brought in by successive Governments to encourage the decline of smoking. However, I do have concerns about recent Government actions that could work against those measures. It is greatly concerning that the Government recently made the decision to axe Public Health England, which has played a crucial role in smoke-free initiatives, including strong regional delivery of evidence-based local action. Given that the likelihood that someone will smoke is four times higher in the most deprived areas of England, it is essential that that local work is continued as part of a UK-wide strategy to become smoke-free by 2030. I would be keen to hear from the Minister how, alongside the order, the Government plan to ensure that stop smoking campaigns can continue to be delivered in the areas most affected by smoking.
As we know, smoking still causes more than 70,000 deaths per year. I am pleased that the Government and the Opposition are on the same page in believing that that cost in human life is quite frankly unacceptable. I know that, for that reason, my colleagues in the shadow health team and quite a number of colleagues across the House have been supportive of the order and other measures to reduce smoking. However, the approach needs to be improved so that it does not hit those who are already economically deprived harder than those who can shoulder an increase in tobacco duties. I am eager for us to work closely together to ensure that the Government achieve their smoke-free target by 2030 and to work with the NHS to help people to quit smoking.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution to the debate. She asks why the rate for hand-rolling tobacco and the minimum excise tax have been increased more than for cigarettes; the answer is that the additional rate increase for hand-rolling tobacco supports the Government’s objective to reduce smoking, which I know the Labour party shares. Narrowing the taxation gap between hand-rolling tobacco and cigarettes, which are taxed at a much higher rate, makes it less likely that cigarette smokers will trade down to hand-rolling tobacco to avoid duty rate rises. This approach is supported by public health groups.
We all share the same ultimate goal: to protect public health by deterring people from taking up smoking and by encouraging smokers to quit. I think the hon. Lady’s questions about doing more for public health would be best answered by the Department of Health and Social Care, which owns this policy area. However, as I outlined earlier, this country benefits from some of the most advanced anti-smoking policies in the world, and I am glad to say that those measures have succeeded in dramatically lowering smoking levels in recent years, as the hon. Lady acknowledged. That should also answer her question about the impact of funding changes: the fact is that smoking is reducing despite any funding changes, so we think we have made the right decisions, although we all acknowledge that we cannot sit on our laurels—there is always more to do.
A significant proportion of the population still smokes—a habit that, as we all know, has immense health and economic costs. As I mentioned, we are in the process of introducing a wide range of measures that will further help us to bring down the number of smokers, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will see many of those policy changes in due course. However, the evidence clearly shows that taxation also has an important part to play in turning the tide against tobacco; it is not just about health policy.
The order will ensure that, in the absence of a Finance Bill this year, we are still able to use the tobacco duty escalator to achieve its goal. As well as safeguarding public health, it will help us to protect the public purse. It will allow us to bring in up to £100 million of revenue that would have been forgone if duty rises had been delayed until the spring. I am very appreciative of the support across the House for this legislation, which will help us to stamp out smoking and build a cleaner, healthier future for the people of this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Financial Assistance to Industry
(4 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, the Chairman of Ways and Means has asked me to remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in places that are clearly marked. I think everybody is doing that, so very well done. Hansard colleagues to my left would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, sums exceeding £30 million and up to a total of £300 million in respect of compensation for indirect costs of the UK Emissions Trading System or the Carbon Emissions Tax and Carbon Price Support mechanism in each case to British Steel Ltd; Celsa Manufacturing (UK) Ltd; CF Fertilisers UK Ltd; DS Smith Paper Ltd; INEOS Chemical Grangemouth Ltd; INEOS ChlorVinyls Ltd; Kimberly Clark Ltd; Outokumpu Stainless Ltd; Palm Paper Ltd; Runcorn MCP Ltd; SABIC UK Petrochemicals Ltd; Tata Steel UK Ltd; and UPM-Kymmene (UK) Ltd.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. The current scheme to compensate certain energy-intensive industries for indirect emissions costs arising from the EU emissions trading scheme expires at the end of 2020. Ministers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy have agreed to extend the compensation schemes in line with the current framework for a further year, to the end of the next financial year. Under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, we seek the House of Commons’ approval to pay compensation in excess of £30 million to individual businesses.
The UK will announce either a United Kingdom emissions trading scheme or a carbon emissions tax as a successor to the EU ETS. That means that the motion agreed by the Commons in 2014, providing approval to spend more than the limit in section 8 of the Industrial Development Act, will no longer be valid. That is because the UK has left the EU and will no longer be part of the EU ETS. We are therefore tabling a motion to seek the Commons’ approval to ensure that BEIS can continue to compensate businesses for more than £30 million of indirect costs from the UK ETS or carbon emissions tax and carbon price support mechanism.
Energy-intensive sectors that are eligible for BEIS relief schemes employ around 350,000 workers, and they have a gross value-added of £28.5 billion, or 2% of the UK economy. Their turnover is around £134 billion, and in 2018 their exports totalled around £93 billion, which is 27% of total UK exports. Carbon pricing policies create a cost differential between the UK and other countries, and that increases the risk of carbon leakage. Carbon leakage could occur if, for reasons of cost related to climate policies, businesses were to transfer production or reallocate investment to other countries that have lower carbon pricing policies. That could lead to an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. The Government have therefore been compensating certain energy-intensive industries for the indirect emissions costs arising from the EU ETS and the carbon price support mechanism since 2013 and 2014 respectively.
In their 2011 autumn statement, the Government announced that, to ensure that manufacturing was able to remain competitive during the shift to a low-carbon economy and to minimise carbon leakage, they would compensate key electricity-intensive businesses to help to offset the indirect emissions cost of the carbon price and the EU ETS. Cost compensation should remain as long as there are differences in low-carbon policy costs between the UK and international competitors. The Government should ensure that businesses can plan on the basis that that will be the case, while keeping the precise coverage level and conditionality of compensation and exemptions under review. The main beneficiaries are certain energy-intensive industries, particularly companies in the steel, paper and pulp chemical sector. The compensation is paid from the BEIS budget.
As I have mentioned, section 8 of the Industrial Development Act requires approval by a resolution of the House of Commons for support in excess of £30 million under any one project. In 2014, the Commons approved a motion to increase that limit to £300 million for 13 companies in respect of compensation for the EU ETS and carbon price floor. As we will move to a new scheme—a UK ETS or carbon emissions tax—from 1 January 2021, we are seeking approval from the Commons again.
Without new approval from the House of Commons, my Department would not be permitted to compensate businesses from 1 January 2021. Given the pressure facing businesses from covid-19, preparations for the end of the transition period and the continuation of relatively high UK industrial electricity prices, Ministers have agreed to the continued operation of the compensation scheme for a further year—until the end of the financial year 2021-22.
We will revise the schemes in early 2021 to assess whether—and if so, how—to continue the compensation scheme for the longer term. By that time, we will have more clarity about our future relationship with the EU carbon pricing policy. The UK’s subsidy control regime has broader Government objectives, such as the delivery of the covid-19 response and net zero commitments.
The Government recognise that energy-intensive industries need to play their part in reducing emissions, and we have introduced various policies to help them decarbonise. In the Budget of 2018, the Government announced £315 million for an industrial energy transformation fund to support industrial energy efficiency and decarbonisation projects, to bring energy costs down for industry.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Minister is making a very strong case for the motion, but can she set out why some industries in other countries pay less than UK companies for energy? Why is that?
Amanda Solloway
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; if I may, I will come to that point in my closing remarks.
As set out in our 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, our aim is for the UK to develop 5 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030; that could see the UK benefit from about 8,000 jobs across our industrial heartlands and beyond. It will be supported by a range of measures, including a £240 million net zero hydrogen fund. The financial system outlined in the motion will be of huge benefit to the UK energy-intensive industries most at risk of carbon leakage. It is imperative that we continue to support those industries, which are so vital to the UK economy. I am assured that section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 is the appropriate means by which to make such payments, and I commend the motion to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
Let me say at the outset, for the purposes of clarity, that the Opposition support the objective that underpins this motion—namely, the need to minimise the risk of carbon leakage by taking steps to ensure that energy-intensive industries are not put at a competitive disadvantage as a consequence of the cumulative impact of carbon pricing on industrial electricity prices.
It is obviously important that UK manufacturing should be able to remain competitive during the transition to a low-carbon economy, and we recognise that there is a need to continue to provide compensation for the indirect emissions cost of whatever carbon pricing policy replaces the EU emissions trading system. For that reason, we will not be opposing the motion this afternoon.
I would, however, like to take the opportunity to raise with the Minister two important questions that relate directly to the motion under consideration. The is about what carbon pricing policy will replace the EU emissions trading system. To put it another way: in respect of what arrangement do the energy-intensive industries that we are discussing require compensation during the next financial year?
As I have said to the Minister on previous occasions, we cannot run the risk of a dysfunctional carbon pricing system in the year we host the critical COP26 UN climate summit. As the Committee will know, only 24 days—eight sitting days—of this parliamentary term now remain until the transition period ends, and with it the UK’s participation in the EU ETS. Yet the Government have still not announced whether a stand-alone UK ETS or a carbon emissions tax will operate from 1 January should a linking agreement with the EU ETS not be negotiated and put in place by that date. Surely, the Minister cannot believe it is fair that the emitters in question still have no idea what arrangements they will be operating under in just three and a half weeks’ time. My understanding is that a decision has been on the Prime Minister’s desk since late last month. If that is the case, what on earth is stopping the Government making clear to those affected what fall-back carbon pricing arrangement will operate in the UK from 1 January should the linked UK-EU scheme not materialise from the negotiations in the coming days and weeks?
In all candour, I have no expectation of getting an answer today from the Minister, but I would be grateful if she could at least acknowledge that the Government recognise that they owe those operators clarity on this issue as a matter of some urgency. I would also be grateful if she could clarify how her Department has been able to estimate that the compensation budget for the next financial year will stand at £140.6 million. Although we know that we have a carbon price floor in place from 1 January, we still have absolutely no confirmation of what will replace the EU ETS.
The second issue I want to raise concerns the long- term arrangements for addressing carbon leakage and ensuring that our energy-intensive industries remain competitive as we accelerate the pace of emissions reduction. We accept that compensation of the kind we are authorising today is necessary, but to avoid the cost of such compensation spiralling over the long term, as the price of carbon is increased, there must be sufficient long-term support to green the industries in question. After all, as the Minister will know, many if not all of the energy-intensive industries covered by the motion will not only benefit from compensation for the indirect emissions cost of carbon pricing, but will continue to benefit from reduced costs in respect of climate levies. They are, in short, in a relatively privileged position relative to other less energy-intensive industries. Therefore, as we accelerate efforts to achieve net zero, there will have to be greater use of conditionality to ensure that the financial support provided to compensate these industries is balanced by measures to ensure that their carbon intensity is steadily reduced.
I note that a review and a consultation in early 2021 in relation to the compensation scheme have been mentioned, and the Minister touched on that in her remarks, but I would be grateful if she could reassure the Committee that the Government recognise the limits of the compensation mechanism in question over the long term as the price of carbon rises, and that they accept that more will need to be done beyond the schemes she touched on to accelerate the pace of decarbonisation in these industries, not least to manage the costs of the current scheme going forward.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman arrived literally 30 seconds ago—11 minutes into the discussion.
Amanda Solloway
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. The discussions we have had highlight the value of energy-intensive industries such as steel, chemicals, plastic and cement to the UK.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, we do recognise that the UK’s industrial electricity costs are currently higher than those of our competitors. That partly reflects how the costs of electricity systems are distributed across household and industrial customers. For example, German industrial users pay lower electricity prices than UK industrial users, but German households pay higher electricity prices than UK households.
In response to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, the operations are under negotiation. Of course we have a long-term commitment to climate change, as indicated in our 10-point plan. The Government are determined to continue to minimise the risk of carbon leakage to help businesses improve their productivity and competitiveness as part of our industrial strategy. Furthermore, we will work with our partners in industry to start deploying hydrogen and carbon capture usage and storage technologies.
At the same time, it is important that we continue to mitigate the cumulative impact of energy and climate change policy costs on energy prices for energy-intensive industries as we make the transition to the low-carbon economy. The Government have taken steps to reduce the impact of energy and climate change policies on industrial electricity prices for key energy-intensive industries in sectors such as steel, chemicals, cement, paper and glass. Between 2013 and 2019, total relief to energy-intensive industries for electrical policy costs was around £1.5 billion to over 220 businesses across the UK. We therefore seek approval to pay sums exceeding £30 million and up to a total of £300 million in respect of compensation for indirect costs of the UK emissions trading system, or the carbon emissions tax and carbon price support mechanism, in each case to 13 companies. I commend the motion to the Committee.
The Chair
The Minister has sat down and has not given way, so I have to move on.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
Defence
(4 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Quin
I hope to encourage the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), who is keen to see us committing to programmes. The announcement that the Prime Minister made confirmed our order of eight Type 26 and five Type 35 frigates.
[Official Report, 1 December 2020, Vol. 685, c. 129WH.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Defence Procurement:
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
Jeremy Quin
I hope to encourage the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), who is keen to see us committing to programmes. The announcement that the Prime Minister made confirmed our order of eight Type 26 and five Type 31 frigates.
Hunterston B Nuclear Power Station
Funding for Purbeck Schools
2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Schools RDEL excluding depreciation | £44.4 billion | £47.6 billion | £49.8 billion | £52.3 billion |
Of which pensions funding | £0.9 billion | £1.5 billion | £1.5 billion | £1.5 billion |
Of which SR19 cash uplift compared to 2019-20 | n/a | £2.6 billion | £4.8 billion | £7.1 billion |
Financial support for the self-employed during COVID-19
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
Childhood Cancers: Research
(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
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new call list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones using the cleaning materials provided before they use them, and dispose of that material as they leave the room. Members are also asked to respect the one-way system around the room, and to exit by the door on the left. Members should speak only from the horseshoe, and I therefore ask Members currently at the horseshoe to vacate a seat for the Members at the back who want to speak in the debate—once they have spoken, obviously. I call on Tonia Antoniazzi to move the motion.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 300027, relating to research into childhood cancers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell, and an honour to lead for the Petitions Committee in this debate. I welcome the large number of colleagues who have put in to speak today, and pay tribute to those who are unable to do so due to the parliamentary covid restrictions. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, I really wanted to lead on this petition, as it is one that has touched many parliamentarians and their constituents. Indeed, I was approached by the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), who is unable to participate today, who asked me to pay tribute to his constituents Julia and Darren, who lost their beautiful daughter Fifi to childhood cancer. I put on record my heartfelt thanks to the petitioner, Fiona Govan, who lost her grandson Logan to a type of brain cancer called diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, and to Amanda Mifsud from the charity Abbie’s Army, which was set up following the death of six-year-old Abbie from DIPG in 2011.
Children’s cancers represent under 2% of all UK cancers. Despite this low number, that still means that over 500 children die from cancer each year. It is the most common cause of death in children. The great news is that since the 1970s, mortality has decreased by around 70%, and even with the debilitating side effects of many treatments, that is testament to the achievements of research in saving our children. One caveat to those figures is the massive variation in survival rates by cancer type: 99% survival for retinoblastoma, contrasting with 0% for DIPG. Many forms of cancer affect children, but after speaking to Fiona and Amanda, I am going to concentrate on the disease that took Abbie, Logan and so many others.
DIPG is a highly malignant brain tumour located in the pons, or pontine, area of the brain stem, almost exclusively affecting children. DIPG tumours are one of the most aggressive forms of cancer, and the prognosis for children diagnosed with it is terminal—it has a 0% survival rate. What also struck me was that while there have been huge leaps in the treatment of many other cancers and diseases, nothing can be done to treat DIPG. Neil Armstrong lost his daughter to DIPG in 1962, and since that time there has been no development in treatments, let alone a cure. Thankfully, childhood cancers are rare, but that also means that they do not get the research funding that other cancers attract, and are often seen as too difficult to tackle. As Dr David Walker wrote in The Telegraph in February 2016:
“So-called ‘rare’ cancers are collectively as common as the ‘common’ ones. But the perception that research should be funded according to incidence means that individual rare cancers are doomed forever to receive a fraction of the money.”
As such, the equivalent of a classroom full of children die from DIPG in the UK year after year, while there are no meaningful advances in treatment options and no current UK trials.
What does the petition ask of the Government? Less than 21% of research funding on childhood cancers is provided by the Department of Health and Social Care, and there is little transparency on where the funding goes. To change that, the petitioners want the National Institute for Health Research classification system to include specific cancer types and age data. They also ask for a commitment from the Government on ongoing funding obligations and for a set percentage of other funding to be ring-fenced for research on childhood cancers. We also need to look at reprioritising funding, to make sure that money is being used strategically for actual research—and that it is not spent on infrastructure, as happens at the moment.
We need to take full advantage of the highly accomplished researchers we have in the UK, such as Professor Chris Jones, but they need funding to answer the key scientific questions, such as, how can we do better and how can we help these children? That has been done in other countries. The Australian Government awarded about $9 million in 2019 and 2020 for childhood cancer research, and there have been extraordinary advances in outcomes on some cancers. If we can get that funding, the UK can become a centre of excellence in the field.
Yesterday, Fiona sent me an email with a message from one of the families, who are going through an incredibly hard time with their son Joshua. Josh’s mum, Michelle Beresford-Smart, writes:
“Josh is still with us, but since August has been bedridden and no longer able to communicate. Completely paralysed by the end of September and blind in October and no longer able to swallow. About 10 days ago his breathing changed and this week he was put on a syringe driver. No life, just waiting for the inevitable. Horrendous. Josh… was diagnosed in August 2017 with a tremor in his right hand. The GP told us we were being paranoid! Just a trapped nerve!”
Nine days after the GP appointment, they were in Great Ormond Street Hospital. Michelle writes:
“My son was 15 at diagnosis. He is now 18. But, as you know, there aren’t any options here in the UK. He did radiation and chemo and then we were lucky enough to get him on the ONC201 trial in New York. We last visited in February 2020, then COVID struck and options were taken away.”
These incredible women told me their stories about making a change for other families and their children who will be affected with poise and passion, and today I am speaking up on behalf of all the families who deal with the tragedy of losing a child. I ask the Government to do the right thing and fund research on rare cancers to give future generations a fighting chance.
The majority of fundraising is done by parents and family-led charities. Earlier today, I heard that Alison Caplan, a constituent of the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), lost her son Daniel, aged 17, to DIPG last week. He was a bright young lad who had his whole future ahead of him. His funeral is this Friday and the family hope to help other children who are diagnosed with cancer, especially DIPG.
These are people who have lost a child to a horrendous disease, but still they continue to fight for better outcomes for future generations. They deserve to have their voice heard and I am proud to have been able to speak for them today.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
To ensure that everyone can make a meaningful contribution, I am imposing a four-minute time limit.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to follow my Welsh colleague, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who moved the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
I want to speak about unbeatable Eva, a 10-year-old constituent of mine. I have been involved and in contact with her since she was diagnosed with DIPG in January. As we have heard, this is an inoperable brain tumour, inside the brain stem, and the prognosis is a life expectancy of less than 12 months. Today, it is 11 months and seven days since Eva was diagnosed with that horrendous tumour. The global pandemic has been particularly cruel to Eva and her family. Not only was there no suitable treatment for Eva in the UK, but she was unable to fly to the United States to receive experimental treatment. The cruel hand of covid stopped Eva travelling to Europe to receive life-prolonging pharmaceutical treatment. Think for one minute about the agony faced by a parent knowing that treatment is available and could prolong their child’s life, but being powerless to do anything about it. How cruel is it that, in any other year, Eva might have received that treatment? Covid took that chance from her.
The benefit of these debates is that they show the strength of feeling on a topic. Petitions allow the public to influence what we, as parliamentarians, discuss. Eva and her family should be proud of how much awareness they have raised nationally for this cause. DIPG has been talked about by many Ministers and the Health Secretary. Eva’s name has been mentioned by the Prime Minister in the Chamber, and her plight was highlighted on “Children in Need” and across the news channels. Wrexham has rallied around this little brave girl, and her parents have privately raised more than £310,000 to fund her treatment. I am here today for Eva, and I hope, Mr Mundell, that you deem it appropriate for me to read out a statement from her father, Paul.
We are here to advocate and fight for our constituents; that is our job. However, what really matters is how our constituents interpret the situation they find themselves in—life through their heartbroken eyes, facing tragedy day by day. Paul has asked me to read this out: “60 years ago, Neil Armstrong lost his daughter to DIPG. On the 1st of January this year, when we received Eva’s diagnosis, her treatment plan was the same as it was all those years ago. The lack of progress is solely down to one thing—funding. In a week where the UK Government approved a covid vaccine, having spent in excess of £6 billion on research and development, it is hard to feel anything other than anger. If some of that money had been spent on the cure for this horrific form of cancer, imagine how many parents would have been spared the conversation we had with doctors in January, and more importantly, imagine how many children would have been able to live full and happy lives, as every child should. All cancer is devastating, but the facts about DIPG and the devastation it causes parents, siblings, grandparents, friends and family make it the very worst of the worst, and more must be done where it can.”
Eva’s treatment journey has at every twist and turn been thwarted due to inaccessibility, cost, lack of understanding and research, different healthcare regimes between England and Wales, and covid-19 restrictions. This brave little girl with a beautiful smile has the arms of Wrexham wrapped around her.
Further research in this field is required. Existing DIPG treatments available around the world are not available here. However, we have the desire in this country to fund research on this childhood cancer, as this petition proves. We have the talent in this country to undertake that task, and we have the best—the unique—national health service, free at the point of delivery. We cannot let children lose their childhoods, cut short due to funding and research issues. Let us hope that this debate starts a reassessment of how we look at children’s cancer going forward.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), a fellow member of the Petitions Committee, for introducing the debate. There is no greater champion of families affected by cancer, and I thank her for all the hard work that she does for them, week in, week out. In the short time available, I will tell the story of Izzy Withers, a constituent of mine who tragically passed away last year due to childhood cancer. Her mother Tracey shared their experience in the hope that it would highlight the desperate need in this country for more funding for childhood cancer treatment.
In August 2018, 16-year-old Izzy fell ill, and in September that year she received the devastating news that she had DIPG and a stage 4 brain tumour. DIPG is a highly malignant childhood brain cancer that disables the nervous system, and the prognosis is grim—fewer than 10% of children diagnosed survive longer than 18 months. That meant that Izzy was effectively handed a death sentence. DIPG is very resistant to chemotherapy; it is extremely difficult to treat. Tracey Withers described the tumour as like sand in grass. The treatment of Izzy, like that of Karen Armstrong, Neil Armstrong’s daughter, therefore consisted of radiotherapy, which in turn destroyed their healthy brain tissue. The radiotherapy affected Izzy’s ability to walk and use the left side of her body. She eventually lost all capacity to walk. After seven weeks at the Royal Gwent Hospital and two weeks at the Teenage Cancer Trust in Cardiff, Izzy and her mother spent 13 weeks living at Tŷ Hafan hospice. Tracey described Izzy’s illness and the effects of the treatment as a bit like locked-in syndrome. Her body shut down and she lost the ability to walk and move, and eventually she struggled to swallow. Children with DIPG die a protracted, painful and horrendous death. That is why more funding is needed for research to ensure that, in the future, children diagnosed with childhood cancers with a low survival rate and their families have more options.
For children such as Izzy, care is inadequate, and other, more practical factors increased the problems that Izzy and Tracey came up against in trying to get access to treatment. As Izzy was 16, she was not classed as a paediatric patient or an adult. That put her in administrative limbo. Hospitals were unaware of where she should be treated, who should treat her and who would foot the bill. That left Tracey with the extra burden of chasing hospitals for treatment and looking for counselling and other support. Tracey was often the one who had to find out where Izzy could receive care and what sort of care she could receive. That was yet another stress that she should not have had to deal with.
It goes without saying that caring for a child with cancer is phenomenally tough. Those parents care for their children emotionally and practically while trying to come to terms with the intricacies of their illnesses, all the while having to process that themselves and realising that they face what every parent dreads more than anything: outliving their own children. They should not be faced with added stresses and tasks because their children fall into the limbo between paediatric and adult care. That was also frustrating for the senior clinicians in charge of Izzy’s case, who felt that they were going round in circles over who would treat her.
Tracey received invaluable support from the Teenage Cancer Trust, CLIC Sargent and the Tŷ Hafan hospice. Those charities do incredible work for children with cancer, helping children and their families to navigate the medical and emotional sides of their illnesses. Without those charities, families such as Izzy’s would be completely lost. That is a failure on the part of the state to provide adequate care and funding for children with cancer. Izzy was given a dignified death thanks to the Tŷ Hafan hospice, which relies entirely on charity.
I say this to the Minister: three children died last week from DIPG alone. That is three families who now face a Christmas of grief. We must do more. The ring-fenced funding is not enough for a country that prides itself on scientific research. We could be leading the way, but we have failed to do enough. Some things go beyond politics, and this should be one of them. Few of us can imagine what Izzy’s family have gone through, but we must do more to stop others experiencing the same.
I want to end by thanking Izzy’s mother, Tracey, for allowing me to share her story, for her bravery and, above all, for her desire to ensure that no other family goes through what hers have been through. She said that she is praying that this is the start of a change that gives hope to families such as hers. I hope the Government listen and bring about real change.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
It was the privilege of my life to hold the role of cancer Minister in the previous Government. Through that work, I learned of the battles of DIPG patients and the all-too-tragic outcomes.
As ever, it is the personal stories that connect. I wish I could show Members the pictures, but I have the words of Emily, the mum of Atticus—a fantastic name:
“In June 2018 our happy, charming, caring 4 year old son started to exhibit very mild symptoms which gave us cause for concern. Slight issues with balance, difficulty concentrating and mild drooling. Nothing significant but… you know when your child is not ‘right’… Atticus went… for a CT scan and was the referred to Southampton General for an MRI. On 1 July 2018, 2 years ago, my husband and I were guided into a small room to be given the results. I will never forget that moment. The neurologist told us that… he had a likely survival time of 9-12 months. In one breath our whole world came crashing down and we began to grieve—even though Atticus was still with us… On 7 February Atticus fell asleep forever in the bed next to me. I’ll never, ever forget watching my child pass away. It is the most unnatural, unjust and devastating experience any parent can suffer.”
Emily wrote to me again the other day:
“As we face the second Christmas without our beautiful boy, we can take some comfort in the prospect of increased funding and research to help eradicate this terrible cancer. It is all we can hope for.”
I guess the question is whether we—and whether they—have hope. As has been said, a child diagnosed with DIPG today faces the same prognosis as a child diagnosed over 50 years ago. Survivable rates are near zero for this particular cancer.
It is true, as the Government said in their response to this petition, and as the Minister will almost certainly say today, that
“we have invested £1bn per year in health research through the National Institute for Health Research”.
Expenditure in this area is the largest it has ever been. I remember working with the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission. It was a privilege to work with Tessa and her daughter Jess, who were very forceful ladies and very good at lobbying Ministers, including me. We were able to promise an extra £40 million over five years for brain tumour research as part of the mission’s work. That included funding for childhood cancers.
One key point of their work was to stimulate the research market in this area, to see new research propositions come forward. Tessa understood that acutely. It is never the case that we have enough money for health research. I suggest that we need both investment and strategy. That is why I was struck by this particular recommendation in the campaign that led to this petition, which the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) touched on.
The UK does have excellent collaborative research at our medical facilities, but we must assign sufficient funding to DIPG research and implementation of the new treatments. I urge the Government to convene and appoint special UK experts directly to centralise efforts and bring forward that new prioritisation strategy, so that we can stimulate the research market, as Tessa and her campaign urged me to do when I was sitting in the Minister’s position.
The Minister cannot wave a magic wand and make this go away—I have sat in her place enough times to know that. However, we can agree to make this change and to work together to finally face DIPG and start to turn the corner, with the collaborative strategy that I have mentioned. That is the hope—to reiterate that word—that these families want. I do not think that is too much to ask.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this important debate and all those who signed the e-petition. Cameron Truesdale’s name will not resonate with people in this room, but I am speaking of a little boy who is now safe in the arms of Jesus. He was a little 11-year-old boy from my constituency, who had so much to live for but who did not get the opportunity.
His mum described him as sweet, shy and popular. He never had a bad word to say about others. He was good at maths. In his own words, he wanted to be an “entrepreneur”. He was a super cool big brother and he adored his sisters Chloe, Courtney and Catlin. Sadly, Cameron’s life ended on 3 September 2018, but his memory is still alive.
When Cameron was diagnosed with DIPG cancer in January 2017, his family were told that he would have nine months to live, if he was to receive radiotherapy and steroids. “Go home and make memories”—the most chilling and heart-wrenching words that any family will ever hear. Cameron’s family were devastated that in the 21st century they would be told that there was no hope and, no matter what they did for Cameron, he would die anyhow. Cameron’s family believe that where there is life, there is hope. Cameron’s family immediately looked at therapies around the world. They raised thousands of pounds and travelled to Mexico, where Cameron received treatment. While it did not save his life, it gave them hope and extra time to make those memories.
Cameron and his family fought DIPG with courage and determination. Cameron did not want to die. Even towards the end, when he was very poorly and DIPG had stolen every function apart from his ability to know what was going on, his mum asked him whether he wanted to stop fighting and just rest, or for her to stop fighting. With tears running down his face, even in agony, he did not want to stop, because he loved life.
We have already heard today that the survival rate for DIPG is 0%. That is just not good enough and not what we should settle for. Cameron should not be a statistic and we do not want any other families to go through the pain and anguish of losing a child. In Northern Ireland alone, three young people are diagnosed with cancer every week. That means three young people facing huge physical and emotional challenges, doubts, fears and anxieties. We must ensure that science is being supported to increase survival rates and to break this dark, sleekid thief.
Globally, we have poured billions into finding a vaccine for covid-19, because the will has been there to do so. We need a similar will and focus on cancer. I recognise that the Government have invested millions of pounds into cancer research, but amid the myriad cancer types that exist, we must ensure that childhood cancer receives the specific attention that it demands. I fully support the call for ring-fenced funds for new research. We need a specific fund that targets childhood cancer, and particularly those cancers that have the lowest survival rates. We need transparency on specific cancer types and age data, and we also need exceptionalism and expediency. Every life lost is one too many.
The message of the last week, with the news of the covid vaccine, brought hope. It also highlighted that when science is supported, it can make the breakthroughs we need. The Government should do the same for cancer, because none of us knows whose family could be next.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for opening this debate, and I also commend Fiona Govan for her incredible work to secure the signatures needed to trigger this debate. I know that Fiona would say that it is the least she could do following the loss of her grandson, but she, along with many other families suffering the same trauma, expect us to do something. The Minister understands that, as I know her to be a caring and compassionate individual.
In Fiona’s case, as we have heard, her grandson Logan died of a DIPG, which is a childhood cancer that wipes out hope and brings to an end a life of promise and potential. DIPGs, as we have heard, are tumours that are highly aggressive and difficult to treat, found at the base of the brain. But Fiona and her family are not alone; we all have families in our constituencies who have lost children to brain cancers.
I have the great honour of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours. The charity that supports this influential APPG was born out of the loss of a girl following a diagnosis of DIPG. I cannot pretend to know what a family goes through when they are told such terrible news, but I can share a little in the pain, having lost a son at just nine months old. An account of Fiona’s family’s story can be found on the Brain Tumour Research website, and it is really powerful reading, for those who have not read it already. It sets out precisely the journey, and the trials and the challenges, that they had to go through, as their son and grandson lost his life.
When a family is told that their child has a DIPG, they do not have to search far to learn that just 10% of children diagnosed with this type of brain tumour survive for up to two years following a diagnosis, and that only 2% survive for as long as five years, and we know that few of these children, if any, survive at all for longer than that. As we have heard, this prognosis has not improved.
The work of the APPG is extensive, but what is particularly relevant to this debate is a recent meeting with Midatech. Midatech is a British-based company, which in October announced
“‘encouraging’ headline results from a phase 1 study at the University of California… in patients with… (DIPG)”.
We were told that in a cohort of seven children with DIPG who took part in a clinical trial whereby a drug is delivered directly to the brain via a catheter, five survived beyond 12 months and three continue to be monitored.
As always, it is important that we carefully manage the expectations of families with very sick young ones. However, the purpose of this debate is not to present the problem, which is well documented, but to seek to identify what will unlock the solution. We are aware of 200 failed drug trials relating to DIPG. There are very few promising signs, which is where I turn to the Minister. Will she investigate why a British company is limited to running clinical trials in the US—in the case of Midatech, in California and New York? Will she work with the National Institute for Health Research to find a way of committing and ring-fencing funds directly for research into childhood cancers, as the petition demands? Will she work with the APPG and Midatech to navigate a way to set up clinical trials in the UK? It seems that the only option for many parents is to travel across the world, at enormous personal expense. I associate myself with the recommendations of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), his work on the strategy and the need for absolute focus.
The APPG has been told repeatedly there is a lack of research and clinical trials in the area of brain cancer. That can only be properly addressed if we build the skills and expertise base, but that is very hard if the Government are not proactively promoting and funding such research. We start at a low base, but with the right focus, as we have all heard, there is an opportunity to provide the hope that these families so desperately need.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I now call Kirsten Oswald, who should have been referenced on the call list as an SNP Member.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Mundell. In July, I was fortunate enough to secure a question at Prime Minister’s Question Time. As Members across the Chamber will know, that is when we try to think of the best political hit we can get, but on that day there was only one question I was going to ask. It was about a young man, Daniel Caplan, a constituent of mine who had just turned 17 and had been diagnosed with diffuse midline glioma—a brain stem tumour. As I explained to the Prime Minister, it was a terminal diagnosis and, of course, an absolutely crushing one for Daniel and his family. As the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said, I am so sorry to say that Daniel died last week.
I did not know Daniel, but I was really struck that one of his friends, Martin, who spoke to me earlier this year about something else entirely, made sure to tell me what a great person his friend Daniel was. It is crystal clear what a special and very much loved young man he was. If I, who did not know this lovely young man, am so devastated to hear of his loss, I cannot begin to imagine how Daniel’s family can cope with it, just at the time when, if things were different, he would be looking to make his way in the world and realise all of his potential. I have been thinking about them a great deal.
For families like Daniel’s, and all those we are hearing about who have received the devastating news of a childhood cancer diagnosis, among all that awful news is the terrible realisation—one they probably never had cause to be aware of before—that there have been no new treatments for these conditions for 40 years. There has been no progress in treating childhood brain stem tumours. That is stark and shocking. It is absolutely right and necessary that we heed the call of all those families faced with that terrible news when they ask for a renewed focus on research and for a light to be shone on awareness of childhood brain stem cancers so that others do not have to face what they have gone through. I was glad that the Prime Minister agreed with me when I asked for his commitment to shine that light and to bring focus to this issue.
The Scottish Government have also done a great deal of work to improve cancer treatment in Scotland over the last decade. All these things matter, but we need a commitment from all of us not to let it lie for these young people, because although cancer is rarer in children and young people than in adults, it is often more complex and more difficult to treat.
Earlier this year, working with the Brain Tumour Charity —an organisation close to my heart—and with other Members, I tabled an early-day motion to raise awareness of DIPG. That continued focus has to be our priority, because only 10% of children with DIPG survive for more than two years following their diagnosis and research into brain tumours represents less than 3% of the UK’s cancer research budget. Those statistics should stop us all in our tracks, because in the midst of all the medical advances of recent years, affected families find that crushing and inexplicable.
All of us in the Chamber need to ensure that this area is a priority. We need to have more research and to think of it as we go forward. For Daniel Caplan and all the other children like him, and all their families, a cure really cannot wait.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
We can choose to be affected by the world or we can choose to affect the world. My constituent Isla chose the latter. In August 2017, seven-year-old Isla Tansey woke up unable to walk. After many horrible treatments, surgery and radiotherapy, in January 2018 she was diagnosed with DIPG. Isla’s mother described the terminal illness as the most traumatic and heartbreaking experience for a family ever to go through. Sadly, Isla passed away in July 2018, but not before inspiring thousands around the world with her positivity and creativity through her hobby: painting stones and pebbles.
Isla asked others to join in by painting their own stones, with any design, but she asked them to include the hashtag #islastones and the words “photo, post, re-hide”, and then to send a picture to a dedicated Facebook page for her to see. They were subsequently to leave the stones somewhere hidden, so that when they were found they could spread a little of the joy that Isla’s idea had given them—a little reminder of Isla’s joy. Isla’s mother, Katherine, hoped that a child might one day find one of the stones, learn about Isla’s story and become a researcher in childhood cancer.
Thousands of people took part in more than 149 countries. Although Isla could no longer walk, she loved to see where all the stones ended up and where they would travel to next. Places included the Taj Mahal, New Zealand, Disneyland and America, with a very special stone in Antarctica. Through the stones and the lovely people who made them, hid them and posted their photos, Isla travelled the world.
The hashtag #islastones grew to a Facebook presence with more than 75,000 members from all around the world. In 2019, a year on from Isla’s passing, at the Celebration of Smiles event in Hinckley in my constituency, a world record was set for the largest display of painted stones, with 8,542 stones—all in remembrance of Isla.
To continue her legacy, Isla’s parents, Simon and Katherine Tansey, set up the Islastones Foundation for raising smiles and helping to fight childhood cancer: a reminder of the fun and happiness that Isla brought to so many people’s lives. Isla is now permanently memorialised at Argents Mead in Hinckley, where her legacy of smiles and positivity will live on for ever.
Why does this matter? We have heard the stats in the debate, but these are the real stories behind the cases. Some 650 people in my constituency signed this petition to ask for transparency in the funding, for improvement in treatment options and for pulling together the clinical pathways that people who suffer in this situation have to go through. They ask for real understanding, for listening and for something to change. I am reminded of the quote:
“Your life is your message to the world. Make sure it’s inspiring.”
Isla’s message was truly that, and I hope the Government’s message on DIPG will be the same.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) not only for securing this important debate on childhood cancer, but for all the excellent work that she does as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer. I also thank the petitioners who promoted this debate today.
I want to talk about the work of the Bradley Lowery Foundation, which is based in my constituency, and I want to concentrate on the need, as other hon. Members have, for Government collaboration with smaller charities and research and funding into less common cancers. The Bradley Lowery Foundation was established in August 2017 after my constituent, six-year-old Bradley Lowery, lost his fight for life to stage 4 high-risk neuroblastoma, a rare and aggressive form of childhood cancer.
In 2013, Bradley’s mother, Gemma, started a fundraising campaign to raise funds so that Bradley could get treatment in the United States—treatment that was not available here in the UK. The foundation—one of its patrons is the former Sunderland and England footballer, Jermain Defoe—supports research on neuroblastoma and other childhood cancers, is developing plans to support a £600,000 holiday home in Scarborough, and runs a support line for families of children with cancer in the north-east. The Bradley Lowery Foundation has given £200,000 to neuroblastoma research and has just pledged another £15,000 to sarcoma research. It collaborates with other research charities to ensure that more funding can be put into the right places.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and others about the prognosis for patients who have brain stem cancer, particularly children. The prognosis is really quite dark. I point out to the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, that the Bradley Lowery Foundation wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer around June of this year and is still awaiting a response. In the letter, the foundation expressed its willingness to set up a meeting with the Chancellor regarding funding for childhood cancer research, and it was seeking to secure some support through matched funding from Government.
The charity finds that although the most common incurable cancers rightly receive a lot of funding, the rarer and harder-to-treat cancers get little funding. The funding that they receive is from smaller charities and organisations that, like the Bradley Lowery Foundation, might have been set up as a legacy for families who have lost children to a particularly rare cancer. I urge the Minister to speak to the smaller charities. I am sure she does so on a regular basis, but will she speak to the smaller charities and organisations that fund this vital research, such as the Bradley Lowery Foundation? After all, it is the smaller charities that fund the harder-to-treat cancers.
If the covid-19 pandemic has proven anything, it is that, with the will and the right funding and resources, treatment and vaccines can be developed. If the Government can pledge even a fraction of the funding that has been allocated for covid towards childhood cancer research, we could no doubt find better, safer treatments a lot faster.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
When the Paul family in my constituency were told of their four-year-old daughter Georgia’s cancer diagnosis, their immediate reaction was not one of shock but of, “We can fight this; she is tough.” To then discover that there was absolutely no treatment was simply devastating for the family. Georgia had been diagnosed with DIPG—a brain tumour. She was enrolled on a trial, but it became clear that there was no chance of saving her. No matter what angle the family approached it from, DIPG is universally fatal, as we have heard already. No child has ever survived it.
DIPG remains the most fatal of all childhood brain cancers, and I fear that is in part due to a lack of funding for research. In seven short months, Georgia went from a happy, active and engaged little girl who loved life to losing her ability to walk, talk or swallow. The 28th November just gone marked exactly two years since Georgia died in her family’s arms, leaving them absolutely heartbroken.
Another constituent, Sue Farrington Smith, lost her beloved niece, Alison Phelan, to a brain stem glioma tumour in 2001, three weeks before her eighth birthday and 10 months after diagnosis. Sue went on to establish Brain Tumour Research, an umbrella group of 22 brain tumour charities that have campaigned to move the dial on funding for brain tumour research. Their campaign led to the establishment of the 2016 task group on research, and they are now working with the Government to see how the £40 million Tessa Jowell fund is spent.
The good news is that, in the past 50 years, there have been dramatic improvements in treating childhood brain tumours. Historically, 75% of children affected sadly died, but now 75% survive. That proves what research can do. In about 70% of cases, radiotherapy, which is the only treatment currently offered to DIPG patients, does shrink the tumour, which allows for a few months of normal life before it returns. Georgia, who I spoke of earlier, was one of the unlucky ones for whom radiotherapy did nothing.
I welcome the fact that improving cancer outcomes, including for children, is a major priority for the Government. I support the £1.2 billion that the Government have put into the cancer drugs fund, which has helped 95,000 people, including children, to access the latest and most innovative cancer care drugs. We have to recognise, however, that in the UK only 20.8% of childhood cancer research is Government-funded, and the rest of the funding comes from charities, the fundraising for many of which has been severely hampered by covid.
Let us commit to providing that new research funding for childhood cancers and ensure that a legal proportion of other funding must be used for childhood cancer research to adequately balance the years of life lost against the relative rarity of conditions. This is about the children who will be diagnosed in the future and who will face the same dreadful, awful news that Georgia and her family did. That will happen year after year, unless funding is allocated to research.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to follow many moving and powerful speeches.
I congratulate the petitioners, because securing a Westminster Hall debate through the petition route is no small achievement. We have heard many of their stories this afternoon, and I suspect that much of the campaigning activity has been driven by families whose children have died as a result of DIPG or are suffering from DIPG. When we think about the number of families who have gone through that—it is a very rare childhood cancer—it is inspiring to see the time and effort that they put into campaigning, in some cases long after their children have passed, because they are determined that no other family should go through what they have been through or the ordeal that they have suffered.
My constituent Kaleigh Lau died of DIPG. Her family, including her father Scott, her mother Yang and her brother Carson, are just as committed to making sure that we find a cure for DIPG. I have been thinking about how the families will feel watching the debate. More than anything else, unfortunately—with great respect to the hon. Members who have spoken and the way in which they have told powerful stories—too many of them will have a sense of déjà vu.
With great respect to the Minister, who is a good person and absolutely committed to what she does, those families are not looking for warm words, reassurance or sympathy. They want action. They want to know what the Government are doing. They want to be able to hold the Government to account for progress against that action. They want real commitments. So far, although we have undoubtedly had steps in the right direction from successive Ministers, progress has been insufficient. Certainly, that is how Kaleigh’s family feel and how I feel as their constituency MP, having raised the issue on a number of occasions in recent years.
We know from Cancer Research UK of some of the challenges of researching children’s cancers. There are too few researchers, too little discovery research, not enough industry support, poor awareness of particular cancers, fragmented expertise and a lack of research tools. That is absolutely true in the case of DIPG, which is incredibly rare, as we have already heard.
What could we reasonably ask of the Minister? What would we like her to say, if not this afternoon, then in the not-too-distant future? We want to ensure that the UK seeks to be a world leader in researching DIPG and in the efforts to find a cure. We want to ensure that the UK seeks to be a world leader in researching DIPG and in the efforts to find a cure. I was particularly struck by the experiences of the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who speaks with great authority and experience, having done the job and understanding the pressures on his successor. I think that the sort of action that he outlined would give families some reassurance that serious actions are being taken, but also that that is transparent and we can measure and monitor progress as personalities come and go—and hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, Governments too. In all seriousness, I think that the strength of cross-party consensus on this issue is obvious, and the Minister will get a great deal of support from those on the Opposition Benches if she is able to come forward with that kind of action plan. That is really what the families are looking for today.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for bringing such an important debate to the fore. Many people will know what the bond is like between parent and child, so just imagine what it must be like for families to then lose their child. That is a thought that, as a parent, I personally cannot bear, yet it happened in my community this summer. My community of North Norfolk is very close and loving, and things are very much the same in the Pitcher family. On 12 July, little Benny Pitcher lost his battle, after just over a year, with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma—DIPG. He was just six years old. Never before have I witnessed grief in my community like it, as people lined the streets to watch that bravest of little men make his way to Cromer crematorium. That little boy captured the spirit of everybody who met him. He was, like the characters that he adored, a little superhero.
I first became involved with the family, Julie and Kevin Pitcher, when helping them to achieve planning permission for their house so that little Benny could live a more comfortable life as his cancer took hold and his health deteriorated, but cruelly he was even robbed of being able to move into the extension when he passed away just a week before the builders finished. That was despite enormous work by the community—hundreds of people helped. I was not an MP at that time, but the Pitchers’ story touched me, like so many others. How could it not touch you to witness a family go through what Kevin and Julie experienced? I am proud to say that I helped them and now call them my friends.
As we all know, the Pitchers will not be the last family to suffer at the hands of the cruellest of childhood cancers, and it is because of stories like theirs that parliamentarians like us must do absolutely everything we can to provide help and support, and ensure that as much funding as possible is provided for scientific research. As we have heard, there is a 0% survival chance with DIPG. There has been no improvement over the last 50 years. In the 21st century, surely that is not good enough. We have to do what we can to turn around the fact that cancer is still the most common cause of death in the under-15s. As we have heard, if we can fund and produce a vaccine for covid in nine months, surely we can do more on childhood cancers and improve the fact that only one fifth of childhood cancer research is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care.
I would also like to make the point that when people’s lives are turned upside down overnight by the knowledge that their child will pass away in a very short time, we must do more to support those families, who end up being carers. Every waking moment should be spent with their child, not worrying about what forms need filling in or where they can go to get help. Where is the one-to-one handholding—the service that really could help to lessen the strain that those families experience?
I want to place on the record my thanks to the incredible communities that I serve and the selfless people who raised so much money to help the Pitcher family, and particularly to the Pitcher family themselves. Their work alone back in North Norfolk has raised the issue of childhood cancers. The incredible strength that the family have shown through such adversity is admired by everybody who meets them. Benny’s father, Kevin, made a promise to his son that he would run a marathon to raise funds for this cause, and it is the true mark of that family that Kevin will fulfil his promise in the spring and honour his son Benny.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank all hon. Members for the way they have spoken so movingly. I put on the record my thanks to Chris Copland, from my constituency, who helped me prepare for the debate, and to all the petitioners, who obviously signed the petition wanting to see real change in the life chances of children.
Grace did not lose her battle with cancer. The truth is that Grace’s battle was lost before she was even given a chance to fight. The battle was lost by the lack of research into the No. 1 medical cause of death of children in the UK: childhood cancer. I was struck by the words of Dr Jen Kelly, who told me of her little girl, Grace, and how she died in her arms, just four and a quarter years old, of a rhabdoid tumour. I am grateful to her for sharing the story of her little girl, Grace, with me. She continues to fundraise and champion the cause of all children.
Every year, 1,900 children receive the devastating news that they have cancer. Parents have to equip themselves to deal with that, often without the information that they need at that time being readily available. For Grace’s family, the time was too short, and they were simply told to do research on the internet. They have used the legacy of Grace to turn that around for other parents.
Just two weeks ago, many of us spoke in this place about the opportunity to extend research in certain medical areas. The Association of Medical Research Charities called on the Government to establish a life sciences-charity partnership fund. I listened intently to the Chancellor’s statement and was sorry that no announcement was made. Cancer Research UK alone has had to cut its research budget by £44 million this year due to covid. Charities have also lost £10 billion to date, and this year is not getting any easier for them. However, today marks the start of UK Charity Week, with its slogan, “What will you be doing?”. I put that question to the Minister, because this week again provides an opportunity for action. It is worth recalling that, for every £1 spent on childhood cancer, there is a potential £3 return, not to mention the human benefit that this brings.
There is an opportunity for us to go further. We trail behind our European counterparts in early diagnosis. A prime goal of at least catching up with all European countries would be a first step.
We also need to ensure that we are part of that global community of research, and that we play our role in leading that. Before the closure of talks with the EU, we need to make sure that opportunities to participate with other European countries are not diminished at this time but accelerated. There is hope on the horizon. There has been much discussion about Horizon research funding over the years. This new round, which is coming over the horizon, is very much related to cancer, and discussions are certainly taking place about the role it can play in advancing research into paediatric cancers. I trust that the Minister will tell us how she is participating in that debate in order to make what all of us have called for today a reality for the families who desperately need that help.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am glad to participate in this important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for the comprehensive exposition that she gave at the start of the debate, and all those who signed the petition calling for more funding for and focus on childhood cancers. The fact is that this petition was born out of a sense of frustration and grief. That is why more 109,000 people across the UK signed the petition, and why so many people in my constituency supported it.
Twelve children in the UK are diagnosed with cancer daily, and one in five will die within five years, often of the deadliest types, such as DIPG—brain stem cancer, which we have heard a great deal about. Yet as we have also heard, there has been insufficient funding for research into these childhood cancers, and little or no progress in the treatment of DIPG appears to have been made over the past 60 years, while treatments for cancer in general have made positive strides.
DIPG, or diffuse midline glioma, accounts for between 5% and 10% of all childhood brain tumours. They are high-grade, fast-growing tumours and can spread throughout the brain. The main treatment for this type of cancer is radiotherapy, but it remains difficult to treat and the prognosis is poor, as we have heard from several Members during today’s debate.
The fact is that young people who face cancer do so with unique challenges. It is the largest killer disease of young children, and as my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) reminded us, cancer is rarer in children and young people than in adults, but it is often more complex and difficult to treat. As such, greater funding of research and greater focus on childhood cancers are important and will undoubtedly contribute to prolonging and saving young lives in the future. What we are debating today is about saving the lives of children.
For a few years now, I have been in correspondence from time to time with a woman in my constituency called Fiona Govan, who also spoke with the hon. Member for Gower. Fiona is an ordinary woman, but in some ways she is also pretty extraordinary. Since the loss of her young grandson, Logan Alexander Maclean, who passed away at three years old on 17 October 2017, she has worked extremely hard to raise awareness of the disease that claimed his young life.
Logan was diagnosed with DIPG. His family were told that he would not see his fourth birthday, and he did not. What news to receive about your little boy or grandson. The family, like many before them, had never even heard of DIPG. Logan coped with his biopsy to confirm his diagnosis—apparently, some children do not and immediately lose even more function. He also responded well to palliative radiotherapy, the treatment that has been the only option since the 1960s. However, as advised, Logan’s family made as many wonderful memories with him as they could, treasuring every moment they had left with him. As we might expect, Logan’s family have nothing but praise for Logan’s treatment and the medical professionals who cared for him at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Glasgow, University Hospital Crosshouse in Kilmarnock and CLIC Sargent, and so many others.
Logan’s grandmother, Fiona Govan, does not want other families to suffer the loss that she and her family have. She was keen to let me know, in preparation for this debate, that we should remember that every year, children with their whole lives ahead of them—with all their unfulfilled potential—develop what seem like minor ailments, only for their parents to be told that their child will soon die of DIPG. It might be that the child develops a slight limp, as Logan did when he was two years old. It might be that they mention a pain in their hand, like Reece, aged 11, did. They might start to choke on their food, as Sofia, aged six, did. Like Eva, aged four, they might develop a lopsided smile, or like Evie, aged 13, they might begin to slur their speech. They may have night terrors like Ollie, aged 12, or migraines and vomiting as Izzy, aged 16, did. There are so many other cases. Gradually, these children lose their motor functions. Following diagnosis, some children survive only weeks, some are spared for a few months and, very occasionally, some will have a few years, but they will all die.
I mention these children as a reminder to all of us that the loss caused by childhood cancer must not become about abstract statistics. The loss is real, and families are never the same again after the loss of a child. The death of a child is unlike any other loss it is possible to experience, because it is the loss of a life unlived—the loss of a promised future—and defies all natural order. Parents burying children is a grotesque inversion of nature. It is the lot of children to bury their parents, not the other way around.
Just as many of my parliamentary colleagues did, I signed a letter calling on the Chancellor to uplift UK Government support for medical research to ensure that vital research on childhood cancers can continue, but not just that: research is needed to improve outcomes, with ring-fenced funding for children whose cancer is more complicated and difficult to treat than many cancers in older people. The fact is that so little progress has been made on DIPG, which is both distressing and alarming. That explains why DIPG is being treated in the same way it was in the 1960s. That cannot be right, considering that it is so deadly and accounts for so many childhood brain tumours, and given advances in treatment of other cancers.
We know that medical research budgets are under huge strain due to the restrictions on raising funds that covid-19 has created. That strain will impede and impact on medical research. The Government must ensure that research on DIPG is given greater priority. We cannot bring back the children who have been lost to cancer or the dreadful DIPG, but we can honour the memory of the children who have gone by deciding to renew our commitment to fund research into childhood cancers, which will help save children’s lives in the future. The Government must be able to say—we all must be able to say—that we are doing all we can to save children’s lives.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
There are about 20 minutes for Mr Norris and the Minister, because I would like the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) to have a few minutes to respond to the debate.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I commend the petitioners for securing this important debate about childhood cancer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said, it is hard to get the required signatures for these debates, and it happens only when the issue is as significant as this. I hope that the petitioners will see that their efforts have been rewarded with as full a House as we can have in the context of covid-19 and with the high quality of this debate.
I echo the comments commending Fiona Govan, who set this petition up following the tragic death of her grandson Logan in 2017. I am sure that many of the over 100,000 people who joined her in signing it have been touched personally by this issue. I say to Fiona and all those watching that the way that she and they have turned their grief into action is an incredible feat of bravery, which has had a powerful, important impact on all of us as legislators and has pushed us to drive change more quickly. I know that is what they want. I also thank Brain Tumour Research, which has been a phenomenal driving force in this area with the petition, the debate and all the other work that has gone on.
This debate has been an important reminder that, while we were elected by voting-age people almost a year ago today, we represent all of our constituents, including children. MPs have spoken today for those children: Logan from Ayrshire, Izzy from Islwyn, Daniel from East Renfrewshire, Georgia from Buckingham, Isla from Bosworth, Benny from North Norfolk, Kaleigh from Ilford, Grace from York, Cameron from Upper Bann, Atticus from Winchester, and Bradley from Easington. Their stories have been told by their representatives today, and their names will live on in the record for as long as this Parliament stands. I know that will not bring those children back to their families, but I hope that they can take some comfort from it. As we make progress in this place—we will make progress—I hope they can also take comfort from the fact that their children have been an integral part of this story. I am sure we all want to send our prayers to Eva from Wrexham and her family as she goes through her treatment.
We heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Easington (Grahame Morris), as well as from the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), who all provide leadership through their relevant all-party parliamentary groups, which do really important work in keeping this at the top of the inboxes of busy Ministers. I know they will continue to make significant efforts to turn today’s discussion into activity and change.
I must talk about a few numbers, because we have to discuss this at a global level. But before I do, I want to say, as all colleagues have, that behind every number is a child who has had their life taken before they have had the opportunity to really live it, and their family, who have to live with this extraordinary pain. As a country, we must strive to do our best for children who are afflicted by cancers, as if they were our own. We must take the efforts of parents, which we have heard about today, and act with that level of urgency. As colleagues have said, covid-19 has shown what can happen when we join together in common purpose and are properly resourced to meet great challenges.
Cancer remains the most common cause of death in children, with around 240 aged 14 and under dying each year. Research has made significant inroads. Mortality has decreased by around 70% since the 1970s. The five-year survival rate for retinoblastoma is now 99%. There are recent examples, too, with a clinical trial for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia improving survival rates by a quarter, thus offering promise for the future. However, as colleagues have said, that picture is inconsistent. The incidence of childhood cancer has risen by about 15% since the 1990s, and there are many cancers for which the five-year survival rate remains devastatingly low: it is 67% for neuroblastoma, 65% for bone cancer and 32% for atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumour.
Then, of course, there is DIPG, which Logan Maclean suffered from, as have many others, as has been mentioned today. When I spoke to people at Brain Tumour Research about DIPG, they labelled it the monster of all monsters: there is no cure, the two-year survival rate is less than 10% and the five-year survival rate is zero. As to treatment, surgery is rarely an option. Radiotherapy is the preferred option, but it is suboptimal, providing a temporary positive response but not a curative one. Chemotherapy has been trialled, but that is all. The only way out today —and the only way out for our collective energies—is through research. That is how we will make the difference for DIPG and for cancers in young people on a wider scale.
At the moment only about 20% of childhood cancer research is funded by the Department, with the rest funded by charities—most significantly Cancer Research UK. What assessment has the Minister made of how the gearing could be improved and what the results of that would be? Similarly, on brain tumour research, I know that the Minister will refer to the welcome £40 million that the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) spoke about, which was announced in 2018 as part of the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission. Two and a half years later, I understand that only about £6 million of that has been allocated. Will the Minister confirm that and set out what the plan is for the other £34 million? That money needs to be put to use for the things we want it to be used for.
Charities, as I have said, are playing a crucial role in research, but their fundraising avenues have been severely hit by covid, so research funding is in danger. Sue Farrington Smith, the chief executive of Brain Tumour Research, put it bluntly:
“The stark reality is that charity-funded research into brain tumours could stop and the vital progress we have made will be lost.”
What are the Minister’s views on that? What assessment has the Department made of the resilience of research funded by charities and of how we are, at least in the short term, going to fill the gap that covid has created?
I want to finish by majoring on the points that the petitioners asked us and the Government to focus on in moving towards solving childhood cancer. First, transparent data classification systems, coming through from the National Institute for Health Research, could be dealt with relatively simply and quickly, so I hope the Minister will support that. The petitioners also ask for the ring-fencing of funding for research on childhood cancers. Finally—this is important for rare cancers and rare diseases more broadly—they want the incentivising of research in these areas, where the incentives will not, clearly, be financial. Taking those steps would make a significant difference for future children and families, who will not know that we are having this discussion. I would like to hear the Minister’s assessment of those asks. Will she let us know more broadly what steps the Government will take to reach those goals?
The debate has been a poignant and moving one, but those who signed the petition and triggered it want action. They have set out what those actions might be. It is time for us to pull together and get on with it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
I want to begin by congratulating the petitioners, as other Members have, and by thanking the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this important debate. It has been one of the most poignant I have attended—I am sure we can all agree about that—and it is my fourth debate about cancer in the past five days. Each one shows the devastation that that disease brings to families, but that has been particularly so today, because we have been speaking of children. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, there is no way to feel, in burying a child or grandchild, that that is the right order of things.
I agree entirely with those Members who said that we are stronger when we act together—particularly in the world of cancer. That brought me to this place, and I hope to do a little good while I am here, in this sphere in particular. I want to add my voice to the chorus of tributes to Fiona Govan, who, as we have heard, started the petition after the death of a much-loved grandson, Logan.
As many Members have expressed, DIPG is a brutal cancer—we are seeing success with some cancers, but DIPG is particularly difficult. Fiona has vowed to do everything she can so that future generations will never have to experience the pain of losing a child, as her family did. As we have heard today, however, Eva, Izzy, Atticus, Cameron, Daniel, Isla, Bradley, Georgia, Kaleigh, Benny, Grace, Reece, Evie and Ollie have all been treasured and lost. It is to their families that I address my remarks. Nearly 110,000 people stand in solidarity with Fiona, and I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for its important work.
I am honoured to speak about this most important of petitions on behalf of the Government this afternoon. My heart goes out to all families affected. The pain of the diagnosis of DIPG and the subsequent treatment is something that no mother, father or grandparent should ever have to go through. The very thought of it in the 21st century is unbearable, yet Fiona’s experience and others’ experiences, which we have heard about through the many powerful and compelling contributions to the debate, remind us too painfully that although we have come a long way—there have been improvements over the past 40 years—we have not come far enough, particularly with DIPG. The dial has not shifted.
In the past 40 years, we have seen good progress in the treatment of childhood cancers. Thankfully, the majority of children will now survive cancer. However, the most pernicious cancers, such as DIPG, remain a deadly threat. Our research must continue, and I agree with hon. Members that it must intensify. The National Institute for Health Research is the largest national clinical research funder in Europe. As has been said, we have invested over £1 billion so that some of the finest researchers in the world can work on this puzzle and try to find the answer. The largest of the disease areas is cancer, and such research receives over £130 million each year.
Many tributes have been paid, and I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), for the work he did in this space, particularly with the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission in 2018. The Government have announced £40 million of funding over the five years, including for DIPG. The money is being invested through NIHR, making full use of its talents as an internationally recognised centre of research excellence. At the heart of the mission is translating the discoveries of scientists and doctors into treatments and diagnostics that can transform the lives of all young patients.
We know that research takes time. It is through heart-breaking experience that brain tumours give us one of the most persistent challenges, even for the greatest medical minds in this country and across the globe. We want researchers to submit high-quality research proposals in this area. In 2018, we made an appeal to the research community for more funding applications for brain tumours. The response was fantastic, with an immediate increase in proposals, and we have been able to fund the very best of them. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) alluded to, £5.7 million has been spent so far, but we need to make that appeal loudly and clearly so that the research proposals that come forward can be assessed.
One of the challenges of ring-fencing just for DIPG is about the scientific potential of the research and what we are looking at. When we ring-fence funding, sometimes it actually stops great research. Although I want to go full pelt behind intensification—I want more proposals to come forward—the challenge of ring-fencing is a difficult one.
Research has been a major part of covid, as many hon. Members have said. We have shown that we can do more, that we can speed up research, that we can do things in parallel, and that we can deliver speedily from the bench to the bed to the patient. We need to take every one of the lessons that we have learned from the pandemic and translate them, particularly into cancer research.
We know well that cancer in children presents unique challenges. The Royal Marsden’s biomedical research centre is a world-leading centre for children with cancer that does genuinely groundbreaking research, such as the work to develop a 91-gene panel test that can detect certain genomic mutations in childhood tumours. The study used next-generation sequencing and involved children whose tumours were no longer responding to treatment; we have heard about the limited treatment options available to parents.
The study found that 51% of tumours had mutations that could be targeted by anti-cancer drugs that are used for different tumours in adults—51% is really encouraging. That is the challenge of ring-fencing funding in a different area, however: we need to look at how we can use different treatments to target other cancers, as we are seeing more and more. We need to make the most of that. For example, drugs that are ordinarily used to treat skin cancer in an adult might be effective in treating a child’s brain tumour. That could clearly be a game changer.
The Royal Marsden is also a leader in DIPG research. As we know, DIPG is difficult to treat because it is comprised of multiple generations of different types of cancer cell. The biomedical research centre’s pioneering work has used genetic sequencing of individual cell types to explore how they interact, co-operate and stimulate the growth of that tumour. That opens up new avenues for the interpretation of tumour evolution and opportunities for new drug interventions. All that groundbreaking work is transforming how we think about childhood cancers, with powerful technologies that offer hope for future generations. What unites us all is that we never want to see parents go through that pain if we can work towards a solution to stop it. We are determined that the biomedical research centre at the Royal Marsden should remain a home for groundbreaking research. Since 2017, we have provided £43 million over five years.
The University of Nottingham is another such centre of excellence and the National Institute for Health Research is funding research there to look at the early diagnosis of childhood cancers. Early diagnosis is crucial across all cancer types. We know that we get much better outcomes when we diagnose in stages 1 and 2, rather than being presented with stages 3 or 4 when, obviously, the prognosis is much poorer. This represents a potential pathway that might avoid the painful journey that lies ahead.
In Nottingham, researchers are looking at cancer symptoms that are often non-specific and can mimic other more common childhood illnesses. We heard from many hon. Members how an initial tremor in the hand, a dragging of the leg or feeling unwell would perhaps not immediately be thought of as cancer in a child. Doctors do their best, but parents do not want every visit to the doctor to be a worry that their child has cancer. It is very difficult for those who diagnose. The research in Nottingham aims to address that challenge by increasing awareness of symptoms among healthcare professionals and addressing the lack of paediatric-specific diagnostic tools.
I say in answer to several hon. Members that the Department is working with charities large and small, such as Cancer Research UK and other medical charities, and Cancer52 and the smaller charities, as well as with many research bodies, including the Medical Research Council and others. Only by co-ordinating funding can National Cancer Research Institute partners maximise the impact of research for patients and the public. I pay tribute to those centres of excellence, but this journey is not theirs alone. We are seeing an ever more powerful network of partnerships and likeminded organisations that care passionately about brain tumours. In addition to the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, we work with Cancer Research UK and many others. For example, in partnership with CRUK, the NIHR has funded £1.2 million for an experimental cancer medicine centre and a paediatric network, which brings together triallists, scientists, clinicians and NHS research infrastructure to increase availability and access to novel treatments. Several Members spoke of the challenge of having to go abroad to America or Europe to access those treatments. We want people to be able to take part in trials and access treatments here.
The Brain Tumour Charity does incredible work and provides £2.8 million of funding for the study of more targeted brain tumour drugs. The fantastic Tessa Jowell BRAIN MATRIX is pioneering a new trials platform to give people with brain cancer, including children, access to trials and treatments that are best suited to individual tumours. There are many hundreds, if not thousands, of different cancers. The Tessa Jowell BRAIN MATRIX is working across the four nations, and across the globe. Nobody has the sole right to make the discovery. Working together, we are much stronger. We are all here to make sure we deliver for young patients.
I pay tribute to the incredible partners across the country for the effort that is going into this generational challenge. I also pay tribute to the charities for their additional work in supporting families. When a person gets a cancer diagnosis, that is a horrendous journey. It is awful as an adult, but worse when it is someone’s child—my heart goes out to all those parents.
No child should have to suffer in the way the children we have heard about today did and do, and no adult should have to bear such a loss. Fiona and everyone else who has lost a very loved child or grandchild before their time have my deepest sympathy and respect. As we have heard, that is often not enough, so they have my absolute commitment that the Government will stop at nothing to make childhood cancer a thing of the past for generations to come.
We will look at getting better data. Transparency can be a challenge, because it is obviously important that we do not divulge too much about an individual patient. I have talked about the challenge with ring-fencing, but that does not mean that we should not be spending the money and calling for more research. We will also incentivise research, and I am happy to carry on the conversation about a UK strategy.
We will stop at nothing to make childhood cancer a thing of the past for generations to come. We will achieve that only through research, and we will do it better together.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the Minister for her positive response. As chair of the APPG on cancer, I welcome it, and so do Members across the Chamber, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), who works very hard alongside me. I thank the Minister on behalf of Fiona Govan and all the petitioners. We will continue to hold her to account. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 300027, relating to research into childhood cancers.
Sitting suspended.
Covid-19: Impact on Schools and Exams
(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
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 326066, 550846, 316404 and 549015, relating to the impact of Covid-19 on schools and exams.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. This is a timely debate as only last week the Secretary of State for Education laid out the Government’s plan for the delivery of GCSEs and A-levels next summer. I want to put on record my sincere thanks to Libby Harris, Alex D’Arcy and Ellis Rogers, whose petitions we debate today, for giving me time to speak with them at length about their reasons for starting their respective petitions. I also thank Dame Glenys Stacey from Ofqual for giving me her time to explain the processes for exams next summer.
I start with Ellis’s e-petition calling for the reclosure of schools and colleges due to an increase in covid-19 cases, which has been signed by 416,000 people—990 of them are from my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke—as well as Libby’s petition asking the Government to mandate schools to close two weeks before the end of autumn term, enabling students to self-isolate before joining loved ones in their Christmas bubbles.
Ellis began his petition because of his mum and aunt, who both work as teachers—unsung heroes during the global health pandemic—at the same secondary school. When all year groups returned to Parrs Wood High School, where Ellis’s mum and aunt work, it was only a matter of weeks until his mother caught covid-19. Ellis feels that, despite all the measures introduced by the school to be as covid-secure as possible, they simply are not enough, in large part because not all pupils are following the rules of wearing masks in corridors, keeping socially distanced from staff and peers, and not mixing with different bubbles. He also highly doubts the regularity of people hand-sanitising or washing. That causes only more anxiety for Ellis as his aunt was classified as extremely vulnerable via her GP during the first lockdown, and his first concern is—rightly so—the safety and wellbeing of his family.
Ellis has some questions for the Minister that he would like to have answered. Why can we not move back to online learning for all pupils? What have the Government done to invest in technology to enable learning from home since the start of the 2020 summer term? Have they invested in better ventilation in schools, as has happened in some countries across Europe? Lastly, what are they doing about vocational qualifications? Many students felt let down by having to wait an additional two weeks to receive their grades last summer. Are vocational qualifications an afterthought?
Libby’s petition, which goes along slightly similar lines to Ellis’s, is about providing safety for elderly relatives and preventing another spike in cases, as we have recently witnessed. She has asked whether it is possible to move all learning online for the final two weeks of this term. In that way, young people could self-isolate, potentially get tested and ensure that they had no symptoms, so that when they met loved ones they could do so knowing that they were not endangering them.
Libby referred me to Stephen Reicher from Independent SAGE, who has suggested allowing pupils off a week earlier than usual and adding those days back into the school calendar next summer, in order to protect loved ones and the NHS. Libby also referred to Kit Yates, also from Independent SAGE, who has said that if we took year 13 alone as a region, they would be in tier 3. To be clear, Libby is not a teacher. She is a concerned citizen who understands the need to compromise and is willing for her idea to apply only to secondary schools where the spread of covid-19 cases seems much more prevalent. Libby therefore asks this question of the Minister: if schools remain open, will the Government implement the safety measures recommended by Independent SAGE, and if not, why not?
I come to the final petitioner, Alex, who has called for the cancellation of all GCSEs and A-levels in the summer of 2021. His petition has just over 169,000 signatories, with 292 from my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. Alex is a year 11 student preparing to sit his GCSEs next summer. A northern lad living in Liverpool, he argues that his local community in his region has been more greatly affected than some in other parts of the United Kingdom. Since September, some of his peers have lost out on six weeks of face-to-face learning. Alex was happy to share that he is a beneficiary of Merchant Taylors’, a private school that he attends in Liverpool. It has the resources and capability to deliver high-quality online learning, but that experience is not fair and not true of many in his community.
Alex referred to statistics showing that during the first lockdown, when most students were asked not to attend school, a study by the National Foundation for Educational Research team concluded that a third of students had not engaged in lessons while at home, 42% had not bothered to return their work, and pupils from the most disadvantaged backgrounds were the least likely to engage with remote learning. Alex feels it is highly unlikely that a level playing field can be created because, as some surveys suggest, students from disadvantaged backgrounds are up to four months behind in their learning, which the three-week delay to the start of exams simply cannot make up for.
All my discussions with Alex predate last week’s announcement by the Secretary of State for Education, but Alex did email me with some thoughts and questions for the Minister. How will the Government and Ofqual ensure that fair marking is applied across all exam boards, as marking can be very subjective? The Government must ensure that the advance notice of topics and additional support materials is announced as soon as possible to ensure that teachers and students can prepare. A U-turn must not happen. Lastly, will the Government pledge to spend any additional money on resources in case of a third lockdown, and use Oak National Academy, BBC Red Button and textbooks suppliers so that schools have all the resources they need?
I hope I have done justice to the petitioners. I will respond with my own views on the petitions. All petitioners have been told in advance, and I am grateful for their trust in me to deliver their views today. For the record, I do not believe that schools and colleges should close, and I believe that exams must go ahead next summer. I am pleased that we now have the details about how that will run. Such large numbers of students being asked not to attend school for six months still saddens and horrifies me. I understand why that was necessary as we tackled and learned about covid-19, but I think many Members will agree that that is something we never wish to see again.
I represent an area with one of the worst level 3 and level 4 qualification take-ups in the country. Students in my area are below average in achieving a pass in English and in maths at GCSE, and far too many lack access to high-skilled, high-quality apprenticeships or job opportunities. Lockdown has meant that we are rocking on our back foot as a local area after taking a right hook from covid-19. I therefore ask the Government to ensure that the last things to be closed in this country are schools and colleges.
I was extremely disappointed to see the National Education Union executive campaign so heavily not to have schools open to all students, and spending time running a political campaign asking for Facebook graphics to be shared, rather than working with the Department for Education. The damaging actions taken by NEU leaders, who I do not believe speak for most of its members, will have negatively impacted the reputation of and respect for some in the teaching profession. I sincerely hope the NEU will pause and think about its conduct.
Since the start of September, 99% of state-funded schools have been open each week, with the rate of face-to-face attendance maintained at close to 90%, although we have seen a drop to 83% as of 26 November, due to an increase in covid-19 cases. This shows that many students are present in school, and there has been an expectation for schools to provide remote learning when students have to self-isolate, with recent guidance about how that must be done.
Of those pupils who did not attend on 26 November due to covid-related reasons, it is believed that only 0.2% had a confirmed case and 0.4% a suspected case, and 7% to 8% were self-isolating because of coming into contact with someone who had covid. UK scientists have constantly demonstrated that children are less susceptible to infection than adults, which has also been shown in studies from South Korea and Iceland. Data from this summer demonstrated that under-18s in the UK accounted for less than 2% of all infections detected, and research led by University College London concluded that children are 50% less likely to become infected than adults. Data has also indicated that schools are a low-risk setting for transmission and that there is no significant transmission among children or from pupils to teachers. Details of a study in the Netherlands that were published by SAGE in April support these claims.
I believe that the Government have worked to create a comprehensive list of measures—including regular hand washing, enhanced cleaning, bubbles and staggered timings of the day—to ensure that school can be an effective place of learning. However, although lots of good work has been done, it is still fair to ask questions and raise concerns.
I note that the Department for Education has announced recently that money will be made available to schools to assist with the costs of cleaning, the provision of laptops, supply teachers and other costs. Although that is welcome, it is not yet clear what the size of the budget will be nor how the money can be applied for. Schools in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, such as St Mary’s Primary School in Tunstall, have lost out, because they have a well-managed budget and therefore were not entitled to claim back for the cost of making sure that they were covid-secure after the first lockdown. Will the Minister say how big the budget will be, whether schools be able to backdate claims and when the money will be distributed?
I acknowledge and welcome the Government’s £195 million to purchase 340,000 laptops and tablets. However, not all children have access to wi-fi, and nor do they or their parents know how to use the internet and online apps properly, as is the case for 44% of residents across Stoke-on-Trent. While the digital divide exists, with 9 million people struggling to use the internet independently, as the Good Things Foundation has found, we can anticipate huge problems. That is why I back the call by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for a digital catch-up scheme.
With regard to exams, I will not revisit the past, as I think we have all learned a valuable lesson from that ordeal. The scheme announced by the Secretary of State for Education seems to take a balanced and detailed approach. I am particularly pleased with the advance notice of topics, as it enables teachers to plan accordingly. Again, I urge the Minister to work with the profession to create accessible online resources and also videos on these topics for TV, accessed via the red button, to aid teachers, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the Chair of the Education Committee, has regularly called for. These additional support materials will give students the support to ensure that they can demonstrate the very best of their ability.
However, the Minister must keep the pressure on Ofqual to ensure that advance notice is given by the end of January, as promised. Contingency plans—additional papers for those who miss the exams and enabling clinically vulnerable students to do tests from home—would also be good news. However, I hope that those with special educational needs and disability will also be taken into account much further, with consideration of home examination adjusted for.
Using Ofqual’s special consideration process for those who may sit only one or two of the exams in a subject is also good news, as this is a system that has been in place for decades. However, I ask the Minister to ensure that the system has been stress-tested, because it is highly unlikely that it will have had to handle the numbers in this summer’s exam series, in order to give certainty to year 11 and 13 students across England.
I also urge the Minister to work with me to have the DFE set up an online portal for the volunteer army of retired or ex-teachers to be exam invigilators, an idea that the Secretary of State has supported. This way, the DFE can enable schools to waive the costs of conducting CRB checks and access those stepping up in the national effort.
The Minister also needs to set out how additional exam markers will be hired to ensure that papers can be marked in a shorter timeframe and to ensure the quality of exam board marking.
I welcome the £1 billion catch-up fund, but I am seriously concerned that some schools, such as the King’s Church of England School in Kidsgrove, have not been able to find tutors via the approved suppliers, and by the announcement that the £350 million of funding for the national tutoring programme is not only for the 2020-21 academic year but will now be spread over two years. I have long stated my scepticism that this scheme will deliver for students in disadvantaged areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke, as these large, centrally controlled schemes do not always end up where they are intended to.
Will the Minister explain why funding from the national tutoring programme will now be spread over two years, what progress has been made in hiring tutors and how they will be distributed? Lastly, the school holidays are a really important opportunity to catch up. Following comments last week from my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston), will the Minister explain how we can use the holiday periods effectively?
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I am really pleased that we are having this debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for introducing the petitions so well. This is a really difficult time for all students and their parents, just as it is for everybody else. We know of the uncertainty and damage that will be done if the right provision is not available. I agree with the hon. Member that it is absolutely right that schools stay open. I point out that all schools, or nearly all schools, have been open all the way through since 23 March for the children of essential workers and for many other children from disadvantaged backgrounds. We should all pay tribute to staff, who have worked incredibly hard, have been on the frontline, are essential workers and have often been infected with covid. Sadly, too many teachers and other school staff have died.
I wanted to take part in this debate because of my constituent, Alex D’Arcy. The hon. Gentleman mentioned him. He lives just around the corner from me, and I have known him on and off since he was about eight. I did not know that he had started the petition in August; I had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in encouraging him to do it, but I am thrilled that he did. When I spoke to him last week, he had not realised how quickly the petition had grown. He had not looked at it for several months, and suddenly 169,000 people had signed it. He was demonstrating his solidarity with many of his friends—people who live on the same street as him—who are not in such a fortunate position as he has been: he is one of only five students in his school who has not had to self-isolate at any time since going back in September.
Many others are not as fortunate, and many go to other schools where it has been much harder. As the hon. Gentleman said, children have not had the online support, and they have not had the in-school support either. That is the context in which Alex launched the petition. Because of the missed hours between 23 March and the end of the summer term last year, he did not see how it was possible for the exams to take place this year.
Much of that still applies, including the point about whether exams should go ahead, because there has been a serious gap between those children and young people who have had very good access, like Alex, and those in the north-west who have had to go home and self-isolate on up to five different occasions since just September. It is hard to see how those children and young people will catch up. The Government announced the national tutoring programme, but the hon. Member pointed out that that funding is over two years, not one, and it is being introduced very late. There are questions about why it took so long, and about where the tutors will come from. How much support will be available? One headteacher in my constituency said that, as far as she can tell, it will be 15 hours for one subject only. For students taking eight or nine GCSEs, that will be a drop in the ocean. I am afraid that having advance notice or support in the exam hall will not make the slightest difference. If a student taking an exam does not understand the topic, it does not matter how much notice they get or how much help they get in the exam hall—they will not be able to answer the questions. I am afraid that setting up a working group, which was the big reveal from the Government, really does not go far enough at this stage. The Government have to answer quickly some serious questions about how this will all work, how the catch-up will be possible and how it will be possible for all children and young people to have a fair chance at their exams in the summer.
The Government need to have a plan B in place. Given the reform, we know it will be difficult to deliver the kind of classroom assessment that the current Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster put through when he was Education Secretary, whereas it is possible in Wales. There are alternatives to exams, and the Government will have to come up with an alternative, just in case the infection rate increases and we are not able to see a fair system for exams. We have not heard that so far, and we have yet to see exactly how they propose to make exams work. Unless they do—this is a point that was made to me by Alex—we will have a real imbalance between the nations of the United Kingdom, whereby children in England will face real unfairness and inequality. They will face a system whereby grades are being awarded in Scotland and Wales on a different basis. How will that enable A-level students to compete fairly for university places, and will it be fair to GCSE students? Those are the questions for the Minister and Secretary of State.
I am incredibly proud of Alex for launching his petition. He has done a terrific job in highlighting this issue and he deserves enormous credit. We should encourage our young people to do as he has done. I hope that his getting 169,000 people to join him in signing the petition is the kind of impetus the Minister needs to take the action that all our children and young people need to have a fair crack this year.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. We had a really good start to the debate from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), and it is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), for the first time ever.
Many of our nation’s schools face an unprecedented challenge. The lockdown has had a severe impact on every aspect of education in this country, and many students have fallen behind in their studies. The entire student population, from primary right through to university, has been forced to learn from home for almost a full academic year. Teachers have risen to the challenge of adapting for digital delivery, and many say they want to keep some techniques as we return back to the new normal, but the lack of available equipment and connectivity for disadvantaged young people during the lockdown has widened the educational divides. In my constituency of Southport and many others across the country, there are homes where children simply do not have access to a computer. If we are truly to level up our communities, we must address the problem and ensure that such children are not disadvantaged further by this pandemic.
My second point is about closures and the impact that they have had on examinations and the continuity of students’ grades. Of course, exams were cancelled this year. Thousands of students, who had been relentlessly told for years about the importance of exams, were suddenly left without a conclusion to their studies. Indeed, Ofqual established a system for teachers to estimate grades. Like a great number of MPs present, I received hundreds of emails from constituents after the grades were given out. They were concerned about their son or daughter and the grades that they had been given—they were nothing like what had been predicted. Many students missed out on a place at university. We must ensure that that does not happen again and that integrity is put back into the system.
That brings me to my final point, about the impact of this virus on students’ mental health, an issue that I have raised on numerous occasions since becoming the Member of Parliament for Southport in 2017. We know that the coronavirus pandemic has a profound impact on the lives of millions of children and young people across this country. In some cases, they have been through other traumatic experiences at home as well, such as abuse or death, as well as the direct impact that covid has had on families. Some have struggled with missing friends, others with losing the structure of the school day and no longer having access to the support network that they relied on. Although returning to school is likely to be positive for many young people’s mental health, the readjustment following a long break and the changes that schools are having to make to their environment and timetables will be challenging for some.
Schools need to make wellbeing their top priority as we return to normality, and they need Government support to help them to do that. We know that about a third of schools do not provide school-based mental health support and that many young people who are struggling to cope may not meet the criteria for NHS mental health services in their area. When the Minister responds, I ask her to carefully consider that issue and the campaign of the charity YoungMinds, which calls on the Government to provide ring-fenced funding to ensure that schools can bring in extra support where it is needed to help pupils and parents.
It is vital to ensure that, through no fault of their own, this generation of students do not fall back in terms of the educational support they receive. Let us get them back on top of their studies. I strongly believe that we need to return to full in-person learning and examinations, which are the only way to ensure fairness between year groups and parity between students from low-income and more fortunate backgrounds.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this timely debate, Mr Gray. I am pleased to be discussing the subject again. I congratulate the young people who stand in solidarity with their peers, their teachers and their family members and who started the petition, and those who have signed it. Pupils in Bath and across the UK have responded with remarkable resilience to this challenging year. Our teachers and school staff have also adapted brilliantly; I thank them all for the work that they have done to make sure that our schools can remain open. It would be an insult to their efforts to repeat the exams fiasco next year.
I have said before that I believe a return to exams in 2021, even with a three-week delay, is the wrong decision. It is about fairness, about which we have already heard a lot in the debate. The time that students have spent in school varies massively across the country, and more may need to self-isolate. I am not convinced that the measures announced by the Secretary of State for Education last week will be enough to level the playing field.
We have seen that teacher assessment works. Teachers are fully capable of assessing their students’ ability. The Welsh Government have announced a flexible approach to assessments that will be delivered in a classroom environment. Those assessments will be externally set and marked to ensure consistency across the nation, but they are not national exams as we know them. Most importantly, the Welsh approach gives pupils the chance to use the summer term to catch up on lost teaching time and to continue learning and building the skills and knowledge that they need for the next stage of their lives. Why should pupils in England not be given the same opportunity?
The Government have yet to answer many questions. Moving grade boundaries may help some students to get higher grades, but will it make up for the huge variation in teaching time? When can students expect the list of topics that will be covered in exams? That must be provided as soon as possible so they can make the most of the rest of the school year. Teachers also need to prepare. If we go ahead with exams, how can we make sure that they are fair? Announcing an expert panel to monitor that is all very well, but again, when can teachers and students expect clarity on what it will mean for them? It is completely unacceptable to continue to kick that decision down the road.
There is a real human cost to all this uncertainty for pupils and teachers. We have already heard much about pupils’ mental health. Behind every exam result is a young person ready to take on the next stage in their life, whether that is an apprenticeship, a place at university or something else. We cannot begin to know the full extent to which this disruption will affect them, but the exam situation is causing them a great deal of stress and anxiety, and the power to reduce it is in the Government’s hands. The Government owe it to those young people to learn from the summer exams fiasco, rather than rely solely on exams at all costs.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on his introduction and on bringing forward this debate on the impact of covid on schools and exams.
This is an important debate. Few issues are as important as our children’s education, especially in a year when that has been more disrupted than at any time in recent memory. As a principle, I believe that for children’s progress and wellbeing it is vital for them to remain in the education setting for as long as possible. I will therefore focus on the impact of covid on exams and the case for a two-week lockdown in schools before Christmas. I will build on representations I have had over the past week from the headteachers of three schools in Rugby: Siobhan Evans of Ashlawn School, Mark Grady of Rugby High School and Alison Davies of Avon Valley School.
On the issue of exams, I recognise the very great challenge to the Government and Ofqual—I am sure the Minister will explain this—of putting in place a system to treat pupils who will be sitting GCSEs and A-levels next summer. How are we to treat those pupils fairly? Many pupils have lost an awful lot of school time. Ofsted, in its recent annual report, notes:
“While we do not yet have reliable evidence on ‘learning loss’ from the pandemic, it is likely that losses have been significant and will be reflected in widening attainment gaps.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) referred to that.
We know that the amount of home study in this time has varied dramatically according to the circumstances of the children and their parents. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds have missed out significantly in comparison with their more fortunate peers. Mrs Evans drew my attention to the fact that her own son, who attends a different school from the one where she is head, missed out on 150 teaching hours during the first lockdown and is on course to miss a further 120 in this academic year—a total of 270 hours. I understand that a GCSE is typically 120 guided learning or teaching hours, so her son is missing the equivalent of two GCSEs’ worth of teaching time. That is a huge amount, even when parents are able to monitor their child’s learning, support them and put additional resource in place—and of course we know that that has not been possible for every child. Many have not had the support at home to make up for that lost teaching time. I have heard accounts from teachers and parents of pupils who have spent that time at home on computers, playing games and staying up late, rather than completing their school work.
There is a range of solutions, varying from cancelling the exams altogether to going ahead and pretending that nothing has happened, but I believe that what the Government have announced is a pragmatic suggestion. It includes delaying exams for three weeks to provide extra teaching time, giving advance notice of the topics that pupils will be examined on, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said, and providing appropriate aid to pupils during their exams.
It is essential that exams go ahead, because they are the fairest and most accurate way we have to measure attainment. Of course, pupils themselves deserve to have the opportunity to demonstrate their hard work and show what they know. Today, I spoke to the equality club at Rugby Free Secondary School—a fourth secondary in my constituency—to talk about equality. The Government should take steps to ensure that no pupil is unfairly disadvantaged simply by virtue of having been born in a particular year—in this case, 2003, 2004 or 2005—and sitting exams in either 2020 or 2021. It is imperative that there is a level playing field on applications for jobs and universities for the children who sit exams in these two years as there was for those in the years preceding them and as there will be in the years afterwards, when, we hope, everything will settle down.
I now turn to the case for a two-week lockdown from 10 December, which has been made to me by Mr Grady and Ms Davies. They have told me that, following the announcement of the relaxation of the rules to allow the formation of Christmas bubbles, there should be a two-week school lockdown from 10 December. I understand that that is because if a student is identified as a contact and required to isolate after 10 December, their self-isolation period will have a direct impact on their family’s plans for Christmas—through no fault of their own, a student could cause their family to miss out on a family Christmas.
Any child going to school from Monday 14 December and required to self-isolate will have to do so for the whole Christmas period. The case for closure is that if schools were to close on 10 December, that risk could be eliminated. But I believe that that would be incredibly disruptive to the majority of children and, as with previous school closures, a two-week school lockdown would have a disproportionate effect on students from disadvantaged backgrounds at a time when those students have missed many hours of education already.
My hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that there is a judgment call to be made between the impact on family Christmases and on children’s education. If we had not lost so much teaching time already in the year, it might have been reasonable to close early for Christmas, but I do not buy that. I think it essential that children do not fall further behind, and for that reason I am not supportive of a pre-Christmas school lockdown.
If I may, I will raise one or two issues that have been drawn to my attention by my local headteachers and particularly in respect of Ashlawn School, which is very heavily subscribed because of its outstanding Ofsted rating. A big and busy school, it has done exceptionally well to maintain social distancing on the school estate, but in practice the limitations of the classroom sizes have made it very difficult to meet all the Government guidelines. Mrs Evans has contrasted the reality that schools face on the ground with some of the images that have come through from the Department, showing students in spacious classrooms with plenty of room between them. That is not always the case, particularly in a well subscribed outstanding school. She has also drawn my attention to the cost of maintaining social distancing measures in a big school: she estimates that the cost is £200 a day, with £70 a day spent on hand sanitiser alone.
The Government have done the right thing in prioritising education and ensuring that pupils get the best possible education. They have demonstrated that they have the best interests of the most disadvantaged at heart, and I very much look forward to the remarks of the Minister in summing up the debate this evening.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate. I certainly concur with the comments made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) about the national tutoring programme. I know that school heads across York, who come together in an organisation called YSAB—York Schools and Academies Board—say that the money could be better and more effectively targeted had they got control of the resources. They also have relationships with people who could deliver such a programme. That would make such a difference, and not only in delivering the programme far more quickly, which is something that we would all want to see.
I also concur with some of the comments made in Libby’s petition on looking at closing schools down earlier before Christmas and being able to displace that time to another point in the calendar in order to keep families safe. Every day, we are seeing hundreds of children in our constituencies not at school. In York, 545 children are not in school in one of the lowest areas of infection in the country. We have to hold things in balance: we have to look at how we can put the right measures in place to keep families safe, but also ensure that there is minimum disruption to children’s education.
This has been the most challenging time for teachers and support staff, as well as students. The stress placed on our young people today, who have worked incredibly hard through this time, has had a profound impact on their mental health, which must be recognised. People do not want to be absent from their education: with every single absence, they see their future slipping away, not least because they are still uncertain as to what the end of the year may bring for them. One thing that they are certain of, though, is that those absences have driven greater inequality.
In researching for this debate, I decided to go back to some source reports, drawing on academia in particular and looking at Ofqual reports too, to examine the assertion that Government keep putting forward: that exams are the best form of assessment. From Ofqual’s work and that of others, that is not what the evidence is saying. For instance, an inequality is hardwired into the system: the evidence shows that male students perform better in exam-only assessments than female students, and we therefore need to look at that issue. While female students perform well in exams, they also excel where there is coursework involved, and therefore the hybrid model that Labour championed during its time in government struck the right balance. That is certainly borne out by the evidence put forward by academics.
That evidence has also shown that having proper access to IT and broadband, and a safe and secure learning environment, removes so much of the inequality around socio-economic status that we see. That is why it is absolutely right for the Government to prioritise those things, although sadly that has been lacking throughout this pandemic: there has been greater divergence, particularly for pupils who already have lower attainment, and that growing inequality in our education system is of great concern.
As set out by the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry last year, teacher assessment during compulsory education is as reliable as formal external exams. That journal also found no bias on the grounds of ethnicity or gender in that type of assessment. It did, however, recognise the impact that exams are having on wellbeing, as did the Mumsnet survey of 1,500 parents, who identified the impact exams are now having on children’s mental health. Two in three children experience anxiety and sleepless nights. For one in 10, exams have a severe impact on their mental health, with 9% seeking medical help, one in five pupils in tears, and 31% experiencing exam stress. Research has shown how exams—not least the gold-standard exams—have exacerbated poor mental health, resulting in an increase of a third in medical referrals, as well as panic attacks, breakdowns, crying, fatigue, and children imploding emotionally.
That poor mental health is creating a new disadvantage through exams, where those who are breaking under the system are performing worse in exams. That must be taken into consideration, not least with the escalation of pressure when a pupil knows that they are sitting exams having had many days of absence, while other pupils have been able to attend school. Now, we have a system where four different nations have four different systems and pupils are applying to universities for the same places, and therefore greater inequality is being built into the system. Sadly, while it is welcome to hear about the work that the Government have been doing, their announcements last week have not addressed the deep concerns about inequality in our system. Certainly, most young people still do not know what lies beyond that point.
An extension of only three weeks to the academic year, as needed as it may be, will not address the missed opportunities children have had. I spoke to one parent whose daughter had had only 16 days since March of her A-level biology course, for which she sits the exam next summer. How will she compare with the pupil who has been constantly in education over that time, when she has had no contact with her educational establishment for three months? The gap is so large that it is clear we cannot depend on an end-of-year-exam-only assessment. I am sure that after the Government have sat in their workgroup, they will be coming back to make further announcements.
However, there is one more question that I want to put before Government, which is maybe a bigger question: what is education for? Surely we need to return to the classical understanding that education is the acquisition of knowledge and the ability to apply it. Passing exams has little to do with that, and therefore the Government’s assertion that exams are the best form of assessment and of advancing pupils’ education is not proven by the academic evidence.
We can trust our professional teachers and educators to nurture and assess our young people with centre-based assessments for all—yes, absolutely, nationally moderated— and turn the stress and tears to joy and prove that education is not just about exams. If the Minister fails to do that, I trust that the higher education sector will take control of how it will admit its next generation of students and force the Government to think again.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. First, I thank the petitioners, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and, of course, the around 600 people in my constituency who have signed these petitions, which I am pleased MPs have the opportunity to discuss. I will focus my speech on two main aspects: the call for schools and colleges to close due to covid-19 and the call to cancel examinations.
While I appreciate colleagues’ arguments, I am not supportive of closing schools or colleges. School closures are incredibly damaging to young people—to their education, health and mental wellbeing—so they must be used only as a last resort. I am grateful for the best efforts of teachers and parents to provide high-quality remote learning as well as in-house learning for vulnerable children and children of key workers during the previous closures earlier in the year. We owe our teachers an immense debt of gratitude as they have worked tirelessly right through the year to support students, often going beyond teaching to ensure that emphasis is placed on young people’s wellbeing.
However, the period of partial school closures inevitably led to many children—especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds—falling behind. We cannot put the futures of our young people at risk. There is simply no substitute for face-to-face learning for those at a young age, so I will continue to support the Government in keeping schools and colleges open.
While inevitably there have been covid outbreaks in schools, those have often been controlled thanks to the collaboration of national and local government and schools. There is clear evidence that children are much less susceptible to the damaging effects of covid-19 and ONS data identifies teaching as a low-risk profession, in part thanks to the monumental efforts of schools over the last few months to ensure their facilities are covid-19-secure. It has not been easy to implement and maintain new safety measures, so I thank all managerial, administrative and teaching staff for their hard work.
I would like to mention in particular Cobden Primary School in my constituency, where during a recent visit I saw at first hand the lengths gone to so as to keep children and staff safe while ensuring that the impact on education was as little as possible. Rawlins Academy has also done a fantastic job on that, although it has found it more difficult than others due to its limited space and the nature of its facilities. The staff and head especially have done their utmost to reduce the impact on education, but in some cases school bubbles have been out of school for some time, which is far from ideal. I raised that specific case recently with the Education Secretary.
Instead of closing schools, which only hinders social mobility, widens the disadvantage gap and places a burden on working parents, we should continue to work with them to ensure they have the resources and infrastructure they need to accommodate students and teachers safely on site or supplement their current facilities with additional local buildings and resources, should that be necessary. On that, I ask the Minister to look at the specific case of Rawlins Academy in Loughborough.
I am not in favour of cancelling exams, because we would be denying the child their moment of demonstrating all they have worked for and achieved, which gives them confidence to progress further. However, we should look at what adaptations could be made to aid schools in delivering the examination timetable, should social distancing still be in place next summer. I am pleased that the Minister is looking at this matter and ask her to consider what steps can be taken to secure examinations in 2021 and provide consistency and a firm plan for pupils.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mr Gray, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing this important debate.
I pay tribute to school leaders, teachers and support staff across my constituency, who have worked tirelessly throughout the coronavirus lockdown to keep schools open for the children of key workers, deliver teaching online in difficult circumstances, and reopen schools to all students. Their commitment has been extraordinary, but they have not had the support from the Government that they should have been able to rely on. First, in relation to laptops, tablets and wi-fi provision, it was completely obvious at the very beginning of the coronavirus lockdown that the impact on education would be far worse for students who did not have dedicated access to a laptop or tablet, and reliable wi-fi. Yet across my constituency the number of laptops provided has not come close to meeting the need, and in October the allocation was revised down. One headteacher tweeted that in September the school was promised
“115 laptops for disadvantaged students”,
that on 22 October schools had a
“legal requirement to deliver remote learning”,
and that on 23 October as the school broke up for half term it received 23 laptops. The headteacher added that the children had not “got less disadvantaged” between September and 23 October.
Secondly, in relation to costs, schools have incurred significant extra costs as a result of introducing covid-safe measures. Many schools in my constituency are seeking to reclaim between £12,000 and £20,000 in extra costs—money that they have already spent; but there is no transparency from the Government about reimbursements. Some schools’ applications have been refused entirely, others have had a partial amount, and others have received the full sum for which they applied. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain how she expects schools to balance their budgets in those circumstances, when the Government do not fully account for and reimburse the significant extra costs. Will she commit to reimburse all the additional costs that schools have incurred related to covid-19?
Finally, on exams, it is important that children can be confident that everything possible will be done to ensure that they do not suffer long-term disadvantage as a result of the terrible year of coronavirus. The handling of exam results was a fiasco. It caused deep, lasting distress to many students and their families, not all of which could be repaired by the Government’s U-turn. Even after that U-turn, there was still a widening of the disadvantage gap in results, with private schools seeing the biggest improvements in grades. Applying blanket measures to all students in the coming year will not address the disadvantage gap either. Students who have had good access to online learning will still fare better than students who have not had the laptops or wi-fi that they need, even with knowledge of the subjects that will be on the exam paper.
Coronavirus has scarred our country enough. The Government must ensure that they do not do long-term damage to young people in relation to either the quality of their education or their mental health. Funding laptops, reimbursing schools for additional costs and delivering a fully functioning, comprehensive catch-up programme are the minimum requirements that children should be able to expect.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on leading today’s debate.
I thank all the schools in Darlington—the teachers, headteachers and other school staff—for their amazing efforts throughout the last nine months in keeping schools open and continuing to educate our children online and in the classroom. In preparing for tonight’s debate, I have spoken with Nicole Gibbon, the fantastic head of St Aidan’s Academy in my constituency. She said to me:
“Children need to come to school for their mental health, their stability and their routine. They need goals to work toward and I welcome the announcements in respect of next year’s exams although I would have liked them sooner.”
I agree with Nicole and I believe that it is right for schools to be open and children to be at school. It is also right for exams to take place.
We are of course living in unique times, and that is why I welcome the measures that were announced last week, including a three-week delay to exams, more generous grading, advance notice of some topics and exam aids. I am conscious that some of my constituents want schools closed and exams cancelled, with more than 1,000 people from Darlington signing the petitions before us. However, as the chief medical officers of each of the four nations set out, schools are the best place for children to be, while the Children’s Commissioner stated that Ministers should ensure that schools should be the last places to close and the first to reopen.
We are all conscious of the risk to children of missing out on education in the long term and of social isolation and the potential damage to their development. I firmly believe that the best place for our children in the future is in school, for their education, their social development and their mental health. I am proud of the work undertaken by schools and colleges right across Darlington, which have responded to the challenges of 2020 and have remained open in a covid-secure manner. To close them now would be a betrayal of their hard work and the trust placed in them. It is right that the Government remain committed to exams going ahead in 2021, and they have responded to the challenge that that poses with a number of sensible measures.
I welcome the steps taken to tackle the digital divide, which needs to cover kit, connectivity and skills. I urge the Minister to continue to send out kit to children in Darlington as soon as it rolls off the production line. While I am issuing a Christmas list to the Minister, will she please commit to the additional costs being reimbursed to all our schools?
I know that schools and colleges right across Darlington have been working hard to ensure that no pupil misses out. I want that to continue, with our schools staying firmly open and vital exams taking place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate my good friend, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), on setting the scene, as he often does. He has brought his knowledge of education to the House, which we all benefit from. Well done to him. I also thank you, Mr Gray, for allowing me the opportunity to speak.
Education is clearly a devolved matter, so the Minister has no responsibility for what happens in Northern Ireland. However, I will add my comments, which will replicate the comments of other right hon. and hon. Members on what is important in education and the best way to achieve the safety and education of children. This debate has illustrated that I am not the only MP inundated with parents’ concerns; I believe that much of the mail I receive every day in relation to education will be the same in Strangford as elsewhere. The queries of parents uncomfortable with their child being on the bus to school, in class or taking part in after-school activities are valid, and their concerns are entirely understandable.
However, the other side of that is a letter from an equally concerned parent that their child’s academic and social development is being adversely affected by remote teaching, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) clearly referred to. Queries about the focus on home learning and children being prevented from attending normal after-school activities are equally valid and understandable. The Minister for Education in Northern Ireland, Peter Weir, said that schools will remain open right through to the normal school holidays. That is good, because children need a routine; that is important, as has been coming through to me. He is in regular contact with the Education Minister here, and they try to ensure continuity between what happens here and in Northern Ireland.
I hear from teachers concerned for their families. It seems that every day we hear of more community transmission. Although the rate is lessening thanks to the steps taken, it is still in schools, and I hear from teachers concerned for the health of their loved ones at home. There was a covid-19 outbreak in my granddaughter’s school, and year 8s and year 9s had to go home as a precaution. I will not mention which school, but it is good that they are now over that, that there were no fatalities and nothing serious came out of it. All teachers and pupils have recovered.
I hear from other teachers who highlight their concern for children who are unable to learn at home due to a lack of support or the need for enhanced professional support. One teacher told me that their heart was breaking for a child she believes soaks up the kindness from teaching staff; there are children who really need that more than anything else. When she went to call the child’s mother on Zoom to check on the child during the covid lockdown, she was unable to get through. The child returned to school after lockdown ended, but was withdrawn, quiet and uncertain. In the teacher’s own words, her heart “literally ached” for that child.
Let me be quite clear that this child is not in any physical danger; she is fed and clothed in clean clothes. Nevertheless, this teacher urged me to tell the story of all the children who need to be in school for the kindness and encouragement that they receive, even for that little two minutes that the teacher spends with them on a one- to-one basis. Other children look forward to the structure of school, while for many children it is the nutritious lunch they get at school that they look forward to; that is valid to me and it is valid to their families as well.
One teacher highlights the need for an additional week of school holiday, to give the two-week buffer after the five-day Christmas period relaxation. However, another says that she cannot do that:
“I have GCSE and A-level students who need to be in”.
Both views are valid, and there is a balance that education Ministers and even schools themselves are always trying to strike in the education system. But herein lies a problem for schools. What one family needs is not what all children need; what will work for one teacher might not work for another. Are any of those teachers wrong in what they say? No, I do not think they are.
So, what can we do? How do we design a place to satisfy the valid concerns of both sides, who have opinions that are polar opposites? The question is difficult, yet what every teacher and every parent agree on is that there is more riding on this issue than an attendance percentage on a report. For many children, it is about establishing their foundation for learning; for others, it is the difference between excelling and merely attaining.
I got no further than GCSEs at school, or their equivalent at that time; I will put that on the record. I often say to children at exam time that through hard work, determination and working my way up, I ran my own business and managed to make it to this place. Exams are not the be-all and end-all, but education is, and we must do all we can to protect the education of our children, to protect the necessary social interaction between them and to protect a generation of innovation and hope. Are we getting things right? I am not really sure. Do we need to keep listening and reacting to new information and situations? The answer to that is, “Absolutely.”
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
I begin by thanking all those who signed the petition and in particular the two people who started it, and I echo what we have heard already around the Chamber, namely that it is particularly encouraging to see so many young people engaging in the democratic process and making their voice heard in this year of all years.
For all the reasons that we have heard during the debate, Labour Members believe that it is absolutely essential that we keep pupils learning. In fact, the big challenge that our pupils face this year—and I fear that it will be the big challenge that our country will face for many years to come—is that pupils have spent so much time out of school. So, we certainly cannot support a proposal that would take pupils out of school for even longer.
We also believe, not least because of the experience last summer as well as because of other well-known and well-recognised concerns about the potential for bias outside of examination conditions, that it is in the best interests of pupils for examinations to go ahead. Our argument has been that the Government need to take action to ensure that exams go ahead in a way that is fair and accessible to all pupils, and that takes into account the levels of lost learning this year. I am afraid, however, that the Government have failed England’s school pupils. They have failed on exams, failed on attendance, failed to protect the vulnerable, failed on home learning and failed on funding.
Let me take exams first. We all saw the unmitigated disaster that was last year’s exam results; 31.9% of teachers’ A-level predictions in England were downgraded by the algorithm and pupils from poorer backgrounds were more likely to have received a bigger downward adjustment. Indeed, under the original algorithm, the subject in which students did best relative to their predicted grades was Latin.
That information was known by Ministers in advance of results day. They were presented with evidence of the inequities but proceeded anyway, into a results day where the disaster was not just foreseeable but actually foreseen. I cannot imagine any Labour Education Secretary over the years being presented with such evidence and not taking immediate action ahead of the disaster.
Even then, the current Education Secretary mishandled the fallout. Alternatives to the algorithm were put in place at the last minute. The Education Secretary announced that the system would switch to a triple lock before Ofqual signed it off. Ofqual was only told about the plan on 11 August, just two days before results day.
With the lessons of last summer’s disaster not having been learned, we have seen dither and delay. Surely, the one lesson we should learn from the exams debacle is to ensure that preparations are made for the coming set of exams, and that those positions are well understood by pupils, parents and schools alike. Instead, the Government have dithered and delayed, announcing only a three-week delay in October as the grand sum of their package, until last week, when the Education Secretary came before the House and presented a range of measures, many of which we could support, but which did not go far enough.
The measures are not targeted. We know that lost learning is disproportionately impacting pupils from different backgrounds and schools in different communities, yet we saw a blanket approach with standard measures put in place for all schools and pupils regardless of their circumstances. There was no real focus on tackling the severe disadvantage that some have faced disproportionately.
The big announcement was the proposal to establish
“a new expert group to look at differential learning and monitor the variation in the impact of the pandemic on students across the country.”
This is really obvious stuff. We know there has been a differential impact. We know that pupils and schools have been affected differently. Why was the Education Secretary not announcing the outcome of such a review last week, rather than simply commissioning one just before Christmas? It is absolutely unacceptable.
Despite measures announced such as providing schools and pupils with topics in advance of exams, and proposals around revision aides and written materials to take into exams, the Education Secretary has not said when that information will be available. We were given a commitment of late January, but there is such little teaching time left this academic year before pupils are meant to be revising that he really ought to have that information out to schools by the beginning of term in January at the latest.
On attendance, we have all talked about the importance of getting pupils to school, but in recent weeks we have had as many as 1 million children missing school each week. Worse still, the Government are hiding the extent of the crisis by refusing to publish a regional breakdown of data. Finally, we have a commitment from the Department to publish that regional breakdown before the end of December. If we do not know the extent of the problem, how on earth can we work to tackle it?
On vulnerable children, we know that rates of absence for children with social workers and special educational needs are even higher than the general figures. We also know that prolonged absences have been a disaster for the most vulnerable children. Only last week, Amanda Spielman, Ofsted’s chief inspector said:
“Covid-19 has exposed an already crumbling infrastructure that fails to meet the needs of our most vulnerable children all too often”.
That would be shameful enough, were it not that the Education Secretary and the Department were dragged before the courts to be held to account for their failure in their statutory duty to protect the most vulnerable children. That is not to say anything of the reprehensible decision by this Government not to provide the necessary support to feed vulnerable children over the October half-term. If Treasury sources are to be believed, the Education Secretary and the Department did not even ask for the money to provide that support.
On home learning and catch-up support, we have seen a failure to provide enough laptops. Only this Department for Education led by this Education Secretary could be so incompetent as to provide schools with a new statutory duty to provide home learning on one day and to cut the provision of laptops by 80% the next. Of course, some people are doing very well out of this incompetent and overly centralised means of providing laptops. Computacenter founder and director, Philip Hulme, has given thousands of pounds to the Conservative party. His wife gave £100,000 to the Tories during last year’s general election. Of course, companies like Computacenter just happen to have been given lucrative contracts by the Government. Even where the Government could have exerted some influence, we have seen some pathetic attempts to make sure that pupils can access learning from home. If there is one thing that we have come to understand from the pandemic, it is that devices are only part of the story. Without internet access, they are as good as useless for home learning.
We asked the Department for Education what work had been done to encourage mobile internet providers to zero rate educational websites. In a reply to a written question, it said:
“To further support disadvantaged households who rely on a mobile internet connection, the major telecoms companies have zero rated the Hungry Little Minds site.”
No doubt the Hungry Little Minds site is great, but it is just one site. What about the BBC? What about the Oak National Academy? We asked if any other websites had been zero rated and the Government could not list any. It is absolutely outrageous.
As we have heard, there has been a £350-million intervention this year to fund the national tutoring programme. Although that is not sufficient, we had hoped that it would give some support to those who need it. Last week, however, we found that the Department is fiddling the figures, so £350 million is not £350 million for this year; it is £350 million over two years, which is effectively half the funding. One big overriding problem with the Department and its Secretary of State is that they are not focusing on or targeting the most disadvantaged enough, so to find an already limited pot cut in half is deeply disappointing.
As we heard from many hon. Members, it is a cross-party concern that schools have been seriously short-changed, and so have their pupils as a result, because the Department is not covering the true cost of covid and all those measures. Headteachers have enough to worry about. They need to be able to put in place safety measures in the certainty that they, their schools and, most importantly, their pupils are not going to be short-changed by the Government. What we have heard so far is simply not enough.
I am sorry that, for the second time that I can recall in recent weeks, the poor Minister has been sent along to take a brickbat for other people. She had to take brickbats on the disgraceful decision to scrap Unionlearn, which no doubt came from the Secretary of State and some of his bizarre ideological hobby-horses, and now she is having to take brickbats for the Minister for School Standards, no doubt because he is absolutely sweating it ahead of appearing before the Education Committee and its difficult questions. I welcome the Minister, but I am sorry that she has to account for it all.
We want to hear from the Minister, so I will conclude by saying an enormous thank you to all the staff—school leaders, teachers and support staff—in our schools who have been busting a gut to keep pupils learning. When I compare their efforts with the work of the Secretary of State for Education, they are truly lions led by donkeys.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing this debate. I am also grateful to the petitioners, Ellis, Libby and Alex, and to the Petitions Committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss these important topics of opening schools and colleges and ensuring that exams can fairly take place in 2021.
I offer my thanks, as I am sure all hon. Members would, to teachers and educational leaders for their phenomenal efforts in recent months as they have adapted to the changing environment we all live in. The work of schools and colleges has been critical to ensuring that students have continued to access education in some way, and have continued to feel connected to the classroom and their peers. We accept, however, that that has not been an equal experience across the whole country.
When developing our approach, the interests of students and teachers have always been our priority. Since the pandemic began, we as a Government have rightly put education first, and we will continue to do so. We cannot and must not let covid destroy this year of education, which is why we have taken steps to keep schools and colleges open and exams on track.
The return to school in autumn was driven by the clear benefits to young people and children of a return to educational settings. Those benefits remain unchanged. As many hon. Members said, keeping schools and colleges open is important to mitigate some of the largest risks that have materialised during this period for children and young people who have spent time away from educational settings.
There is clear evidence of the negative educational impact of missing school for all students, but particularly younger children, as investments in children’s learning tend to accumulate and consolidate over time. School and college closures put educational outcomes at risk, especially for disadvantaged students, due to existing inequalities and attainment gaps being exacerbated. The opportunities for early identification of things such as emerging learning problems are also missed when pupils are not in school.
As was mentioned by many hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore), school closures have been found to cause a deterioration in children’s mental health. Evidence suggests that the mental health of adolescents is particularly affected and that their cognitive, social and emotional development outcomes are at risk, as is their physical health. For vulnerable children, the impact of school closures has had an adverse effect on their wellbeing and educational outcomes due to reduced access to essential services. One regional study presents evidence that schools have been the source of 40% of child protection and safeguarding referrals.
Keeping settings open remains the Government’s priority, and we have taken other steps across society to manage down virus prevalence by closing other sectors in order to allow schools to remain open at full attendance. We have prioritised education at all local restriction tiers. The Government’s policy is that education settings will remain open, and parents should therefore continue to send their children to school. Schools have implemented a range of protective measures to minimise the risk of transmission. The risk of children becoming severely ill from coronavirus is low, and there are negative health impacts from being out of school. Senior clinicians, including the chief medical officers of all four nations, still advise that school is the best place for children to be.
To respond to Libby’s specific question—several hon. Members have raised the issue of finishing school two weeks earlier—we will provide guidance to schools and colleges on the end of term and on how to manage the short period afterwards, when their support might be required with contact tracing. Further guidance will be issued, but let us be clear: this will not be a typical Christmas for any of us, and we will all need to take extra care, as the Prime Minister has said. We want to maximise the time in school as much as possible. Young people have missed simply too much of their education.
Let us turn to some of the support that we provide to schools, particularly on their use of technology and on whether they have been able to access technology. The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who is no longer in his place, mentioned that. We have taken access to technology very seriously. By the end of this year, over 500,000 laptops, as well as 50,000 4G wireless routers, will have been provided by Computacenter, which has always been on the procurement framework. We have also introduced a service to provide more flexibility and to make sure they get to the right places, if there are specific lockdowns or large areas where kids need them. People can call that service and receive a laptop in just two days—I am sure the people of Darlington will welcome that.
The EdTech strategy, which we published in April last year, set out the Government’s commitment to support and enable schools and colleges to use technology more effectively. Of course, that has been really important, as we have all had to go and do pretty much everything online. The strategy set out the building blocks for effective use of technology in education: good digital infrastructure, capacity building, capability building across the sector, and a better understanding of the things that work in practice.
The same building blocks from the strategy have been an essential part of our response, but at a greater pace than we could have ever anticipated, to ensure that both schools and parents feel supported and that young people continue to thrive. That includes a whole host of measures, such as the introduction of the EdTech demonstrator network, which is a peer support network of schools and colleges that aims to increase expertise in their use of technology. That includes targeted support, weekly webinars and an online library of resources that can be shared. That is to help schools that are not as comfortable or familiar with the technology, so that those that are further ahead on the tech journey can help others in need.
In recent months, the network’s support has included how to maximise the investment that the Government have made to freely access Microsoft 365 or the G Suite for Education digital platform; how to ensure that pupils are safe online, including anxiety-busting strategies and activities; and how technology can help better support pupils with complex needs. There is a lot of work going on in this area. Crucially, that support also considers how our investment in technology can offer long-term benefits for pupils and teachers, as disruption to education could continue. Even after it reduces, there will be a legacy of blended learning.
On 27 November, the Department announced a new covid workforce fund for schools and further education settings to help them remain open. It will fund the cost of teacher absences over a threshold in schools and colleges for those with high staff absences that are facing significant financial pressures. The fund will help schools and colleges meet the cost of the absences that they have experienced from the beginning of November until the end of this term.
A number of Members mentioned budgets and additional costs. Schools have already received payments of £102 million for exceptional costs during the summer months, and there will be a further opportunity later in the year for schools to claim any costs that fell between March and July in the same approved categories for which they did not already claim in the first window. We will continue to review the pressures that schools and colleges are facing in the next term.
Helen Hayes
Despite having claimed for costs incurred over the summer, some schools in my constituency have received no reimbursement from the Government. Will the Minister explain why that is happening and how those schools can be expected to balance their books this year?
Gillian Keegan
Obviously there are criteria for each of those funds—I do not know the particular situation, but I am happy to write to the hon. Lady—and those schools may not have met them. One of them is to look at the whole of the school budget, and reserves in particular.
Let me turn to exams and Alex’s petition to cancel GCSEs. I understand Alex’s concern and it is admirable that he is concerned, on behalf of others, about the unfairness due to unequal access to education. We are continuing to do everything in our power to ensure that young people are evaluated fairly in the coming year. We have to realise that there is no perfect system. All the other systems have flaws and downfalls. In the current climate, the decision to hold exams demonstrates our commitment to ensuring the fairest possible outcome for all students.
As the Secretary of State set out last week, the fundamental problem with this year’s exams is that we tried to award grades without actually holding exams, and we are not going to repeat that mistake. This is really difficult to do. It got me, like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), thinking back to my own experience. I come from the same area as Alex—Liverpool. I passed 10 O-levels, and I am sure there was not a single teacher in my Knowsley comprehensive school who would have thought that I would do that. The culture of education was such that we had to hide our homework and what we were doing. I am pretty sure that if I had been in school during this period, I would have been lucky if I had passed four. I was not confident enough to think that I could have passed 10. Exams are a really important way of enabling people to show just what they can do.
Holding a successful exam series in summer 2021 remains a vital component of our strategy to maintain continuity of education and support our young people to ensure they can progress with their qualifications, fairly awarded. We will ensure a successful delivery of the 2021 exams. We will consult with key stakeholders, such as schools, unions and exam centres, to discuss the logistics of the series, in terms of venues, invigilators and so on.
We support Ofqual’s decision that, in awarding next year’s GCSEs and AS and A-levels, grading will be generous and aligned with the overall standards awarded this year. Ofqual is working with awarding organisations to ensure that vocational and technical qualifications—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North—lead to similar progression opportunities as A-levels and GCSEs, and that students studying them are not advantaged or disadvantaged.
To help students target their revision, at the end of January they will be given advance notice of some of the topic areas that will be assessed in their GCSE and A-level exams. We will also provide exam support material, such as formula sheets, in some exams to give students more confidence and reduce the amount of information they need to memorise for exams. We really are trying to reduce the stress that students feel when taking exams by narrowing what they know to expect in exams and providing aid so that they do not need to worry about memorising the formulas and so on.
Rachael Maskell
The announcement that the Government are going to give pupils advance notice of topics at the end of January hardly gives them an opportunity for their mock exams and to experience this new world of exams. How will the Minister ensure that young people will have confidence going into that new environment?
Gillian Keegan
On the point about the end of January, the objective is not to reduce the amount of teaching, but to provide an aid so that pupils can focus their revision and catch up if required. It is not to narrow the curriculum or what is being taught, but to enable catch-up—we have all mentioned catch-up—and to enable them to focus their revision on those areas. That is the point and that is why the end of January is deemed the right date.
Students studying for vocational and technical qualifications can also expect additional flexibilities, including the reduction of assessment for optional units. We want as many students as possible to be able to sit their exams, so we have also got a contingency package if they miss an exam because of self-isolation, illness and so on. In the minority of cases where they cannot sit all their papers, there will be additional means by which they can take a future exam or still be awarded a grade, including additional papers available after the main A-level and GCSE exam series. It is the same for VTQ students who have not been able to complete all their necessary assessments.
This is not easy and not perfect. We are dealing with a situation where there has not been equal access to education. The catch-up is happening right now, but we have taken steps to make sure that students and teachers do not lose out because of covid. We have taken them to make sure that they can still achieve their aspirations and to make sure that coronavirus does not drag down educational standards. Instead, we continue to try to level up across the country.
Gillian Keegan
I am sorry, but I cannot. I would love to, but I want to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North.
I want to thank all of our dedicated teachers and support staff for their continued commitment to supporting children and young people. We all know, when we go to schools, how much young people love being back in school. Even if they are trying to catch up, they still want to be back there. I remain confident that the measures we have put in place, together with the continued dedication of educators and support staff, will suffice. I thank all hon. Members for taking part and the petitioners for raising the subject.
Jonathan Gullis
I want to place on the record my thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House who have taken part in this very important debate.
Some really strong points were made about fairness in the United Kingdom by the hon. Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I completely concur with their comments. I am concerned about the fact that we have different systems in different parts of our United Kingdom. This would have been a good opportunity for all regions of the United Kingdom to come together as one to agree a system to ensure fairness.
I also have concerns—this was raised by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—about the deferment of students from 2020 going into this year along with the students who will apply for university at the end of their summer exams in 2021, and whether universities will be able to handle that and whether students will miss out on their first choices.
I should mention my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey). I was a teacher at Ashlawn School, which he named, so I suppose I should put that on the record in the interests of fairness. I brought him to the school to speak to students on numerous occasions.
I want to go back to the hon. Member for York Central, because she made excellent points about how it would be far better for the £350 million for tutoring to go to local areas to make local decisions to hire local tutors, or for local university or student tutors or ex-teachers like me to go out there and actually do the work. Before I get the Twitterati trolling me, I place on the record that I would not expect to be paid if I did volunteer.
I thank all teachers, supply staff and exam officers from across Stoke-on-Trent North and the UK. I look forward to sparring with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), on education. He referred to the Government’s handling of exams last summer, but I remind him that Labour-run Wales and the Scottish National party, which runs Scotland, also had to realise that their algorithms had gone wrong. He talked about the issues with advance notice. There are 1,000 exams that need to be written, so there is obviously an issue because exam boards need time to work with Ofqual to make sure the topics are fair and balanced.
When it comes to lions led by donkeys—I do enjoy that old line from when I taught history—I thought at one moment that we were talking about the NEU leading the Leader of the Opposition with regard to his constant non-committal in June over whether schools should be open or not. Perhaps I misheard or misunderstood.
I thank all Members for taking part in this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 326066, 550846, 316404 and 549015, relating to the impact of Covid-19 on schools and exams.
Written Statements
Paris Agreement: UK Nationally Determined Contribution
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
On Friday 4 December, the Prime Minister announced the UK’s new nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris agreement. This commits the UK to a new ambitious target to reduce the UK’s emissions by at least 68% by the end of the decade, compared to 1990 levels.
This is a step forward in our ambition to tackle climate change over the next 10 years as we accelerate towards meeting our legally-binding commitment to reach net zero by 2050. Just as the UK led the way as the first major economy to legislate for net zero, our NDC raises the bar for global climate ambition by committing the UK to the highest level of emissions reductions by 2030 of any major economy, compared to 1990 levels. The level of the UK’s NDC is consistent with advice from the independent Climate Change Committee (CCC). It is a significant step up from the level of the UK’s previous target as a contributor to the EU’s NDC, which was equivalent to around a 53% UK reduction over the same time period.
As the UK looks ahead to hosting COP26 in Glasgow next year, in partnership with Italy, we are urging all countries to follow suit and come forward with ambitious new NDCs and transformational long-term strategies towards net zero emissions, in order to ensure that this will be a decade of ambitious climate action. The climate ambition summit on 12 December, which the UK is co-hosting with France and the UN in partnership with Chile and Italy, provides an excellent opportunity for countries to come forward with new commitments across the three pillars of the Paris agreement: mitigation, finance and adaptation.
Tackling climate change will remain a top priority for the Government. In November, the Prime Minister announced his 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution. Ahead of COP26, we intend to publish a comprehensive net zero strategy, setting out the Government’s vision for transitioning to a net zero economy, making the most of new growth and employment opportunities across the UK.
The UK intends to communicate its NDC to the UNFCCC by the 12 December climate ambition summit. This will include the technical annex, known as information to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding (ICTU), which will set out the detail underpinning the UK’s headline 2030 target. The UK also intends to communicate an adaptation communication and finance biennial communication to the UNFCCC.
Once formally communicated to the UNFCCC, I will lay the NDC in Parliament and will follow up with letters to relevant Select Committees.
[HCWS624]
Armed Forces Covenant: Annual Report
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Today, I am laying before Parliament the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2020. The pandemic has seen our armed forces once again step onto the frontline to protect our nation, from leading mass testing in Liverpool to constructing NHS Nightingale Hospitals. Such contribution demonstrates that the armed forces covenant is as important today as it was in 2011 and we are therefore proud to lay this report before Parliament.
The Government have built their support for armed forces families in 2020 with the launch of a wrap-around childcare pilot at test sites across the UK. The Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust has also awarded £7.2 million to 60 projects for military families. As well as the MOD’S investment of £123 million to service families accommodation, we have committed an extra £200 million to improve MOD accommodation to support the regeneration of the UK economy in the wake of the covid-19 pandemic. We have also extended the Forces Help to Buy scheme until December 2022, giving more service personnel and their families the opportunity to buy a home of their own.
Partners across the UK, in the public, private and charitable sectors, have been working hard to support those who serve or have served, and their families, throughout the covid-19 pandemic. The private sector has continued to demonstrate its support for the armed forces community, with the total number of armed forces covenant signings rising to over 5,800 by the end of September.
Ensuring that all veterans’ healthcare needs are met remains crucial. The number of GP practices accredited as veteran friendly has more than tripled to over 800. The Defence recovery capability review made 42 recommendations about future Defence recovery pathways for our wounded, injured and sick personnel, and in April we launched HeadFIT, an important tool to support mental fitness in the armed forces and to promote the good management of mental health.
While progress has been made, both this year and in previous years, more still needs to be done. Next year, the Government will honour our manifesto commitment to further strengthen the covenant in law. The Government, with partners across all levels of Government in the UK, service charities and the private sector, will continue to mitigate disadvantage wherever it is found within the armed forces community, seeking special considerations where appropriate.
This report is a collaborative effort. I would like to thank colleagues across Government, the devolved Administrations and local authorities, and partners across the UK who are continuing to drive forward the work of the covenant. I am also grateful to the external members of the Covenant Reference Group for their involvement throughout the process and for their independent observations.
[HCWS626]
Spending Review: Local Government Finance
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
The spending review, announced by the Chancellor on 25 November, contained significant announcements for local government. The Government confirmed that councils’ core spending power would rise by an estimated 4.5% in cash terms in 2021-22—worth £2.2 billion—a real-terms increase. This will support the services that the public relies on, including children’s and adult social care.
Alongside this, we announced a package of measures to support local government in its response to the pandemic. For 2020-21, Government have delivered on their commitment to apportion irrecoverable tax losses from this year, by confirming that they will compensate councils for 75% of such losses. For 2021-22 we will provide un-ring-fenced grant funding of £1.55 billion; £670 million in recognition of the additional costs of providing local council tax support resulting from increased unemployment; and we will extend the existing sales, fees and charges scheme to include the first three months of 2021-22. We have good reasons to be optimistic about overcoming the spread of the virus. Nevertheless, we will continue to keep the covid-19 package under review.
I intend to bring forward proposals for the allocation of this funding in the provisional local government finance settlement, before the Christmas recess.
[HCWS627]
Free Trade Agreements: Transparency and Scrutiny Arrangements
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
I am today setting out transparency and scrutiny arrangements for our new international trade deals with the United States, Australia, New Zealand and for the UK’s proposed accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership (CPTPP). This includes a clear statement of intent by the Government and reflects our commitment to transparency and effective scrutiny of our trade agenda. Furthermore, my Department will continue to work closely with the International Trade Committee and the International Agreements Sub-Committee to review these intentions.
We have committed to publishing the objectives for new free trade agreements and scoping assessments at the outset of negotiations. The Government led a comprehensive public consultation before commencing its negotiations with Japan, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Just as happens in the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand systems, the Government have kept Parliament updated on negotiations as they progress, including close engagement with relevant Select Committees.
The Government will continue to keep Parliament and the public informed of progress for these negotiations through the publication of “Round Reports”. The Government will also continue to hold regular briefings for parliamentarians so that they are kept informed and can ask questions of Ministers. We will work constructively with the relevant Select Committees to keep them apprised of negotiations, including through public and private briefings with Ministers and chief negotiators.
The Government have further built on commitments to transparency and scrutiny through the recent announcement of the extension of the Trade and Agriculture Commission. The Trade and Agriculture Commission will now be placed on a statutory footing in the Trade Bill. It will provide advice on the impacts on farming and animal welfare arising from these new free trade agreements before they are laid in Parliament, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 procedure.
In addition, the Government will work with the International Trade Committee and International Agreements Sub-Committee to ensure they have treaty text and other related documents or reports on a confidential basis, a reasonable time prior to them being laid or deposited in Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act procedure. This is to enable the Committees, should they decide to do so, to produce a report on these new free trade agreements. As with the Japan agreement, this will provide parliamentarians with an additional reference point on which to scrutinise what we have negotiated.
When a signed treaty text is laid in Parliament, it will be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum and the Government will publish an independently verified impact assessment which will cover the economic and environmental impacts of the deal. Parliament will then have 21 sitting days to scrutinise the deal. Should the International Trade Committee or International Agreements Sub-Committee recommend a debate on the deal, the Government will seek to accommodate such a request subject to parliamentary time. The Government want these agreements to be examined by parliamentarians and effectively scrutinised.
Widespread prior consultation and the publication of detailed impact assessments and objectives upfront allow informed debate at the start of the negotiations. Extensive stakeholder engagement on the detail of the negotiations as they proceed, and confidential briefing of relevant Committees, combined with the confidential sharing of text at the end of negotiations mean the Government will have provided Parliament with the information to provide effective scrutiny at all stages of the negotiations. This approach to transparency and openness to scrutiny by Parliament and other stakeholders is at least as strong as any other Westminster-style democracies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
These arrangements are appropriate to the UK’s constitutional make-up and separation of powers. Ultimately, if Parliament is not content with a trade deal, it can raise concerns by resolving against ratification and delay any implementing legislation indefinitely.
This Government are committed to ensuring that no trade deal undermines key industries or lowers standards for consumers. The Government are concluding free trade agreements that benefit all parts of the UK by creating opportunities for our world-leading industries, and maintaining high standards while increasing choice for consumers.
To ensure that the arrangements set out today remain fit for purpose and enable the International Trade Committee and the International Agreements Sub-Committee to conduct their important scrutiny role effectively, the Government will work with the Committees to review further the detail behind these arrangements. For trade agreements beyond the scope of this statement, the Government will always ensure that the appropriate transparency and scrutiny procedures are put in place and will provide further clarification at the appropriate time.
[HCWS623]
Independent Human Rights Act Review
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I am today announcing the creation of the independent Human Rights Act review. This review extends from our manifesto commitment and will take the form of an independent advisory panel which will provide the Government with options for updating the Human Rights Act (HRA). As Lord Chancellor, I am committed to upholding the UK’s stature on human rights. The UK contribution to human rights law is immense and founded in the common law tradition. We will continue to champion human rights both at home and abroad, and we remain committed to the European convention on human rights.
The HRA has been in force for 20 years, and therefore it is timely to undertake a review into its operation. The UK’s constitutional framework has always evolved incrementally over time, and it will continue evolving. We need to make sure that our human rights framework, as with the rest of our legal framework, develops and is refined to ensure it continues to meet the needs of the society it serves. The review will examine two key areas outlined in detail in the terms of reference, which will be deposited in the Libraries of each House. Broadly, the panel will consider the following themes:
The relationship between domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
The impact of the HRA on the relationship between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature.
The examination of the Act will consider the approach taken by domestic courts to jurisprudence of the ECtHR, and whether the HRA currently strikes the correct balance between the roles of the courts, Government and Parliament.
As part of its work, the review will also examine the circumstances in which the HRA applies to acts of public authorities taking place outside the territory of the UK, with consideration of the implications of the current position, and whether there is a case for change. The review is limited to consideration of the HRA, which is a protected enactment under the devolution settlements.
It is my intention that the panel shall consider these questions independently, thoroughly, and put forward options for reform to be considered by myself. The panel will report back in summer 2021 and their report will be published, as will the Government’s response.
The following people will become members of the panel. They have been selected on the basis of their wealth of experience, coming from senior legal and academic backgrounds. They have the breadth and depth of expertise required to consider the issues highlighted within the terms of reference effectively. The panel members are:
Sir Peter Gross—Panel Chair
Simon Davis
Baroness O’Loan
Sir Stephen Laws, QC
Professor Tom Mullen
Professor Maria Cahill
Lisa Giovannetti, QC
Alan Bates
[HCWS625]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (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 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. Your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, in order to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same.
The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Plant Health (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 Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
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 instruments, given that they are closely interrelated. Protecting biosecurity is of paramount importance, and the operability amendments in these instruments provide a strong basis for our future regime, including bringing the EU within the scope of our controls on third-country imports. While the overall policy does not change, there will inevitably be some adjustment for those businesses involved in importing plants from the EU. The devolved Administrations have given their consent to introduce these regulations on a GB basis.
The first instrument implements a new UK plant passport in place of the current EU plant passport. The UK plant passport will be used for movements of regulated plant material within GB and provides assurance that relevant phytosanitary regulations have been met. From the end of the transition period, GB will no longer use the EU protected zone arrangements, and will instead move to using pest-free areas and internationally recognised classification. GB will designate two pest-free areas: one for oak processionary moth, a pest which is concentrated around London while being absent from the rest of the country, and one for bark beetles, which are absent from an area in the west of Scotland. Other protected zones will not need to be carried forward to pest-free areas as the whole of GB is free of these pests, meaning that existing protections will be retained but specific geographic designations are unnecessary.
The transition provisions in this instrument require high-risk items from the EU—those assessed as presenting a significant risk of introducing harmful pests and diseases—to be subject to import checks and to be accompanied by phytosanitary certificates from 1 January 2021. This represents only a limited range of the plant material imported from the EU, but they are our immediate priority because they are linked to known threats or, in some cases, previous interceptions. These systematic checks will provide additional assurance about the status of these goods compared to what is currently achievable through targeted checks of goods arriving in GB from the EU. Import requirements for lower-risk plant material will be phased in from April, with physical checks of these goods from July. Import checks will be conducted on a risk basis, with the highest risk goods, such as hosts of Xylella, receiving the most intensive scrutiny. Products such as houseplants and bulbs for retail sale, for example, represent a lower threat, so the frequency of import checks will be less.
This instrument also makes operability amendments to correct references to EU legislation, remove redundant EU obligations and revoke previously laid EU exit legislation that is now redundant. It also makes consequential amendments to fees legislation, including amendments to allow charging for services related to exports to the EU.
The second instrument sets out four categories of regulated plant pests for Great Britain based on international standards. Each list provides for different situations. “Quarantine pests” are those where we have a comprehensive risk assessment to support permanent import requirements to maintain the whole country as free of those pests. Secondly, “provisional GB quarantine pests” provides such protection on a precautionary basis while the necessary evidence is developed and assessed. Thirdly, “pest-free areas” protects against the introduction of harmful pests into new areas. Lastly, while regulated, “non-quarantine pests” allows ongoing protection to prevent the further spread of pests via planting material.
The instrument also sets out measures in relation to the introduction of plants, plant products and other objects into GB, and the movement of plants, plant products and other objects within GB to reduce the risks in connection with those pests to an acceptable level. I would like to cover a few examples which I hope will be helpful to your Lordships. The GB quarantine pest list has been amended to focus on pests which pose a risk to Great Britain. This has included the deregulation of pests which pose a risk only to citrus, rice and other tropical fruits which are not grown in GB. The regulation of all non-European fruit flies has been removed, and requirements will now focus only on fruit flies which pose a risk to crops important to GB—for example, tomatoes, pepper and cucumbers. These deregulations will increase efficiency for the trade and movement of goods through the border by removing checks on produce which does not pose a risk to GB, also freeing up time of our official inspectors to focus on the more significant risks.
Amendments have also resulted in some strengthening of biosecurity protection against certain pests. There have been additions to the GB quarantine pest list, including Phomopsis canker, which causes dieback of blueberries, and apple proliferation phytoplasma, which can affect fruit quality and yield as well as tree vigour. These are present in the EU and are treated as regulated non-quarantine pests, which limits the level of control possible. The new category of provisional GB quarantine pests includes the two-lined chestnut borer, a pest of oak and chestnut in North America which has recently spread to Turkey, and the oak longhorn beetle, which is causing damage to oaks in China.
I think we would all agree that protecting biosecurity is not only of supreme interest to this Government but of supreme importance to our environment, the country and particularly—if I may say so—the horticultural sector and the businesses which we want to prosper, and which frankly give so much pleasure to so many people. I remind your Lordships that there are reputedly 3 million more gardeners this year because of the current health crisis; we want that to continue.
What we have brought forward here in these instruments is that we wish to facilitate import and movement of plant material, but I hope that your Lordships will agree that we need to do it on a risk-basis manner and in a biosecure manner. For these reasons, I recommend these instruments and I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend the Minister. Some eight years ago I was in his place. I thought I was busy, but none of us could have foreseen the workload that Defra has recently had to carry in this period of dramatic change. He knows of my interests, which are that of bulb growers and packers in my family business. We are very much affected in the import and export aspects of these new procedures. My son Adam—who now runs our bulb business—is a former president of the Horticultural Trades Association, and with it recognises the need to adapt our working methods to maintain, and indeed enhance, biosecurity following our departure from the European Union.
The Horticultural Trades Association realises that these regulations have to be in place by 1 January 2021—deal or no deal. I expect that my noble friend Lady Fookes will provide the Grand Committee an update from the HTA and its chairman, James Barnes. She and I were able to share in a briefing for the HTA by my noble friend the Minister and his senior team at Defra. It made clear the need for a continuing partnership. Good communication is needed if the industry is to deliver on these regulations. The Government must show a willingness to listen and act to avoid unnecessary burdens on business.
The Minister is right to take a risk-based approach. The development of a single-access customs and reporting computer program will be key. There are particular problems with the nurseries and packers which trade with Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. At present, the Dutch can deliver by crossing GB without any extra paperwork or inspections. Let us hope this can be resolved. With a sizeable business on the island of Ireland, I am keen to see progress so as to avoid repeat inspections, documentation and delay.
As president of the Anglo-Netherlands Society, I am keen to see Defra, in conjunction with the FCDO, have a dialogue with key suppliers such as the Dutch. I know from what the newly installed ambassador, Karel van Oosterom, has said that the Dutch embassy has greatly added to its staff in London. We need to establish and maintain contact and dialogue, here and in Holland, so that we can make use of this important link, now that we are no longer a member of European institutions.
I support these regulations and hope we can make a success of them.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great privilege to be able to participate remotely and to follow my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. He is much more concerned with plant health. I declare an interest as somebody who owns a bit of forestry and a rural property.
It has proved extremely difficult to get hold of this statutory instrument. I had to be coached through a process involving 10 moves in order to find the full text. It is an enormous piece of work. No doubt the department has gone through everything with a fine-toothed comb. I was interested that the regulations draw up a contingency plan for pests and diseases before January 2023. My noble friend the Minister has just told us that they are accepting the details in the EU directive but leaving out the diseases that are not common to this country. Is what is left really adequate? Do the Government propose adding any new diseases to the list? When will they address these matters?
Lord Walney (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is somewhat intimidating to follow three noble Lords who have infinitely more knowledge and experience in this area. I will attempt to probe the Minister on this entirely necessary but—as the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, pointed out—highly complex and lengthy legislation.
In his response, will the Minister say more about the phasing of these regulations? He mentioned April for the less high-risk species and then a second date of July next year. Are the Government committed to a four-month phasing-in period? Will the system be fully operational by July, with all the new checks in place, or is July a less firm date, given its complexity?
In relation to the overall regulations, can the Minister say more about the help that his department is giving to the beleaguered industry? It is seeking to understand how it is supposed to fulfil its obligations on a number of wider import and export issues after Brexit. There is a great amount of detail involved. How are the Government going to help small businesses trying to make their way in this industry through this challenging period? They have no spare capacity beyond making and getting their products to market.
Can the Minister say more about the approach to Xylella fastidiosa? I hope he will forgive me if this is spelled out within the regulations in a way that I do not immediately comprehend. Many people will be interested in whether 1 January marks the divergence between the UK and the EU on this threat which the Minister was blocked from implementing earlier this year.
The Minister showed great forbearance last week when I attempted to ask a number of questions relating to this issue in the debate on the invasive species regulations. Now we are in the right regulatory setting, can he clarify the checks system which is being phased in from January and April through to July? Are the Government implementing routine checks on plants and plant material which were previously prohibited in the single market, or do these routine checks not fit with the risk-based approach which they are following?
Will the Minister allow a final question about the huge impact of the new system from 1 January which goes wider than these specific regulations? Will there be a fast-track, green lane for fruit and veg producers to prevent potentially hundreds of thousands of tonnes rotting in the queues, which we anticipate could happen from next month?
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Gardening and Horticulture Group. Of course, I welcome warmly in principle any system which will better protect our country from imported plant diseases. We have all seen enough of Dutch elm disease, ash dieback and sundry other horrible pests and diseases to know that we want to prevent the import of more, notably Xylella, which affects so many garden plants. Nevertheless, the horticultural industry is worried about the adjustments that it will have to make from 1 January. My noble friend the Minister referred to “some” adjustments; I think that the trade would say that they are tremendously important and worrying adjustments.
The regulations are long, complex and, to me, barely comprehensible. It is important that those who will have to run with these regulations have full explanations in everyday language. I am told that these are not yet forthcoming. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can say whether this is correct, because it is important that all traders, nurseries and so forth have access to them.
My noble friend Lord Taylor mentioned discussions with the Horticultural Trades Association, in which we were both engaged. Perhaps I may put to the Minister some of the worries that it has expressed, but I must make it clear that it, as much as anybody else, wants to prevent pests and diseases coming into this country and is anxious to work with the Government after 1 January as well as before it. It is concerned that border controls to check plant health will not yet be in place, meaning that checks will be made at plant destinations. According to the trades association, that means anything from 1,000 to possibly 2,000, which will be a considerable worry, especially for small nurseries or centres that sell plants. They will need to know whether and when an inspector is going to come and, in the meantime, they will not be free to sell the plants. The association is also worried as to whether there will be differences in the categorisation of plants—high-risk plants and others. I think that my noble friend the Minister has made it clear that the regime will not apply equally; inspectors will look to check high-risk plants, which is of some consolation.
Traders are also worried about the need to switch to, from their point of view, a brand new computer system in July. I believe that it is a system that already works for other organisations, but it would be brand new to the horticultural industry. If it is anything like my experience with computer systems, it is not a happy thing to which to look forward. I hope that my noble friend can explain a little more clearly how this will work, to make it easier for the industry as a whole.
My noble friend Lord Taylor has already explained the concerns in relation to Northern Ireland, so I shall not repeat them, but it is important to reassure the horticultural trades in their various forms that the department is understanding of their problems. Above all, I ask the Minister that he and his officials be prepared to work closely with the Horticultural Trades Association as the main representative of the industry to make certain that, as this thing rolls out and problems appear—some of which we may have discussed already and others that may come forward later—they are fully in touch and will adjust as the need arises. The concerns expressed hitherto reflect intense worry on the part of the various nurseries and garden centres. As I have said, they want a new system, but they do not want to be ruined by its implementation.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his clear explanation of the regulations and commend the Government on aiming to ensure effective phytosanitary controls to protect biosecurity. I welcome the strengthening of some controls, such as on apple proliferation phytoplasma and oak longhorn beetles. However, I share some of the concerns expressed by my noble friends Lord Taylor and Lady Fookes regarding the communication of these vast changes for the industry—I declare my interest as a keen gardener—which will require significant adjustment. On the changes particularly for Northern Ireland, but for the whole United Kingdom, clarification is required. As my noble friend Lady Fookes said, the industry fully supports the aims of the regulations and the Government’s policy to control pests and so on, but it wants to know clearly what it needs to do in a new regime.
Many of the issues have been relayed to me by Friends of the Earth, which has a number of concerns on which I ask my noble friend the Minister to comment. For example, Regulation 28(24)(c) changes the requirement in article 25(4) of regulation 2016/2031 such that the UK will establish priority pest plans for all limited pests with a deadline of 1 January 2023. That is in line with the previous deadline, but there are concerns that the omissions may cause some delay. Can my noble friend outline progress thus far on developing priority pest plans for the listed pests? Will he confirm that any future changes to the current list of priority pests will be subject to the same risk assessment processes as currently used by the EU?
On Regulation 30(7), why is it considered necessary to amend article 44(2) of regulation 2016/2031 to delete the reference to the European Commission’s ability to investigate third countries to see whether equivalence is properly achieved? Can my noble friend allay the fears of reduced democratic oversight expressed by Friends of the Earth and explain why the EU examination procedure for scrutiny and amendment of regulations is not fully replicated? I recognise and respect that we want and need our own regulations and our own system, but if my noble friend is able to address some of the concerns of Friends of the Earth, it will help ensure smoother passage and reassure the industry where currently there are significant concerns.
On scrutiny of secondary legislation with respect to environmental security or protection of plant, animal or human health and safety, there are concerns that these will be weakened by the changes. I am sure that my noble friend would not wish that, but it might be helpful to have it on record that it is the case. I am sure that colleagues in the Committee would also support those aims.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership, which is obviously very concerned about biosecurity. I commend the Minister for his work on biosecurity. I know he champions it in government, which is very much to be recognised. I was also going to congratulate the officials who put all this together, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. If I suffer from insomnia later this week I shall reach for it next to my bed, I assure you.
This is a really serious subject because we know that lapses in biosecurity can cost us a huge amount of money. On the animal side, we still think back to foot and mouth, which cost some £8 billion or £9 billion. In the case of plants, lapses can have a major impact on biodiversity. This is a really important area.
I will bring up a few points with the Minister. First, “passport” sounds impressive, but is nothing at all like the passport we have at the moment while we are part of the single market, which allows us to transfer products within 28 nation states with security. This will allow plant materials to go between the devolved nations, but that is about it.
I will follow up on the important point that the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, raised about IT systems. I would like to understand whether those systems are ready, whether they have been trialled and whether we are certain that they will work. I am not sure whether this is supposed to happen on 1 January or in July, but perhaps the Minister could reassure us on that.
Within the European Union we have the TRACES system, which I expect the Prime Minister might describe as world beating. It is a very serious system. I wonder whether there are plans to have some connection with TRACES in future—as long as negotiations are successful in the coming weeks, as we all hope they will be. There is real information and data in that system that would be of use to us, and I am sure that our data would still be of use to the EU for the point of increasing both sides’ biosecurity.
One of the most important areas is preventing these diseases getting to the border in the first place. Under the present system, the Commission has a number of officials worldwide who check out producers and growers before products are shipped or processed. We will no longer have access to those individuals and their recommendations, checking and audit. I would be interested to understand from the Minister where we are on replacing that capability. In some ways, preventing these risks at source is even more fundamental than stopping them at the border.
I understand the concept of risk-based enforcement and I welcome it in all sorts of ways. It is a most efficient way to do it, but I warn the Minister that I have too often seen “risk-based” being a euphemism for “budget cut”. I would like reassurance on where we are on personnel at the border, let alone out there in the rest of the world, to make sure that this system works.
Lastly, I ask the Minister to reassure us that we will not have an open gate for six months, where one gets the impression that anything goes. Although I understand entirely that most products come through the European Union, so it will be no riskier on 1 January then it will be on 31 December, I am aware that there tends to be a regulatory arbitrage among people who want to move on substandard product. I wonder whether less scrupulous people in this trade outside our national frontiers might try to use this open door policy to find a way to sell substandard product. That would be a risk.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful introduction and for arranging a very useful briefing in advance of this debate. We know that he takes plant biosecurity extremely seriously and I pay tribute to his work on that issue. It is vital that we have effective biosecurity and phytosanitary controls in place when we end the transition on 31 December, so we do not object to the principles set out in these two SIs but, like other noble Lords, I have a few questions of clarification that it would be helpful for him to address.
First, paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum on the first SI talks about creating “operability amendments” through
“a ‘single market’ covering GB and the Crown Dependencies”,
but it then goes on to say that:
“Internal controls will also continue to apply to movement of goods”
within that GB single market. I am interested to know what these internal controls will consist of. Do they include, for example, checks on goods moving between England and Scotland? Paragraph 2.4 says that:
“Separate but parallel domestic legislation applies in Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland.”
Can I double check that those separate bits of legislation are exactly the same as the SI before us? There would otherwise be a challenge to businesses operating in that system.
Will the new plant passport reference codes referred to in paragraph 12.5 be the same throughout GB, whether the commodity originates in England, Wales or Scotland? Will all those plant passport numbers be compatible? Clearly there will be business implications for businesses moving plants passported within GB, so why has there not been an impact assessment of the regulations, given the inevitable business impact?
Also, in response to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Defra says:
“Between January 2021 and July 2021, physical inspections … will take place at the point of destination for imports from the EU.”
I wanted more information on this, although the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has I think already given me part of the answer. I wanted to know what “point of destination” really meant. My question was whether it referred to ports and airports or whether it had a wider meaning. I understand from her that it does indeed have that wider meaning and that it refers to the nurseries and so on where the plants are ultimately destined. If that is the case, it seems that there is a biosecurity issue about those plants travelling to that point of destination before they are checked. How will the inspection process account for that?
Following on in terms of inspections, the whole emphasis of this new package is that it will be done on a risk basis, but will there also be some scope for routine or random inspections? As I think that the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Teverson, said, the system we set up will be known globally to all and sundry. If we are not careful we will be rather open to unscrupulous people if we operate a checking system for only high-risk products. We need to ensure that the system we introduce is robust and has some element of random checking within it. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that.
Paragraph 7.4 refers to separate legislative arrangements needed for Northern Ireland to align with the EU regulations for GB goods entering Northern Ireland. What are those separate legislative arrangements? Is it intended that we will debate them before the new year?
I will follow up on the example from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who said that Dutch bulbs could pass through GB without the need for paperwork, presumably because it is, in effect, EU to EU. Again, I did not know this, so I have learned something. Would this apply even if the plants travelling were in a higher category of risk, rather than being just Dutch bulbs?
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, referred to the Friends of the Earth submission—the issue about investigations taking place in third countries to determine whether or not equivalence with UK standards is being properly achieved. I echo that; it was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Regulation 30(7) removes that reference. Will investigations still take place in third countries? Where is that wording now that that reference, which seems to make perfect sense, has been taken out?
The second SI lists the animal and plant pests subject to quarantine. The Minister has made it clear to us that the list before us is a newly compiled list specific to GB. How does that compare with the EU list, given that EU countries are our nearest neighbours and therefore most likely to transfer existing or new pest threats? If the EU updates its list when it becomes aware of new risks, what will be the system for letting us know so that we can utilise its intelligence and update our risk-based plant controls to correspond? If there is an EU update, how does that impact on our list? How will our list be updated and how will we notify people if the list becomes a moveable feast and is constantly updated, as in many ways it makes sense to do?
Finally, Friends of the Earth says that a specific reference to an “examination procedure” for adopting amendments to regulations has been changed to applying a risk assessment. This seems a watering-down of the current arrangements and I would be grateful if the Minister could address that in his response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for this really very absorbing debate. I say categorically to all noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lady Altmann, that there is absolutely no weakening of our resolve on biosecurity—quite the reverse. In fact, in other quarters I may be accused of raising the bar and that is exactly what we are seeking to do in terms of immediate—from 1 January—requirements for high-risk plants coming in from the EU, precisely because we are concerned that there is a biosecurity risk. I emphasise that.
I say also to all noble Lords, but particularly my noble friends Lady Fookes and Lord Taylor of Holbeach and the noble Lord, Lord Walney, that it is absolutely imperative that we work in partnership with businesses engaged in this matter. I know that that is what all the officials I have been working with want to do, and everything that we are doing is on a risk basis, based on sound science, as to what is affecting this country. I should also say that given the time allocated and the number of questions, there may be some questions that I would like to respond to in rather more detail, but we have listened to the concerns of industry to ensure that the new requirements are as practical, proportionate and risk-based as they possibly can be.
Import controls on EU-regulated goods will be phased in over six months from 1 January. Regulated goods will not be held at the border for import checks during this initial period but will instead be inspected on a risk-targeted basis at places of destination. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who made the legitimate point about whether there is a gap, that, in fact, we are ensuring that there is no gap with regard to high-risk goods that are coming here at the moment. We are using the opportunity from day one of ensuring that high-risk goods, where we have already had interceptions, will be inspected and checked. As I said, it is designed on the basis of risk. Our focus is on those goods from the EU which have been deemed to represent a significant plant health threat.
I say to my noble friends Lady Fookes and Lady Altmann that Defra has been engaged in numerous trade events and has distributed extensive guidance directly to around 2,200 businesses by email. All known trade associations have been involved in Defra events and have been provided with detailed guidance to circulate to their members. The APHA Defra helplines are actively responding to queries to support business readiness. The devolved Administrations have been involved in similar processes and activities to ensure business preparedness. This is a continuing matter, pre 1 January and post 1 January.
The noble Lord, Lord Walney, asked about what we are doing in the phasing. The purpose is to work with businesses so that we engage on the high-risk plants and plant products first, and from April 2021 all regulated goods will be pre-notified and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate. We will be extending physical import checks to other regulated goods from July 2021. We will be continuing our risk-based programme of inland surveillance as a further check that requirements are being met.
I say also to the noble Lord that we are working closely with other departments and agencies to ensure that there is a good join-up. We have also listened to the concerns of industry to ensure that new requirements are practical and appropriate, and are working to ensure that there are not blockages of fresh produce.
In response to my noble friend Lady Fookes, I say that have been in regular engagement with industry. More particularly, day in, day out, there has been work between officials and the Horticultural Trades Association and others. Most recently, we have undertaken a series of feasibility sessions with more than 300 participants, and equivalent export sessions. Alongside these feasibility sessions, Defra is hosting a series of webinars, open to all, on the new plant health requirements.
Northern Ireland, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, will maintain alignment with EU regulations. These instruments focus on Great Britain’s biosecurity and the pests that threaten it. Northern Ireland will retain its own separate legislative arrangements in relation to the continued application of the EU’s sanitary and phytosanitary rules. A further instrument is under development to set out the arrangements for qualifying Northern Ireland goods which are regulated plants or plant products and can move from Northern Ireland to and within Great Britain under the Government’s unfettered access arrangements. We expect to lay this instrument before the end of the year.
My noble friend the Duke of Montrose and the noble Lord, Lord Walney, referred to the length of these SIs. I have considerable sympathy: combined they are 343 pages. They are simply amending the retained EU legislation to reflect risks to Great Britain so that measures against the introduction or spread of harmful organisms continue to remain effective and operable following the end of the transition period.
My noble friends the Duke of Montrose and Lady Altmann asked about pests. Of the 20 pests on the EU priority pest list, 11 already have UK contingency plans and five relate to tropical fruit flies and citrus pests; for the remaining four, contingency plans have been prioritised for development. I say to my noble friend Lady Altmann that our risk assessment is of the risk to Great Britain now and our responsibilities for biosecurity.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Walney, that protecting against Xylella remains a priority. We have intensified our surveillance, inspection and testing regime for Xylella host plants because they present a considerable danger.
On IT, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, all essential deliverables are ready for 1 January, including essential IT system amendments, solutions for inland checks for transit material and UK passports, and all external content and guidance. Recruitment is under way in the APHA. On the resources point, the Government are investing £705 million to ensure that our border systems are fully operable by 1 January. The APHA is well on track to have in place more than 200 new inspectors and administrative staff by the end of the year, and we expect this number to increase to 250 full-time equivalents by July 2021. The Government in Scotland are also boosting resources.
On audits and the audit functions carried out by SANTE F, these have already been incorporated into the UK-wide plant health risk group arrangements. That includes a process on audits to scrutinise third countries exporting to the UK and manage the scrutiny from third countries to which we want to export.
On the other point from my noble friend Lady Altmann, the UK plant health risk group identifies, assesses and manages plant health risks. This working group will provide an equivalent level of technical scrutiny. On the question of general powers in the event of a significant plant health risk, general plant health powers are available.
On TRACES, although linking to TRACES remains an option, with third countries able to manually input data to the EU system, during 2021 we are aiming to use the International Plant Protection Convention hub as a single platform to exchange electronic phytosanitary certificates instead of unnecessarily doubling our own efforts by creating multiple interfaces for the rest of the world trade and the EU.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about devolution. We are working closely with officials. Separate but parallel domestic legislation is being made in Scotland and Wales, which will ensure that plant health regulations are completely aligned in Great Britain, while respecting devolved arrangements. The plant passport numbers will be compatible. Our experts continue to enable horizon scanning, undertaken by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization and other organisations.
On the question of the basis of the review and further reviews of legislation, the UK intends to ensure that its SPS regime remains appropriate to address the risks that it faces. Defra has a dedicated team of specialist plant health risk analysts and managers working with the devolved Administrations, monitoring emerging and revised threats.
I am fully aware that, in a period of change, there will be businesses that are worried. I want to reassure all businesses that this is a very important task for Defra and the APHA. We are working on these matters daily and will continue to do so. This is a great opportunity for UK businesses. I understand the difficulties and we are working with them. But on the basis of these instruments being about UK and GB biosecurity, I beg to move.
Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (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 Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.45 pm. I remind noble Lords 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. To reduce the noise for remote participants, your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times. 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 for debate on the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2020 and the two other Motions is one hour.
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 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 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2020.
Relevant document: 35th 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 declare my farming interests as set out in the register. The matters in these instruments are closely related, as they are the first produced using the powers of the Agriculture Act 2020. They lay the groundwork for our new agricultural policy.
First, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2020 assigns additional functions to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, or AHDB, enabling it to run the new livestock information service—LIS—effectively. The LIS will operate in England, while the AHDB will be able to collect, manage and make available information regarding the identification, movement and health of animals, and to allocate unique identification codes for the means of identifying animals.
Livestock are currently identified through three separate livestock traceability services: one for cattle, one covering sheep and goats, and one for pigs. As existing systems are species-specific, keepers with more than one species of livestock must switch between databases. The LIS replaces these separate systems with a single multi-species system. The existing sheep service in England is expected to transition to the new arrangements in spring 2021. Cattle and pig services are due to transition in 2022. The service will be more cost-effective and user-friendly; it will allow faster, more accurate livestock traceability, enabling us to manage disease and protect human health better, giving confidence to trading partners. The LIS will use cloud-based IT infrastructure, ensuring that the system has capacity to scale up response when user demand is high.
Although the LIS operates in England, an important part of the service is working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we can share data, allowing seamless livestock movement and traceability throughout the UK. Defra and the devolved Administrations will enter into an agreement to control and share data. Each territory’s traceability systems will be able to communicate with each other, supporting day-to-day business operations such as cross-border moves. This is called the UK view. The ability for veterinary officials across the UK to be able to access the UK view is essential to ensuring a rapid, targeted response in disease-control situations.
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 also allow for value-added services where submitted data can be used to generate information in wider areas, such as livestock productivity and disease management.
The Direct Payments to Farmers (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 amend and update direct payments legislation as it applies in England. The legislation governing direct payment schemes contains financial ceilings to calculate direct payments to farmers. However, it only includes financial ceilings up to and including the 2020 claim year. This instrument specifies how the Secretary of State will set financial ceilings for England beyond 2020. Once these provisions on financial ceilings have come into force, 2021 ceilings for England can be set. This will be done by the end of this year. Ceilings for future years will be equivalent to England’s share of the 2020 UK national ceiling. This is because the ceilings are the starting point for payment calculations, before any reductions are applied to payments to phase them out.
The regulations also make minor changes to ensure that schemes continue to work effectively in England beyond 2020. This 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 applied in England, such as those relating to voluntary coupled support, which is operated in Scotland.
No substantive policy changes are made by these regulations. They ensure that direct payment schemes in England can continue beyond the end of the 2020 scheme and are largely technical. 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 a separate instrument to apply reductions to the payments so that we can phase them out over a seven-year transition period. Devolved Administrations plan to make their own legislation in relation to their direct payment schemes.
The World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020 are UK-wide. The instrument ensures that after the end of the transition period, the UK continues to comply with its international obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture in relation to classification and notification of domestic support and its commitment to reduce its aggregate measurement of support. Compliance with the agreement was previously managed by the EU on the UK’s behalf. This instrument is limited in scope to ensuring continued compliance with the agreement. This is a reserved issue because individual nations of the UK do not have legislative competence to act in these matters for other parts of the UK.
The Agreement on Agriculture divides domestic support into “green box”, “blue box” or “amber box”, depending on the 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 spending limit remains unchanged after EU exit. These regulations specify the amounts of amber box payments that may be given in each UK nation. Limits have been set, following consultation with devolved Administrations, at a level not constraining policy choices, meaning that there will 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 devolved Administrations where needed to enable the UK to satisfy Agreement on Agriculture obligations. The regulations outline the transparent and objective process by which UK constituent nations will share information on proposed support schemes in order to establish their classification and ensure timely and accurate notification of domestic support to the WTO.
These instruments implement provisions provided for by the Agriculture Act 2020 and I beg to move.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the owner of 40 acres of woodland registered with the Forestry Commission, the owner of a small vineyard of 100 vines and a member of the winegrowers’ association.
I want to focus on the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board regulations. It is not immediately obvious from paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum what horticulture is doing here. Is there an equivalent measure for horticulture to the statements made about animal movement? Where does the arboreal dimension fit into this? Does the instrument cover poultry? Poultry is not mentioned. Does it cover bees? Both are important parts of livestock more broadly for people in the UK.
I do not yet read anywhere that we are picking up the opportunity that this country has with horticulture. One way or the other, things will change in a few weeks. We know the history of horticulture in the UK. We have lost out to Holland, principally because of the cost of energy. You only have to drive round Bedfordshire and associated counties that were big in horticulture to notice a substantial reduction. There is a huge, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for import substitution, so that we can see better performance from horticulture and pick up on the development work that was being done and may still be done on fruit trees and fruit bushes, as well as vegetables in general—all geared up to import substitution. While I am not clear where the horticulture sector is outlined in the document, it seems relevant, as horticulture is mentioned in the title.
The document talks about the Scottish Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Having been deeply involved in the internal market Bill and the challenges for liaison between the centre and the devolved Governments, I would like to know what happens if the Scottish Government or the Northern Irish department of agriculture decide to disagree with the centre on their own unique identification codes. Is there a mechanism whereby difficulties in this area can be put to rest?
Broadly in this area, the department has put out a helpful leaflet. I refer in particular to the annexe summary of new schemes on page 22, which I studied over the weekend. On the Forestry Commission incentives, applications are apparently open all year. Are these the existing ones, which have been going for a long time? The leaflet says that they start in 2020. As a registered owner, I am not aware of having received any communication from the Forestry Commission about new incentives.
The tree health pilot, which the Minister has mentioned before, is important because of the problems with ash and elm. It starts in October next year. When will this be communicated fully? Are we sticking to April 2021, as the document says? On the tree health scheme, which is also important, I see that further information is not expected until 2024. It is difficult to understand why the delay should be so long.
The World Trade Organization regulations are important. There is not a lot to ask other than to pick up on one point. We are a founding member of the WTO, which I hope is to our benefit. On paragraph 6.1, what has been the reaction from the devolved assemblies to the amber box support? If there is a difference of opinion, who will make the decision? It is not entirely clear from the document. Finally, I would be grateful for an explanation in more depth of paragraph 6.4, which also refers to disagreements. That is all I want to say. I do not want to make any reference to the direct payments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. Oh, Lord Bhatia, we cannot hear you. We will go to the next speaker and try to come back to you if we possibly can. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these three statutory instruments and apologise for missing the briefing which he so kindly provided. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2020 is very short and concise. It moves the functions of identification, movement and health of animals and allocating identification codes from the AHDB to a new livestock information service, the LIS.
It is essential that animals should be able to move around and be accurately tracked. The LIS will make it much easier to track animals as they will all be on one database, instead of three separate databases under the current AHDB. However, if there are 165,000 keepers of farmed livestock and nearly 60,000 keep more than one species, that is a lot of livestock being combined from three databases into one. Has this database been fully tested? In other words: does it work? While it is extremely advantageous for farmers to visit only one database to look at their cattle, pigs and sheep instead of one for each species, it will be necessary that the computer systems work. Is Livestock Information Ltd a private company, or does it operate under the auspices of Defra? Track and trace for animals is vital to prevent disease outbreaks and controlling disease once outbreaks have occurred. Like so many things in life, if the computer system fails then chaos results. I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on this point.
The Direct Payments to Farmers (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 ensure that farmers will receive their direct payments from January 2021 and set out financial ceilings used to calculate farmers’ direct payments. However, I could find no information on what these ceilings were in the actual instrument. As with a lot of statutory instruments, unless you have the original legislation in front of you it is very difficult to interpret what is proposed. The devolved Administrations have their own legislation which deals with these issues, so this SI relates solely to England. Can the Minister say whether after January 2021 all four Administrations, including England, will pay their farmers at the same rate for the same activities? If not, I foresee difficulties with cross-border trade.
The direct payment covers basic payments, greening payments and young farmer payments. It is my understanding that the direct payments are on a sliding scale and reduce over the period of the transition from CAP to ELMS, but there is no mention of this in the instrument, which states that the seven-year transition information is not covered in this SI. Where will this sliding scale of support under the withdrawal from direct payments be covered?
The Government have committed to maintain the same financial support for farmers as they previously enjoyed, at £1.8 billion annually. I am pleased to note that in future payments will not be made in euros, so farmers will not be subject to the vagaries of exchange rates. However, in paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the text states that the SI
“removes the need for recipients of Direct Payments to meet ‘active farmer’ requirements”.
What is meant by “active farmer”? Does this mean that an inactive farmer—one who no longer manages land or livestock—will receive a direct payment?
The World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020 ensure that the UK continues to comply with its obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, the AoA. This ensures reductions in its aggregate measurement of support, a key measure used by the WTO to assess domestic support for agricultural commodities. This SI also deals with UK obligations on “amber box” payments with trade-distorting effects, to which the Minister has referred. Defra says that this instrument specifies the amounts of amber box payments that may be given in each country of the UK; they are limited under the AoA, and the aim is to reduce them over time. The Secondary Legislation and Scrutiny Committee has published a paragraph on this instrument, which allows for each UK Administration to design and implement their own agricultural support schemes within an amber box spending envelope set by this instrument.
I would like to ask the Minister about the limits of support at Paragraph 4 of the instrument, which refers to how the total sum is calculated but does not give any indication of what the total will be. However, it states that England will get 49.2%, Northern Ireland 7.49%, Scotland 12.6%, and Wales 6.83%. This does not include the reserve. Are these percentages permanent or will they change each year? I assume these percentages are for the year 2021, but can the Minister please confirm?
The instrument also indicated that spending from the reserve may be used on amber box domestic support in a Crown dependency. Does this include all Crown dependencies or only some? I look forward to the Minister’s response to my questions and those of other noble Lords taking part in this debate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, after the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I shall call the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, to speak.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these SIs and the helpful briefing beforehand. I shall deal with the SI on the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board first.
It obviously makes sense to have a streamlined and digitalised system for recording the movement of animals around the UK. This is crucial to manage and control any outbreak of disease or the spread of invasive pests. We know from painful experiences of the past the devastation that diseases such as foot and mouth can cause. That can be exacerbated by the movement of animals around the country. On the face of it, setting up a separate body in England to provide a multi-species traceability system will be a welcome and progressive move, and I note that it is broadly supported by the stakeholder organisations and devolved Administrations that were consulted. However, I just have a few questions about the status and operation of the livestock information service being established as a subsidiary of the AHDB.
The estimated cost of delivering the new service is £32 million over three years, and the net benefit over 10 years is estimated to be £30 million. However, as it is a limited company, does this mean that it will also be a for-profit company? Will it have directors, and to whom will they report? Farmers currently pay a levy to use the ADHB service. Will they have to pay for the new LIS service, and how do the anticipated charges for farmers compare to the current costs?
If the new service is intended to begin in spring next year, can I echo the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about the state of the new IT system? Is it already functioning and has it been properly stress-tested? Has it been tested to deal with the quantity of data to which she referred? Will the existing and the new systems run in parallel for a period of time, or is it proposed to have a D-day switch from one to the other? If there subsequently prove to be errors in the data collection, who will be responsible? There could be catastrophic results, if that was the case.
I also ask about the devolved implications. This is an England-only scheme. As the EM points out, Scotland and Northern Ireland intend to operate their own schemes, issuing identification numbers for animals that would allow them to be traced. Are they all proposing their own digital services and, if so, will they be compatible with the English version? Will the data generated be shared across the four devolved nations? Obviously, animals can and do move across the borders quite frequently. Is it proposed that the English data system will be able to identify and track the unique identification codes issued by the devolved nations?
Turning to the second SI on direct payments to farmers, the Minister will know that when we were dealing with the direct payments to farmers Bill earlier this year, I and others pressed him on why that Bill had a sunset clause which allowed for the extension of the basic farm payment scheme for one year only. The Minister’s response at the time was that the provisions of the Agriculture Bill would then kick in. But I said then that we would need some persuading that the transitional arrangements envisaged in the Agriculture Bill would be ready to be implemented on 1 January next year—and so it has come to pass.
Since the SI was published, we have seen the Government’s plan for sustainable farming announced this week. It confirms a cut of 5% in the direct payments next year, with further cuts thereafter, so when will we see a separate set of regulations confirming the cuts in these payments? Will it be necessary before the end of the year? Has Defra undertaken an impact assessment on the impact on different sectors and farm sizes? What financial support will be made available for farmers whose livelihoods are threatened by these proposals? These proposals are for England only, so has Defra done an assessment of the impact of different levels of farm subsidies being paid across the four devolved nations and the consequences for prices and the internal market of any divergence from a standard set of prices?
Finally, I will just say a few words on the WTO SI. Again, these have significant implications for relations with the devolved nations, as we discussed during consideration of the Agriculture Bill. At that time, there were concerns that the Bill gave the Secretary of State too much power to decide how farm support payments anywhere in the UK should be classified in relation to WTO rules and to set limits on those payments.
The EM says that these regulations were drafted in consultation with the devolved Administrations and that the majority of their comments were accommodated. Can the Minister say a little more about the nature of these discussions and what areas of dispute remain with the devolved Administrations? Paragraph 6 of the EM says that any devolved nation which wants to make changes to a scheme must notify the others. But what happens if another devolved nation is unhappy with these actions, and what would be the consequences if it followed that through?
I look forward to the Minister’s response to these questions.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
This SI has been prepared by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It amends the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2008 to assign additional functions to that board. These functions relate to collecting, managing and making available information regarding the identification, movement and health of animals and allocating unique identification codes to the means of identifying animals. This would provide a multi-species traceability system in England and facilitate the tracing of livestock movements across the UK.
The department has established a subsidiary company named Livestock Information Ltd. This company will be accountable to Defra. The company will provide services to six agricultural and horticultural sectors, including the beef, sheep and pig industries in England and the milk industry in Great Britain. Of the 165,000 people who farm livestock today, only 60,000 keep more than one species. The nature of this industry is such that the livestock move across the UK, and this service will provide a unique number for each animal, which will ensure disease management.
Food standards are extremely important, and this regulation will ensure that food quality is monitored on an ongoing basis. There has been a press report recently which said that science has now produced a man-made product that does not require animals, thereby having an impact on this industry. Can the Minister give some information on whether the department is making an impact assessment of this new product, as it is likely to affect the whole industry, thereby making thousands of people redundant?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for contributing to this debate. I think we all regret that my noble friend Lord Naseby was not in the earlier consideration debate on plant health and plant products. I agree with him that there is considerable opportunity for growing in Britain. What I would say is that this particular instrument relates to adding further functions for the AHDB, but of course the AHDB currently serves six agricultural and horticultural sectors. From that point of view, today’s work is about the livestock information service specifically. Bees and poultry are not engaged in this order, and in fact the existing AHDB order does not include bees or poultry.
I turn to some of the questions, particularly on the governance structure. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, raised this. The LIS will be run by Livestock Information Ltd—LI Ltd—a subsidiary body of the AHDB. LI Ltd is wholly separate from AHDB levy schemes, and it is not funded by them. LI Ltd is a not-for-profit company, limited by guarantee by the AHDB and Defra. It will not charge fees to keepers for providing livestock traceability services. Movement reporting is a statutory requirement, and the service will be fully paid for by Defra, as existing services are now. LI Ltd may in the future charge for offering value-added services above and beyond statutory requirements. Any such services would be agreed with industry. It could thus include services which could help reduce or eradicate endemic disease.
I absolutely understand the point the noble Baronesses made about a new system and its readiness. The underpinning information technology has been in development over a longer time period ahead of the new company launching in October 2019. Defra receives regular updates, and LI Ltd is currently on track to lead with live services in spring 2021. Defra actively monitors delivery and would not decommission existing traceability services until the new one was ready. Indeed, I say to both noble Baronesses that the transition to the new service will be incremental, so there will be periods with old and new systems running. All changes will be carefully managed so that keepers will have to enter their data only once; in other words, a pragmatic solution.
My noble friend Lord Naseby and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about the separation of traceability services for each Administration, and I absolutely agree: they need to be compatible, and I confirm that this is the case. Any livestock movement between UK nations should allow the full continuity of traceability. Defra is working closely with devolved Administrations and data-sharing agreements will govern information moving with the animals.
I turn to the direct payment instrument. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about the direct payment legislation, the 2020 scheme and the earlier legislation. Indeed, the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020 provided continuity of payments for the 2020 scheme year. The Act was focused on providing direct payments for farmers as the UK left the EU, not on extending the scope of the regulations beyond 2020. This instrument uses powers in the Agriculture Act 2020, always designed as the vehicle for our agricultural reforms, including making substantive amendments to retained EU law. That allowed post-2020 changes, including the power to extend direct payments beyond 2020, to be debated together. To those who asked whether we will need new statutory instruments for direct payments each year, I say that the changes made via this instrument are not specific to 2021. It will not be necessary to lay further instruments to continue existing direct payment schemes for future years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and other noble Lords asked about the reductions in 2021 and thereafter. We intend to legislate for the reductions to 2021 direct payments in an affirmative statutory instrument early next year. Simplifications to the scheme will be made through a separate statutory instrument that was laid on 1 December.
The EU rules on active farmers have not been applied in England since 2017. They were thought to have added burdens and caused confusion for farmers. This statutory instrument does not change the requirement that you must be a farmer in order to claim direct payments.
Forgive me for being so punctilious about the impact assessment, but this statutory instrument allows existing direct payment schemes in England to continue beyond 2020. An impact assessment of this instrument is not necessary as the instrument does not introduce changes for farmers, make policy changes or set reductions for phasing out the payments for agricultural transition. I will take questions on this in a separate statutory instrument debate, but it is important to say it here.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also asked about the UK internal market. We all know that agriculture is devolved. The approach to direct payments in each UK nation is a matter for each Administration. Direct payments are largely decoupled from production and should not, therefore, distort trade. There are already significant differences in the implementation of direct payment schemes within the United Kingdom.
On the WTO instrument, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord Naseby asked about disputes between any of the UK nations. These regulations set out a transparent and objective decision-making process for classifying schemes according to WTO definitions. The devolved Administrations will be able to design their own policies and schemes, propose WTO classifications for these schemes and provide evidence in support of the proposed classifications. All four UK Administrations will then discuss their proposed support schemes and how to reach agreement on their classification according to WTO criteria before they are introduced. The provisions allow for a dispute resolution process, but this would be used only in the unlikely event that agreement could not be reached on classification of a new and amended domestic support scheme. If agreement cannot be reached there is provision for the Secretary of State to make the final decision. I should emphasise that it is expected that the vast majority of issues will be agreed. The objective is that any disputes should be resolved through discussion and collaboration between the four Administrations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked how limits are calculated. The “amber box” limits are equivalent to the average annual level of all domestic support—green, blue and amber—given to agricultural producers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland between 2014 and 2017. The amber box limits therefore accommodate current levels of green, blue and amber box support, meaning that policy choices in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not constrained. The limits are expressed as a percentage of the current UK aggregate measurement of support, as set out in the UK goods schedule at the WTO.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also asked about direct payments. The English share of the UK direct payments financial ceiling is €2.07 billion, which equates to £1.8 billion and will be used as the basis for setting the direct payment financial ceiling in future years. Since agriculture is devolved, it will be up to each devolved Administration to determine their own approach to the direct payment schemes.
I will look at Hansard in case there are other points which I have missed. The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, made one or two other remarks to which I shall attend. In the meantime, these instruments are worthy of your Lordships’ support. I beg to move.
Direct Payments to Farmers (England) (Amendment) 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 Direct Payments to Farmers (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 35th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture (Domestic Support) 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 World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 5 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their 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. Your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times in order to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same. The time limit for debate on the following statutory instrument is one hour.
Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. The regulations amend EU Delegated Regulation 2019/945, which sets out new product standards for unmanned aircraft, and EU Implementing Regulation 2019/947, which sets out new requirements for the operation of unmanned aircraft. The regulations also make minor changes to the Air Navigation Order 2016 by removing references to the European Aviation Safety Agency—EASA—to ensure that flight restriction zones around protected aerodromes continue to function, and to Regulation 10 of the Operation of Air Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 to ensure that the savings provision applies from 31 December 2020.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I will continue. I was just about to talk about the background to the EU regulation, and I will focus on the unmanned aircraft element of these regulations.
EU Regulation 2019/945 requires unmanned aircraft and associated accessories to be designed and manufactured in accordance with certain standards. It creates classes of unmanned aircraft and defines the characteristics of those classes. It imposes certain obligations on manufacturers, importers and distributors, such as ensuring that an unmanned aircraft is accompanied by the manufacturer’s instructions. It also defines those unmanned aircraft whose design, production and maintenance shall be subject to certification. This regulation entered into force and became applicable on 1 July 2019. However, transitional provisions mean that while most existing unmanned aircraft can continue to be sold for now, products placed on the market after 1 January 2023 must comply with the requirements of the delegated regulation.
EU Regulation 2019/947 requires unmanned aircraft to be operated in accordance with certain rules and procedures. It creates operational categories that unmanned aircraft can be flown in, proportionate to the level of risk posed by an operation. The open category, for the lowest-risk operations, requires operators and remote pilots to abide by certain requirements. If those requirements cannot be met, an authorisation must be obtained to fly in the specific category. The highest-risk operations, including the use of unmanned aircraft designed for carrying dangerous goods or transporting people, must occur in the certified category. This requires the certification of the unmanned aircraft and the operator, and, where applicable, the licensing of the remote pilot. This regulation also imposes requirements on operators and remote pilots to ensure that operations are carried out safely and securely. For example, remote pilots must meet any applicable competency requirements for the flights they undertake. The regulation entered into force on 1 July 2019, but it is not applicable until 31 December this year. Therefore, it will still be retained in UK law.
As civil aviation is a reserved policy area, both regulations apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. The withdrawal Act will retain both the delegated and implementing regulations in UK law after the end of the transition period. This draft instrument makes the changes necessary so that the regulations continue to function correctly. This is essential to ensuring the continuation of an effective regulatory regime for unmanned aircraft.
This instrument is subject to the affirmative procedure because it creates or amends a power to legislate. For example, it provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations designating geographical zones for safety, security, privacy or environmental reasons.
The most significant amendment being made to the delegated regulation is providing a new power for the Secretary of State to designate standards after the end of the transition period. Until that power is exercised, unmanned aircraft and associated accessories that conform to EU harmonised standards will continue to be considered compliant with EU requirements, and those requirements will be recognised in the UK. It is not possible for these harmonised standards to be recognised in UK law as yet as they are still under development.
Another significant amendment is replacing the term “notified body” with “approved body”, thereby enabling the Secretary of State to approve bodies to carry out conformity assessments without notifying the European Commission. Other changes being made to the regulation are mostly minor and technical in nature; for example, replacing the phrase
“a language which can be easily understood”
with “English”.
The amendments being made to the implementing regulation are minor but equally important. As well as providing the Secretary of State with the regulation-making power to designate geographical zones, this instrument amends various references to EU institutions and appoints the Civil Aviation Authority, the CAA, as the competent authority for the purposes of the implementing regulation.
This instrument demonstrates that the Government are committed to ensuring a fully functioning regulatory framework for unmanned aircraft after the transition period. While we are focused on securing the best arrangements for our future relationship with the EU, including in the aviation sector, this instrument will ensure that legitimate, safe unmanned aircraft operations can continue while ensuring effective oversight if we get to the end of the transition period without a deal. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful introduction to our debate on unmanned aircraft—sometimes, of course, described as drones. They are very different from the drones of the Drones Club of PG Wodehouse, Bertie Wooster and Jeeves, which we know so well, although the way we keep hearing some Ministers—with the notable exception of course of the noble Baroness—going on about “taking back control”, I see some connection with drones. If taking back control means the House of Lords and the Commons dealing with hundreds and hundreds of these statutory instruments, there is surely some connection. With the outcome of the discussions on our exit from the European Union still poised between no deal and a very poor deal, it does not bode well either way for the future.
How does all this affect unmanned aircraft? First, as the Minister rightly said, the EU regulations deal with the product standard for unmanned aircraft—that is the present. Do Her Majesty’s Government have any plans to change these and, if they do, why? How would any change affect the export or the import of drones?
Secondly, we are going to take control of rules for the operation of third-country unmanned aircraft operators. Could the Minister tell us how far beyond our shores this will apply, particularly in relation to the channel? We have a lot of disputation about fish in different parts of the waters around us. We do not want that to apply also to unmanned aircraft.
Could the Minister also tell us whether there are any plans to alter the requirements on maximum take-off mass, speed, height, serial number, or the characteristic dimensions of three metres or more, and on whether the drones are designed for transporting people or dangerous goods? Also, do the Government plan to make any changes on the age limit for operating unmanned aircraft if we take back control on it? If so, in what direction and why? Equally, does she envisage any changes on licensing operators when we take back control? Are any changes planned on arrangements for insurance, or for the examination requirements for obtaining a licence? The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that there are “no immediate plans” for the Secretary of State to designate new standards, but it would be helpful to know whether there are plans beyond the immediate future, or we must wonder why it is so vital to take back control in this area.
As the Minister said, the territorial extent of the regulations is the United Kingdom, I am glad to say, but paragraph 6.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the Act also contains powers for the devolved Administrations to make secondary legislation. As she will know, there has been a lot of controversy over the allocation of the powers being returned from the European Union, as I know only too well as a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, so it would be helpful if she could clarify the respective responsibilities. She said in her introduction that civil aviation is a reserved function, as we know, so why are the devolved authorities mentioned? I advised her of this query in advance, when she very kindly asked us the points that we might raise. I hope that she will be able to deal with it in her reply.
I also take this opportunity to ask the Minister—I warned her about this as well—what lessons have been learned from the incident in December 2018, when drones closed the whole of Gatwick Airport. Could she tell us what action the Government have taken, or propose to take, as a result of their investigations?
These unmanned aircraft can be useful in many ways, such as for delivering medicines urgently, for traffic surveillance or in other areas, but they can also be deployed by those wishing to cause harm. Can the Minister assure us that there is close co-operation with the police and intelligence services to prevent any such use, particularly by terrorists?
Finally, I sympathise with the Minister for having to deal with this and many other statutory instruments. Nevertheless, notwithstanding all this, I look forward to many more when we return to membership of the European Union, as we undoubtedly will one day, because it is the most successful multinational co-operative body in the world today. With that, I am sure other noble Lords will be glad to know that I am well within my time.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who, as always, displayed great insight and perception in his analysis of the current position. I found myself in agreement with many of his points.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for setting out clearly the effect of these important regulations. I appreciate that the intention is, broadly speaking, to carry on the existing law from the European Union and European Union Aviation Safety Agency, an approach with which I certainly agree. Too often we seem to be taking back control just for the sake of it, so it is good to see, in these regulations at least, inherent in our approach a degree of honesty, and that we are having consistency from 1 January 2021. I am also pleased to see a transition period provided for in the regulations—another transition period—until 1 January 2023, permitting unmarked, unmanned aircraft, legacy drones, to continue to be placed on the market in the United Kingdom. I am sure that that is a common-sense measure.
I have several questions for the Minister, some of which will echo what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has already touched on. Are there any plans for divergence from the existing EU position? There are none in the immediate future, as we know, but is there any plan in the medium to long term and, if so, from what date and what form will that divergence take? I think we need to know that. Further, I ask for reassurance on whether there is a close working relationship with the EU so we are kept au fait with any future plans that we may wish to incorporate into United Kingdom standards from the EU—or, at least, be aware of what EU developments are in this area.
I appreciate that these regulations deal with reserved matters, as has been stated. However, clearly, as so often, whether matters are reserved or devolved, there is an interface with the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that that has been reflected in what the Minister said and, indeed, in the regulations themselves. I seek reassurance from the Minister that we are ensuring close liaison with the devolved authorities where appropriate.
One such area would be that there is a desirable nexus in the area of employment. In that regard, I ask my noble friend—and I have given her advance notice of this—about job prospects at the West Wales Airport in Aberporth, Ceredigion; and in Caernarfon, Gwynedd. I have no doubt that my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will touch on that as well. In both areas, drones may well be used; I hope they are. There is clearly a key role for drones in maritime search and rescue, which would be reflected in both those areas. But also, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, touched on, they can be used in counterpollution work, defence use and traffic surveillance, as well as having commercial possibilities, for videos of events such as weddings and other gatherings. It would be good to see the United Kingdom in the forefront of this—and, of course, I am particularly keen that Wales should be in general terms, and in both those sites. I hope that the Minister can comment on the feasibility of job prospects and enterprise in the United Kingdom generally, and certainly in relation to Thales and Bristow in the two sites to which I have referred. It would be good to see the UK lead the way in the unmanned sector of aerospace.
I certainly support these regulations, but overall I would like the Minister to give us an undertaking that, at the heart of government policy, there is a drive to ensure that the United Kingdom leads on the unmanned sector of aerospace, providing public facilities on search and rescue, as I have said, as well as in surveying for pollution and traffic surveillance, in defence interests and commercially, and that we seek to protect and enhance high-value jobs in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom in a safe and secure way.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the opportunity to ask a few questions. Paragraph 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum is on the extent and territorial application, which is obviously the UK. However, having sat through many sittings on the internal market Bill recently, I know that there is a sensitivity between the devolved nations and the centre. In what way will we ensure that there is clear linkage and working together on this important and developing issue? My noble friend Lord Bourne made the same point.
I understand why we are taking the approach of designated standards. My only question is: will the UK be informed of cases where there were difficulties in registering a new drone or drone variant? If we are not aware of where there are difficulties, somebody might try to register here at some point.
Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum discusses the design and manufacture of unmanned aircraft. Are these requirements, and in particular the oversight mechanisms, now ready or are we still working on those for the near future?
On the implementing regulations, paragraph 7.11 refers to the current categories of “open”, “specific” and “certified”. Do we intend to change those at all, or do we think that they will remain for the foreseeable future? I hope that there is no suggestion in paragraph 7.12 that we will drop the minimum age of 16 for the control of remote pilots and that there would therefore be no exemptions at all. I hope that the Minister can confirm that that is the position.
Paragraph 7.13 says that:
“Rules for conducting an operational authorisation are also set out in Article 11”.
I admit that I have not read Article 11, and I apologise for that, but perhaps the Minister could mention whether there will be any significant changes there. On paragraph 7.15, as a matter of interest, are the clubs that allow any form of drone activity all registered with the department or some other body?
On paragraph 7.16, I put on my hat as a former Deputy Speaker in the other place. This is such a young and dangerous market, in terms of potential danger to life, that the negative procedure is not appropriate. Her Majesty’s Government need to think long and hard about using the negative procedure, as referred to paragraph 7.16(a) and (b), because those instruments will go through on the nod. Unless people have a particular knowledge of the market they will be unlikely to raise anything on them. I would have thought that it would be much better to use the affirmative procedure for a period of time in that situation, particularly as we are taking this over from Europe. It would be a great deal safer for everybody.
I initially thought when I looked at paragraph 7.8 that we should carry out a review after three or five years, but then we have the September 2021 situation. What is the Minister’s current thinking? Is it to carry out a review in September 2021, or will we do a complete review in 2023?
Lastly, I have four general questions. In the world we live in, we know that people do copycat actions. We know that what happened at one of our airports one Christmas was awful. Can we be reassured that actions have been taken to anticipate a possible copycat somewhere in the UK along the lines of what happened at Gatwick? That is a highly forecastable risk.
I apologise for not forewarning my noble friend on this, but I read it myself only in my catch-up reading. I draw her attention to an article in the Financial Times on 5 December, which says:
“Russia’s most notorious cyber security company, Kaspersky, is trying to diversify into anti-drone technology”.
I do not expect an answer from her this afternoon, but the principle behind these new systems is to help airports and private landowners to jam drone signals. Does that come under her area of responsibility? If it does, is this not an area that we should be cognisant of?
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised the question of exports and imports. That was a fair question, and one I was concerned about as well.
Finally, it is pretty clear to me that Amazon and maybe others are looking to produce delivery drones. That market will not stay static for two or three years. I just hope that Her Majesty’s Government are keeping a close watch on that and that they will, if necessary, produce our own requirements and not wait on the EU to produce its own.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the main thrust of these regulations is to make changes to existing EU legislation on unmanned aircraft. They result from leaving the EU and, where references to bodies, organisations and powers have an EU context, they are to be replaced by a UK context.
In April, EU Regulation 2020/1058 made amendments to regulations 2019/947 and 2019/945, and it was passed by Parliament. Regulation 1058 has very detailed information within it on all sorts of measures, including conformity, badging and everything else. I am not certain whether those amendments have been carried forward into the regulations that we are debating. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether the SI before us, which refers to the two earlier EU regulations, has included Regulation 2020/1058. In a mass of great detail, that regulation has put in place lots of information which goes behind those earlier regulations. Can the Minister confirm that?
Some aspects of the 2020 regulations do not now come into force until July 2021. We know that some do not come into play here fully until 2023. We have a start date of the last day of this year when the existing EU regulations come into force. We are being taken through those today, so I would like some clarity from the Minister on the precise timetable that is emerging from here as to when events happen as a result of these regulations and existing regulations. That information will very much be required by those who are manufacturers, sellers, importers or operators of drones from 1 January. That is just three weeks away and they need to know when to prepare and what to prepare for.
For those who need to register, the registration date is 31 December. Is that a start date by which registration becomes mandatory or is there a grace period? Over what period do we expect all registrations to take place? That goes back to the earlier question on a timetable. Are we fully prepared for that registration? Do we have staff trained in the considerable detail underpinning these regulations, including Regulation 2020/1058? For example, do they know which airspace is permissible for what categories of unmanned aircraft, what levels of registration are required, what categories drones fall into, and the distinction between uninvolved people and crowds? There is a lot there which we would expect staff to have been trained for.
Regulation 6 refers to designated standards. It provides direction and some description of what these standards are meant to achieve, and how, but at no point does it set a date when these designated standards are to be introduced. It is clearly welcome that there will be some time, otherwise people involved in manufacturing this equipment may not be given adequate notice and will not be prepared. Until that time, we are following the standards set out in EU regulations, but these technical standards are important, as they prescribe a large part of the protection that the people of this country need from failures in the products themselves, particularly as described in paragraph 2(a) and 2(b) of the new article in Regulation 6. This will have an impact on manufacturers and distributors of unmanned aircraft systems not only in construction and design terms, but in some of the safety aspects which arise.
Other noble Lords asked about insurance. I should be grateful to know whether this is required for those who operate and run these pieces of equipment.
I am also concerned about the definition of a toy. Clearly, if you can classify something as a toy, it rules out registration and the same level of regulation as for any of the other aspects. A toy is currently defined in European legislation as a device which could be attractive to a child. If we continue with that definition, it provides a great deal of freedom of use. The European Union suggests marking devices as being unsuitable and not for the use of children under 14 and thereby not a toy. Do the Government think this is sufficient? We have already seen what has happened to scooters—now a daily scene on our streets. They are definitely not toys, though many toy scooters exist.
On weddings, do we need to seek the written agreement of participants? This is part of the distinction between uninvolved people and crowds.
Finally, I turn to drone operator registration. Have the Government taken any steps to recognise the interoperability of registration between the UK and any other countries? This is a complex area in which technology has made rapid advances. In such an environment, the Government need to be fleet of foot and future-proof their legislation. For obvious reasons, these regulations do not touch on the speed of technological progress. I hope that the Government can keep ahead of the curve and make arrangements to introduce appropriate legislation at the right time.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will not be able to match other noble Lords who have spoken in the number of questions or points I want to raise. The answers that the Government give to the questions and points raised so far will highlight whether these regulations provide for significant changes in the months ahead or whether they keep largely to the status quo. We will all listen with interest to the Government’s response.
These regulations keep the effect of the policy framework established by the EU implementing and delegated regulations. They ensure that certain provisions relating to unmanned aircraft will be retained in UK law and will continue to apply after the end of the transition period in less than four weeks’ time. The EU implementing regulation applies from the end of this year and sets out the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft. The delegated regulation sets out the requirements for unmanned aircraft and for third-country operators of these aircraft.
As we have already heard, the regulations enable the Secretary of State to designate standards after the end of the transition period. In the meantime, unmanned aircraft that conform to current EU harmonised standards, will be considered compliant with the EU requirements recognised by the UK. The main consequence of these regulations is that, since we will no longer be a part of the EU and of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, the European Union standard CE marking will be replaced by an official marking recognised within the UK. The same product standards as currently apply will be maintained. As a result, unmanned aircraft that lawfully bear the CE marking can continue to be put on the UK market.
As I understand it, the implementing regulation provides for a transitional period until 1 January 2023 during which unmarked—that is, CE or UK—unmanned aircraft will continue to be placed on the market. The Government intend to use the powers under the regulations to designate standards by the end of the transitional period. Like other noble Lords, I ask whether the Government have any view on whether the designated standards from the end of the transitional period will vary to any significant degree and, if so, in what way from the current standards under the implementing regulation. Have these regulations been drawn up on the assumption that a deal will need to be agreed with the EU before the end of the transitional period at the end of 2022? If so, will any changes be necessary if one is not agreed?
Finally, the new UK mark will come into force from the beginning of next year—in a few weeks’ time—but there will be an overlap period with the CE mark, which I understand will be accepted until the beginning of 2023. What is the reasoning behind both the overlap and its length?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of these draft amendments. I shall endeavour to get through as many questions as possible. I am grateful to all noble Lords who gave me advance warning of what they were going to raise. In some circumstances, I have been able to get an answer; in others, I am afraid the system failed me and I did not. I am also conscious that there are questions that I will not be able to answer. I shall study Hansard and write if necessary.
As a number of noble Lords have recognised, the opportunities for unmanned aircraft are enormous. The purpose of the Government’s framework for the operation, manufacture and approval of unmanned aircraft is to provide certainty such that commercial, military and all sorts of operations can take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said that unmanned aircraft are drones. I remind noble Lords that, of course, they are also model aircraft—we have been round that loop before—and it is only fair and right that model aircraft as well as drones are included in the regulations.
My noble friend Lord Naseby asked whether clubs were signed up with the DfT. It is the individual who registers, but the DfT works closely with all sorts of clubs in the unmanned aircraft space to ensure that our framework is working effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord German, asked whether registration arrangements were in place. One has had to register a drone for more than a year now. That system is completely in place and is run by the CAA. It includes a competency test for remote pilots. The operators of a drone must register it with the CAA. I am not aware of any interoperability outside the UK at this time.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that we speak to the devolved Administrations relatively frequently—I have my next call with them on Thursday. We talk about all sorts of things, as do my officials. The devolved Administrations are aware of this legislation and have not raised any concerns. On paragraph 6.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, referring to DAs’ powers to correct deficiencies in matters that are not reserved, we do not anticipate there being any such matters; this is just a standard line in EU withdrawal Act SIs.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, had a number of questions, nearly all of which I picked up, but I am afraid that some have slipped me by. I will address one of them, because it was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Naseby. I think that a difference of opinion on age limits will be coming down the track. I will talk about age limits, registration, licensing and insurance, which I know is of interest to many noble Lords. This instrument amends the delegated and implementing regulations to remove the deficiencies; that is absolutely clear. The powers, of course, do not allow us to amend the policy of the regulations through this instrument. Therefore we are dealing simply with the impact of EU withdrawal.
On age limits, Article 9 of the implementing regulation brings in a minimum age of 16 for remote pilots, with the option for member states to reduce that by up to four years for the “open” category, which is the lowest risk, and by up to two years for the “specific” category. This instrument provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations relating to Article 9 of the implementing regulation on age limits. It is the Government’s intention to lower the remote pilot minimum age by the maximum number of years and then to remove it as soon as we are able to in 2021. However, I reassure noble Lords that the minimum age of an operator of an unmanned aircraft will remain as 18 years old—we have had this discussion previously with the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill. To remind noble Lords, there is a difference between the operator of an unmanned aircraft and a remote pilot.
The implementing regulation contains provisions relating to registration and competency. As the CAA’s drone and model aircraft registration and education service—which is a rather long-winded way of describing the system you sign yourself up to—was originally created with these EU regulations in mind, they came as no surprise to anybody, so there are only some very small differences between the system we already operate and the new system. I hope that goes some way to reassuring the noble Lord, Lord German.
The implementing regulation requires operators in the “open” category to register if their unmanned aircraft is 250 grams or more, or if it has data capture capability. Remote pilots must also pass a competency test. There are a number of other requirements, but it is not worth going into great detail on the requirements of, for example, the “specified” and “certified” categories. As we noted before, the risk associated with those flights increases with each category.
On insurance, the implementing regulation does not require an operator of an unmanned aircraft to hold insurance unless required by other relevant legislation. It is the responsibility for every operator to ensure that they have appropriate insurance cover.
My noble friend Lord Naseby and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, talked about Gatwick, which really was a watershed in our understanding of the world of unmanned aircraft and the catastrophic events that can happen. In this case, the catastrophic event was actually an economic event, when Gatwick was essentially shut down. Since then we have made huge strides in understanding how we can respond to illegal unmanned aircraft activity. We accelerated our testing activity and we launched the counter-unmanned aircraft strategy, including unmanned aircraft remote pilot competency testing and operator registration, before we even had to under the regulations. We extended aerodrome flight restriction zones and we developed legislative proposals, which noble Lords will recall. The counter-unmanned aircraft strategy is an incredibly important Home Office strategy. It safeguards the benefits of unmanned aircraft, which is our goal, but also ensures that people are safe and that anybody using unmanned aircraft maliciously or negligently can be appropriately dealt with.
There are a number of things within that strategy. We recognise that there is no one silver bullet. My noble friend Lord Naseby talked about counter-drone technology. We are, of course, in touch with many of the operators and developers of that technology; the reality is that it remains a work in progress and probably always will do. However, great strides have happened in the world of counter-drone technology, and the Government are really at the heart of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about divergence and the impact of 1 January 2023. The product standards set out in the delegated regulation do not have a substantial practical effect until 1 January 2023, and non-compliant unmanned aircraft can continue to be put on the market until that date. However, this instrument provides the Secretary of State with these new powers to designate standards for unmanned aircraft after the end of the EU exit transition period. Until that power is exercised, unmanned aircraft and associated accessories that conform to the EU harmonised standards will continue to be considered compliant with EU requirements, and those requirements will be recognised by the UK. However, those EU requirements and harmonised developments are still under development, so it is not possible for me to comment on the content of future designated standards.
Very briefly, on the UKCA mark that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned, the mark can be used from 1 January 2021 but, prior to that, it is not required to be used. From 1 January 2023 will be when the mark is required.
Very briefly also on Wales, it is playing a cracking role in developing the drone sector, including at West Wales Airport and Snowdonia aerodrome in Caernarfon. The Government are providing support to develop the drone sector through the drone pathfinder programme and the future flight challenge. The first successful projects in the future flight challenge were announced in November and include the gold dragon project at Snowdonia aerodrome, which will develop sensor technology for drones working with public services such as police and mountain rescue.
That was a brief run-through of as many questions as I possibly could. I shall follow up with a letter. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the Grand Committee stands adjourned until 6.15 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for debate on the following statutory instrument is one hour.
Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument proposes an important change to the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007, or RTFO. Renewable transport fuels are more expensive than fossil fuels and rely on the RTFO support mechanism to create demand and incentivise their supply. This SI changes the price used to calculate any buy-out payment due under the renewable transport fuel obligation certificate trading scheme. It would increase that buy-out price from 30p per litre to 50p per litre. This change is necessary to ensure the continued supply of biofuels and other renewable fuels by increasing the potential level of support. It would also ensure continued delivery of carbon savings.
The 2007 order establishes targets driving the supply of renewable fuels in the UK. It does this by placing obligations on larger suppliers of fuel to ensure the supply of renewable fuels. The amount of renewable fuel that must be supplied is calculated as a percentage of the volume of fossil fuel supplied in a calendar year. This obligation level, or target, has increased over time and is currently 9.75%. These increases have supported the market for renewable fuels and were accompanied by improvements to their sustainability. The RTFO target gradually increases until 2032 at which point, without further legislative agreement, the yearly target would be 12.4% in each subsequent year.
The 2007 order also provides for a certificate trading scheme, which supports a market for suppliers of renewable fuels. Under the scheme, obligated fuel suppliers must acquire sufficient renewable transport fuel certificates, or RTFCs, to meet their obligations by either supplying renewable fuels or purchasing RTFCs. Alternatively, they can make a buy-out payment. This buy-out option, and increasing its price, is the focus of the statutory instrument.
Enabling suppliers to pay a buy-out rather than having to acquire RTFCs caps the cost of the RTFO scheme. It protects consumers of fuel from exceptional spikes in the price of renewable fuels. However, in normal market conditions, the continued success of the RTFO scheme relies on the supply of renewable fuels. Biofuels are the main type of renewable fuel supplied under the RTFO. Recent increases in the cost of biofuels relative to petrol and diesel mean there is a potential commercial incentive for suppliers to make a buy-out payment. Any reduction in biofuel supply will affect greenhouse gas emissions savings in transport, creating a gap in UK carbon budgets. It also could damage our biofuels industry and future investments needed to keep us on the path to net zero.
The RTFO applies UK wide and has been highly successful in reducing carbon emissions. Through it, we have seen the average greenhouse gas savings of renewable fuels increase from 46% in 2008-09 to 83% in 2019. The renewable fuels supplied under the RTFO saved almost 5.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2019, equivalent to the emissions of 2.5 million combustion engine-powered cars. Indeed, renewable fuels currently contribute around a third of the savings required for the UK’s transport carbon budget. Clearly, we need to ensure that the RTFO continues to provide effective market support.
The amendment in this statutory instrument does just that and follows a consultation carried out over the summer. The consultation proposed two options: an increase in the buyout price from 30p per litre to either 40p per litre or 50p per litre. The vast majority of respondents, 56 out of 61, agreed with the Government’s assessment of the urgent need to increase the buyout price. Of these 56, 45 agreed with our preferred option: to increase the buyout price to 50p per litre.
In proposing this statutory instrument, the department has carefully considered a balance of interests, recognising that potential additional costs in meeting the RTFO would ultimately fall to the consumer and the need to maintain a competitive biofuels market which continues to deliver reductions in carbon emissions. I believe that the increase in the buyout proposed strikes the right balance. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister and particularly grateful to her for allowing us to forewarn her of questions that we might want to raise, not least because I think we are all exploring our way in terms of this order. There have been times, over the five years that I have been in your Lordships’ House, when I have come into the Chamber or Committee not to pontificate or provide pearls of wisdom but actually to learn something. That is why I signed up for this Grand Committee discussion this evening.
I confess that I was unaware of the technicalities and substantial impact that this programme has had since 2007 on carbon emissions and the way in which trade and the buy-out system works. So I have given notice to the Minister of my simple—or even simplistic—question: are we talking here about providing incentives to expand and develop this critical market for the future, or are we providing a balancing disincentive for market failure? Although I have read the Explanatory Note to which the Minister referred, I am still completely confused by it, and sometimes I do not mind admitting it.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
I support this Motion, but I believe that we have such a long way to go in meeting the strategic objective of zero emissions targets by 2050. I wanted to ask the Minister a question. I have been studying the Green Book review published last week, which enjoins government departments and those seeking to spend money to fix their minds on the strategic objective ahead. In this case, I select net zero by 2050 as the strategic objective. I wonder how you build a case of contributory objectives which help you to get to the strategic objective. I built an imaginary case, aimed at reducing the amount of diesel burned in this country by very large amounts, by various actions. It mostly concerns electrification of the railway and the substitution of HGVs by electric trains. My calculation shows that you would save a lot of diesel fuel—and I mean a lot.
I am not absolutely convinced yet of my figures, but I wanted to ask whether, in seeking a strategic objective, one is hamstrung by the different departmental objectives rather than looking at a problem in an overall fashion, which includes where the investments take place—for example, are less favoured parts of the country helped by this, or by the greater reduction in emissions in various places, or the reduction in traffic congestion? Does the work in the Green Book take us to a new place in terms of looking at investments on a broader rather than a narrow focus?
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Having listened to my noble friend Lord Blunkett, I feel a lot happier to know that I am not the only one who is not an expert on this SI. The purpose of the order, as the Minister said, is to increase the renewable transport fuel obligation buyout price for fuel suppliers to 50p per litre from 30p per litre for obligation periods beginning on or after 1 January 2021. Annual obligations for the supply of renewable fuels are set for fuel suppliers under a similarly named 2007 order that commenced in April 2008. The obligations can be met by supplying renewable fuel, by purchasing renewable transport fuel certificates from other suppliers, or by paying a sum—a buyout price—to the Secretary of State. As the Minister said, it is that sum that this order has the effect of increasing.
The Government have said that increasing the buyout price to 50p per litre will mitigate the risk of suppliers buying out of their obligations and the UK losing greenhouse gas savings. Renewable fuels supported under the RTFO order have reduced greenhouse gas emissions from transport over the last 12 years and, as we heard from the Minister, they are contributing a third of the greenhouse gas emissions required for the UK’s current transport carbon budget.
Further, the Government have said that the buyout price increase will help protect the renewable transport fuel obligation scheme against rising prices for biofuels and ensure that investment in UK biofuel facilities continues to have a market. As I understand it, in August 2019 the cost differential between renewable fuels and the fossil fuels for which they are a substitute was approaching a level at which it would cost less to buy out an obligation under the RTFO rather than continue to supply renewable fuels.
Fuel suppliers are likely to pay the buyout only if the cost of renewable transport fuel certificates regularly exceeds 30p per litre. In January this year, offers for renewable transport fuel certificates for the 2020 compliance year were 30.25p per litre and since the beginning of July offers have regularly been higher. Offers for 2021 RTFCs have been reported as high as 33p per litre in September this year. RTFCs are issued for every litre of sustainable and renewable fuels blended. Lifting the buyout to 50p per litre will result in a maximum additional cost of 2p per litre to the motorist.
The renewable transport fuel obligation is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport fuel by setting annual biofuel blending obligations for fuel suppliers. As we heard from the Minister, the obligation is 9.75% this year and will increase incrementally to 12.4% by 2032. Could the Government say in their response on what basis that incremental increase is determined; what was the percentage figure fixed in 2008; and, in 2032, what proportion of greenhouse gas emissions required for the UK’s current transport carbon budget will be contributed by renewable fuels supported by the RTFO order?
I have just a few questions on the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 7.6 refers to civil penalty provisions and states:
“It is planned to consider this matter as part of other changes to the RTFO Order that will be consulted on in due course.”
What are the
“other changes to the RTFO Order”,
and by when will they have been consulted on? Paragraph 10.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to “obligated suppliers”. How many obligated suppliers are there in total who are covered by the terms of this order?
Paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to a maximum cost for 2021 to 2030 that would be incurred if all suppliers opted to buy out of the main obligation in each obligation period. How much has been paid out under the buy-out provision option under the RTFO Order 2007 to date in total, and of that how much has been in the last two years for which figures are available? To what purpose has any such money been put?
Paragraph 13.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to transport fuel suppliers who are exempt from the renewable fuel obligation and fuel suppliers for whom the obligation is reduced. What is the reduction for those in that category, and how many suppliers are in that category? Finally, is it felt that the case still exists for having that reduced rate, bearing in mind the Government’s desire to enable renewable fuels to contribute to the UK’s future carbon budgets?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this statutory instrument. I join other noble Lords in declaring my previous lack of a full understanding of this very important area. It has been a very useful discussion and I am grateful for the questions raised, particularly those raised by noble Lords who were able to share them with me in advance. I will, of course, write where I do not cover everything.
To start with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, when he asked if it is an incentive to maintain supply or a punishment to maintain the market, I am going to be very unhelpful and say that it is neither. The increase in buy-out price is simply necessary for the market to function. We need to make sure that there is a continued supply of biofuels and other renewable fuels under the RTFO and ensure the continued delivery of carbon savings. Obviously, a buy-out price set at the wrong amount would not allow that market to function, because suppliers would then pay a buy-out, rather than having to acquire the RTFCs which, as a whole, obviously cap the cost of the RTFO scheme and protect the consumer from the exceptional spikes. So, the buy out is one element of a very well-designed and successful scheme, and it serves as a release valve to make sure that the consumer is never forced to pay a very large amount for their fuel.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised a number of issues not wholly related to the SI before us today. I would like to reassure him that the Department for Transport is studying very carefully the changes to the Green Book, and we will consider all the issues he raised, in terms of looking at where we are going to do our investment in transport infrastructure in the future. The noble Lord will also know that we have a transport decarbonisation strategy, which my department is working incredibly hard on at the moment, and which will serve as a path to net zero in the future.
On the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in 2019 there were 19 obligated suppliers covered by the terms of this order, and these are obviously the ones that supply significant amounts of fuel, which I will come on to. Of course, there are exempted suppliers, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also mentioned. These fuel suppliers supply less than 450,000 litres of transport fuel, and they are exempted from the obligations of RTFO. In these circumstances, 450,000 litres is not a very large amount. Furthermore, there is a second group of suppliers that supply less than 10 million litres of transport fuel, and they do not have an obligation on the first 450,000 litres of their supply—again, a few percentage points of their supply. This is basically to ensure that there is no cliff edge when you get to 450,000 litres.
In 2018 and 2019, there were not many fuel suppliers benefiting from this reduction in obligation—four and two respectively. To put that into context, those exemptions represented a very small fraction of the 52 billion litres of total fuel supply covered by the RTFO in 2019 and of the potential greenhouse gas emissions savings. We have no plans to review this.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked about the amount of buyout incurred. To date, there has been no significant buyout under the main obligation in the 2007 RTFO order. Buyout amounts relate to a very small number of companies and are therefore considered commercially sensitive. In the last two years—2018 and 2019—all obligated suppliers have met their obligation. In 2019, two obligated suppliers used buyout to make up around 10% of their main obligations. That meant that less than 0.1% of the total main obligation was met through buyout—the sort of level we hoped for.
All money received from suppliers buying out is paid to the Treasury. It is Consolidated Fund and not ring-fenced for any particular purpose. I can reassure noble Lords that the Government take investment in biofuels and sustainable fuels very seriously. We have developed a target to incentivise specific advanced renewable fuels because they are of strategic importance for use in sectors which are difficult to electrify—for example, heavy goods vehicles and aviation. We have an advanced biofuels demonstration competition called the Future Fuels for Flight and Freight Competition, which provides up to £20 million of capital funding and offers real opportunities. As part of the Government’s 10-point plan, a new package of support for sustainable aviation fuels has been announced. This includes a further £15 million in competitive funding to support the production of sustainable aviation fuels in the UK. Although the money goes to the Treasury, sometimes it comes out again.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned how the RTF obligation level has changed over time. The level was set at 2.5% for 2008-09 and has been increased on several occasions since. Increases to the obligation level to 2032 were made in 2018, following an extensive consultation in 2017. These increases to targets were set on the basis of providing longer-term policy stability for industry, increasing the supply of waste-derived fuels and encouraging the production of advanced low-carbon fuels. The RFTO is expected to deliver greenhouse gas emissions savings of nearly 7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year by 2032. As laid out in the Government’s energy and emissions projections 2019, this will make up around one-sixth of transport sector savings in 2032 as a result of policies implemented so far. The Government recognise that we have to do more to reduce emissions during the period to 2032. As I mentioned previously, the DfT will publish the transport decarbonisation plan very soon.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned a future consultation on the RTFO order. The final content of the consultation on further changes to the RTFO planned for next year is still being worked up. We are reviewing whether there is an opportunity to increase greenhouse gas savings from the scheme, in addition to technical and consequential changes, such as those to civil penalties. We anticipate that the consultation will also include measures in response to suggestions from industry as to how the RTFO might support, for example, recycled carbon fuels, and the rules relating to renewable hydrogen. We expect the consultation to be concluded next year.
This is a small and thankfully non-controversial amendment which has been subject to consultation. All noble Lords now understand a little more about RTFO than previously, which is all to the good because it is an important scheme which supports the renewable fuels industry. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting this statutory instrument.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
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
Monday 7 December 2020
The House met in a hybrid proceeding.
Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. I ask those asking supplementaries to keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points, and I ask for Ministers’ answers to be brief.
Trident Nuclear Programme
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether a new United Kingdom warhead is required to extend the Trident nuclear programme to 2049; and if so, by when it will be required.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con) [V]
My Lords, in order to ensure that the Government maintain an effective deterrent throughout the commission of the Dreadnought class submarines and into the future, the Secretary of State for Defence formally announced to Parliament on 25 February 2020 that the UK will replace its nuclear warhead. The replacement warhead programme will be delivered to a schedule that ensures that our deterrence posture under Operation Relentless endures uninterrupted. I am withholding specific information about the in-service date to safeguard national security.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. I am delighted that we are pressing ahead with this. It is a part of our armoury that is used every single day in deterring, so I am pleased about it. However, I have great concerns about AWE. Repeated ministerial deferrals post 2010 have resulted in decay of nuclear expertise and cost escalation within AWE, as has been noted by the NAO. Could the Minister confirm, after the failures of the MENSA, Hydrus and Pegasus projects to deliver on time and within budget, and the scathing assessment by the NAO earlier this year, that AWE as currently structured is able to deliver such a complex programme on time and at cost?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
The MoD routinely evaluates and reviews all major contracts as they near their end dates. It conducted a review of the governance model in place for the management of AWE plc, and it was following that review that the MoD decided that AWE should revert to a direct government-ownership model. We believe that will simplify and further strengthen the relationship between the MoD and AWE.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government’s defence priorities include cyber and space projects, and that they continue to recognise, as they said in the 2018 defence review, that security challenges involve non-state actors, migration, pandemics and environmental pressures? How will the Trident programme fit their own priorities or help to tackle any of those threats?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I agree with the noble Baroness’s assessment of the threats of cyber. That is why the recent defence financial settlement reflects the importance that the Government attach to both cyber and space activity. The nuclear deterrent, which was overwhelmingly mandated by Parliament in 2016, is a very important but separate part of our capability. It is there to deter, and it has proved to be an effective deterrent.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
The UK Trident nuclear programme is at the heart of our enduring and lasting relationship with the United States of America. Can the Minister undertake that any discussions on the future of that programme will articulate and take into account the enduring importance of Scotland’s contribution to the United Kingdom union, the union’s defence and the NATO alliance’s defence?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness for making a very important point. She is correct that the Trident missile system is essential to our deterrent. That is why we work closely with the United States in that respect. She is also correct to point out the significance of defence to the United Kingdom. Faslane, where the deterrent is located, is now the UK’s submarine headquarters. That is part of a general pattern of vital defence activity which is spread throughout the United Kingdom and which Scotland benefits from significantly.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, as a timely reminder, the House of Commons voted relatively recently by a majority of 355 to effectively renew Parliament’s commitment to the nuclear deterrent by authorising the Dreadnought programme. With that in mind, the announcement of some £24.1 billion of extra funding for the MoD is most welcome, but can my noble friend confirm that there has been no Treasury sleight of hand and a corresponding—or even any—reduction in the Dreadnought contingency fund?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I reassure my noble friend that the Dreadnought programme continues to run to schedule. As he will be aware, an overall budget of £31 billion, with the £10 billion contingency fund, has been allocated to it. The remaining allocation of funding is still to be determined within the MoD following the recent settlement.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the extension of the Trident programme is clear and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, pointed out, it has recently been reaffirmed by the other place. Could the noble Baroness tell us how Her Majesty’s Government view the extension of Trident in terms of their priorities for the RevCon of the NPT?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I did not quite get the last bit of that question but, perhaps instead of the noble Baroness repeating it, I will undertake to look at Hansard and give her a full reply.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I asked about priorities for the NPT; if we are extending Trident, how do we fit that with the NPT commitments?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the question. The Government take the view that, under the non-proliferation treaty, we remain compliant with international law and in compliance with Article VI of that treaty. We have a very good record of contributing to nuclear disarmament; we have managed to reduce stocks by about 50% from their Cold War peak and we are the only recognised nuclear weapons state to have reduced our deterrent capability to a single nuclear weapons system.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, the Minister confirmed to me only the other day that we have a policy of continuous at-sea deterrence, which we all very much welcome. Can she confirm that we now have sufficient submarines for that purpose and, no less importantly, sufficient crews to keep them at sea?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I reassure my noble friend that, despite all challenges, we have maintained our essential defence operations, including the operation of our continuous at-sea deterrent.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have mentioned several times in this House, in connection with Trident, the two definitions of affordable: first, can you afford it, and, secondly, can you afford to give up what you have to give up to be able to afford it? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government considered this second definition when assessing the recently announced increased resources for defence?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I confirm that the Government reviewed all relevant issues in determining that settlement. Of primary and perhaps principal importance is the defence of the country and the safety of its citizens. That is why the defence settlement reflects these priorities.
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the recent announcement of an extra £16.5 billion for defence is welcome, but the £13 billion black hole in the defence budget is still there. In terms of the funding for the Trident replacement programme, for more than a decade the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury have disagreed about funding Trident, the former arguing it should be the Treasury’s responsibility as it was in the past. Will the forthcoming integrated review address this matter once and for all?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
As I have previously indicated to the noble Lord, I cannot pre-empt what the integrated review will say. However, a practice has clearly arisen whereby the MoD is considered responsible for the provision and management of the nuclear deterrent and the Treasury reflects that with funding. That is why the financial package for Dreadnought comprises an identified budget of £31 billion and a contingency fund of £10 billion. The other elements of the deterrent will be determined in due course by the MoD in the allocation of the budget settlement.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is not here, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, nuclear deterrence may have made some sense during the Cold War of the 1950s. Today, there is no direct threat of invasion to our shores. In an inverted meaning of “defence”, we already have a military presence at 145 sites in 42 countries, a number second only to the United States. Does the Minister agree that this strutting of military might across the globe has nothing to do with defence?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
With respect to the noble Lord, I completely disagree. I feel that the measure and calibre of the effectiveness of a deterrent has been reflected over the years. I said once before that the perhaps paradoxical character of a deterrent is that its lack of use confirms its efficacy of purpose. The threats we face are becoming ever more complex and diverse and are increasing in scale. We have the deterrent to deter the most extreme threats to our national security and way of life which cannot be deterred by other means. That is why the Government are absolutely clear that we need the nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, all the supplementary questions have been asked.
Convention on Biological Diversity
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what preparations they are making for participation in the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the UK has clear ambitions for the global biodiversity targets to be agreed at CBD COP 15. Despite delays to the international timetable due to Covid, we are engaging fully in the negotiation process. We are working internationally—including through the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature and the UK-led Global Ocean Alliance, and in our role as ocean co-chair of the High Ambition Coalition—to secure support for our objectives, and will continue to leverage opportunities at all levels as we approach COP 15.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his answer and draw attention to my environmental interest as in the register. Next year’s CBD will be a crucial opportunity for the nations of the world to address the worsening biodiversity crisis. Can my noble friend assure me that Her Majesty’s Government will be as ambitious on this as they have been on climate measures, not least by setting robust targets to halt and reverse the decline in species and habitats by 2030, committing to protect what we already have and creating not just new woodlands but also wetlands and grasslands?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The UK is absolutely committed to playing a leading role in developing the highest possible ambition in relation to the post-2020 global framework for biodiversity at the CBD. Our overarching ambition is targets that, as my noble friend says, will halt and reverse global biodiversity loss and, crucially, that will be underpinned by clear accountability and implementation mechanisms. Because we see no real distinction between climate change and our environmental obligations, we are committed to ensuring as clear a link as possible between those two conventions. Climate change represents perhaps the greatest threat that we face, and global biodiversity is being lost at an appalling and unprecedented rate. We cannot tackle one without a major focus on the other, and that is reflected in all our ambitions.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, the delay that my noble friend has just mentioned has improved the chances of COP being a great success next year, added to by the result of the American election and the reshuffle of people in No. 10 Downing Street. What plans does he have to meet the American team, and can he update us on the discussions with India to get it to play a positive role?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I am afraid I am not in a position to provide details about exchanges that have been happening between the UK and the incoming presidential team. However, I can say that the incoming President has made it very clear that climate change will be a priority issue. We have also heard that there will be an increased focus by the United States on nature, which we think is crucial. We in the UK have signed up to, and indeed are running, the campaign to protect 30% of the world’s oceans and land by 2030, and we have high hopes that the US will join us in that. Another core plank of our campaign is to ensure sufficient finance for nature recovery; again, we hope to be able to work very closely with the incoming Administration in that regard.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, at the COP meeting next year UK representatives will be signing pledges and agreements on behalf of all the four nations, yet at the moment there are still problems with peat and various biodiversity issues in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. What progress has been made on reaching an accord among our four nations, which can be taken to the meeting?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
We work very closely with the devolved Administrations on all biodiversity issues. It is a devolved area but there is very little to distinguish the positions held among the four nations on international policies. I therefore have absolute belief that we can speak very much as one in wanting to raise the ambition as high as we can at both conventions next year.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, while I accept that modest progress has been made in some areas, will the Minister accept that the UK’s overall performance on biodiversity has been relatively poor? Public funding for conservation projects has fallen sharply in real terms over recent years, and the Government’s October 2020 publication of biodiversity indicators shows that the situation regarding a large proportion of the targets that the Minister mentioned remains the same or is deteriorating. How do the Government intend to address that apparent static position?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
First, I am happy—well, not happy, but willing—as a government Minister to acknowledge that in many areas there are ongoing declines in biodiversity. The numbers here in the UK are no better than those elsewhere around the world. We are in the midst of a biodiversity crisis. However, we are putting in place the mechanisms and resources needed to buck that trend, and we are absolutely committed to doing so: the first Environment Bill in 20 years; ambitious measures, including restoring and enhancing nature; a new £640 million Nature for Climate Fund to deliver woodland expansion and peatland restoration; most importantly of all, replacing the old common agricultural policy with a new system whereby payments are conditional on good environmental outcomes; and 25% of our waters being in marine protected areas. We have also announced the tripling of Darwin Plus to £10 million a year for our overseas territories.
I am very confident in saying that UK leadership on biodiversity internationally exceeds that of any other country that I am aware of. We are generally recognised to be world leaders in raising ambitions and taking meaningful action internationally to buck the biodiversity trends.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, would it not be easier for the Government to show leadership abroad if we were demonstrating it at home? How does the Minister square the statement he made just a moment ago—that we are putting the necessary resources in—with the fact that government spending on biodiversity has declined by well over a quarter since it reached its peak under the coalition Government? Can he tell us when it is going to get back to the funding levels required to effectively protect biodiversity?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The key principle of the convention on biological diversity is that biodiversity should be mainstreamed. That means that every decision of every Government should be made on the basis of whether or not it contributes to bucking the trends or takes us in the wrong direction. That is essential. On that basis, the UK Government are organising in such a way that our decisions on a wide variety of issues are increasingly reconciled with nature. The new Nature for Climate Fund will help us buck those trends and turn the tide. As I said earlier, the single biggest financial mechanism—the one that will deliver the biggest change we have seen in my lifetime—is the shift from destructive land-use subsidies to subsidies that are conditional on good environmental outcomes. No other country in the world is doing this. If we persuaded other countries to do so, I believe the world would be set on a path towards restoration and recovery of the natural world. It is really big news.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Ice Ages have left us with only 30-odd native trees of limited genetic variety, whereas a healthy temperate forest would have some 1,000 species. Does my noble friend agree that that is a fundamentally precarious position, as we have seen with recent tree diseases? Does he therefore support the Forestry Commission in its determination to increase biodiversity, in both species and provenance?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I agree with my noble friend. We will be spending a lot of public money on meeting our ambitions and targets for planting or restoring 30,000 hectares a year by 2025. It is essential that we use public money in a way that delivers the maximum possible solution. We do not want to see trees as just carbon-absorbing sticks; they have a crucial role to play in biodiversity, public enjoyment, flood prevention and enabling land to hold water better throughout the year. So yes, we want to deliver the greatest possible biodiversity and the best possible solution.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, given that the UK leadership team for COP 26 is an all-male affair, can the Minister assure us that the UK leadership team—not just the support staff—at the conference of biodiversity will properly represent the people of this country and will be gender balanced?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I do not have the figures in front of me, but I would be willing to bet that the answer to the noble Baroness’s question is that simply on the basis of choosing the right people for the job, the gender balance as we prepare for CBD is as it should be and is balanced. I also take issue with her comments about COP 26. I cannot tell her that the team is entirely selected on the basis of the 50-50 gender balance that we aspire to, but the balance is a great deal more impressive than she may have read in the newspapers. I would be happy to provide those figures in writing in due course.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, I regret that the time allowed for this question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Colombia
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blower
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of their support for (1) human rights, and (2) the peace process, in Colombia.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness and look to working with her on this important agenda. Colombia is an FCDO human rights priority country and we raise human rights with the Colombian Government’s representatives whenever possible. Indeed, I discussed the issue at length with Ministers, relevant institutions and civil society during my virtual visit to Colombia on 13 October. We are also proud to lead on Colombia’s peace process at the UN Security Council and have contributed £60 million in support of peace, stability and security since 2015.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister very much for his Answer, and refer to my interest as recorded in the register. The peace process is clearly vital. A recent newspaper report in Colombia, revealing details of an undercover operation by the Colombian Attorney-General’s office, apparently designed to entrap FARC peace negotiators and undermine the peace process, is alarming. The Attorney-General’s office, led by Néstor Humberto Martinez, reportedly provided five kilos of cocaine for the operation, but this and other relevant information was withheld from the courts. Was the British Ambassador—or other British authorities—made aware of those details at the time of the arrest of the FARC peace negotiator in 2018? What is the Government’s assessment of these revelations?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As the noble Baroness will appreciate, I am not going to comment specifically on press reports. In terms of the specifics of the case, she raises important challenges that Colombia continues to face. The issue of narcotics and drugs is a major one. Colombia remains one of the largest producers of cocaine in the world—among others. The violence that we currently see affects local communities and former FARC combatants, led by the issues we have seen around drugs. We remain committed to peace accords, which the current President and his team have assured us of. On the specific matter of the case the noble Baroness raises, if there is more information to share, I will write to her.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I was privileged to meet brave journalists when I visited Colombia—people such as Jineth Bedoya. Can my noble friend say what support the Government now give to the Colombian Foundation for Press Freedom and how effective they assess that to be in the face of the continuous threats of rape, kidnap and death that journalists face?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I first pay tribute to my noble friend for her leadership, during her tenure as Minister of State at what was the FCO, on a broad range of human rights and for standing up for human rights defenders. Indeed, in my virtual visit, my first meeting was with journalists, to ascertain and understand more effectively the challenges they have. We are aware of allegations that members of the Colombian military have been illegally gathering surveillance on activists, including journalists and opposition politicians. We have raised this directly with the Colombian authorities. We are lending technical support and will be raising the issue of journalist freedom and press freedom across the piece in our leadership role on the coalition for media freedom.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, the UK has spoken up in the Security Council about the special jurisdiction for peace, but can the Minister say what public support has been given by the UK embassy in Bogotá to this war crimes tribunal, in light of attempts by President Duque to undermine its work?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s work in this area. The United Kingdom has provided, and continues to provide, support to help Colombia tackle, in particular, the legacy of sexual violence from its long conflict. The UK continues to support survivors and has now helped document 1,200 new cases that are now before the transitional justice system. Let me assure the noble Baroness, that in my visit to Colombia I made it absolutely clear that, while this is an independent judicial body, it should not be interfered with. We continue to stand up for the rights of all survivors of sexual violence during the period of conflict.
Lord Monks (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-president of Justice for Colombia. The transitional justice court, which was created in Colombia by the peace agreement, has been hailed by the International Criminal Court as a benchmark for the world. Is our Government aware that the Colombian Government are undermining the court’s mandate? Of course, this is in a country where there is still widespread violence. Does the Minister agree that ending the court’s ability to function fairly rather contradicts HMG’s funding to support the peace process? What steps can the UK take to protect the court’s autonomy?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that during my visit, and indeed in all engagements through our ambassador, we raise the importance of the very matters that he refers to. In terms of our commitment to the peace process, I think the UK can be proud of the fact that it has contributed to the importance of an inclusive peace process, and we will continue to do so.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
Global Witness has found that Colombia is the world’s most dangerous country for environmental activists, with more 60 murders in 2019. How are we engaging to help protect these activists, and combating climate change in Colombia generally?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I said in my opening Answer, Colombia remains a human rights priority country. I agree with the noble Baroness that the statistics are quite shocking. In the latest figures the UN has released, at least 45 human rights defenders have been killed this year alone. That said, we are working very closely with Colombia on the importance of protecting the environment and tackling climate change. Our climate programme in Colombia is designed with a conflict-sensitive approach. Much of its aims are to protect Colombia’s biodiversity, but also to protect those who are leading important roles within country.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, Colombia’s supreme court has declared that state security forces systematically violate citizens’ democratic right to peaceful protest, and the Colombian army has this year been implicated in killings in rural areas. Given that the UK is providing funding to train Colombian police, are steps being taken to ensure that human rights concerns about the Colombian security forces are properly addressed?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My short answer to the noble Lord is that yes, they are, but the concerns he has raised are real and he is quite right to bring them to the Floor of the House. I can assure him that in all the exchanges we have, including our support, be that financial or technical, the issue of human rights obligations among those who are trained and are there to protect people is very much at the forefront of our discussions.
Baroness Hooper (Con) [V]
My Lords, in aiming to help to strengthen and reinforce democratic principles and the rule of law in Colombia, can my noble friend say whether the British Council is playing a significant role? Is that part of the Government’s assessment process which he has already outlined?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we have an extensive programme, but on the specific and ongoing engagement of the British Council, I will write to my noble friend.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, keeping Colombia at centre stage and supported is much needed after long agony. The Minister has referred to the question of drugs. Could the Government assist by helping to provide essential access to markets for Colombian farmers as a substitution for the growing of coca and, if so, how might this be achieved? This would be in addition to encouraging that all FARC combatants stay engaged with the peace process and that the ELN comes to the table, along with supporting measures to ensure that human rights are respected, with the possible deployment of UK police, with their professionalism, to offer training and support to the Colombian authorities.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Viscount has made some very practical suggestions that I will certainly take forward. On the general point of how we can shift those who are reliant on the drugs trade within Colombia to alternative means, that is again a very practical suggestion and I can assure him that through our work on the ground, in particular through the embassy, we are working on identifying appropriate measures that can be taken to ensure that we can act responsibly and move people away from narcotics and other drugs.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, as the Minister said earlier, we have an important role as a member of the UN Security Council. Will he go back to the council and ask for a new initiative via the United Nations to approach President Duque Márquez to persuade him to get the peace process moving again? If we could do that, as a result of this important Question, the United Kingdom would be making a very significant move in the right direction.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I shall certainly be happy to take that back to the UN Security Council.
Lord Alderdice (LD) [V]
My Lords, do Her Majesty’s Government accept the description of the head of the UN Mission in Colombia, Carlos Ruiz Massieu, of an
“epidemic of violence against social leaders, human rights defenders and former combatants”?
If so, what are they doing to address the situation, especially as regards the Colombian security forces?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to this issue and I agree with the noble Lord that the situation for human rights defenders is dire. We remain deeply concerned about the continuing presence of illegal armed groups in Colombia and their violence and intimidation, particularly towards local people, let alone human rights defenders. However, as I have already said, I can assure the noble Lord that all our support is inclusive, particularly as we continue to press the existing Government and the president for a renewal and real vigour behind the peace talks. In all their actions, the important work of human rights groups and human rights defenders, and more generally the citizens of Colombia, should be totally and fully protected.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We come to the fourth Oral Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bird.
Covid-19: Social Mobility
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, social mobility is at the core of the department’s policies. The Government remain dedicated to ensuring that every child and young person will gain the opportunity to succeed and we are committed to providing them with the necessary skills and knowledge. That is why the Government have given unprecedented support, including the £1 billion catch-up fund, to help to tackle the attainment gap, along with an investment of over £195 million on technology to support remote education and access to online social care.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, I am glad to hear that we are trying to address the question of what is being called the potential lost generation, who may not get the chance of social mobility through education and work that others have had. But there is another lost generation and I would like the department to look at the possibility of addressing the 35% of children who we are already fail at school. Those are not my figures but those of the noble Baroness’s department. We fail those who leave school having had nothing that you could call an education. They fill our prisons and our A&E departments and join our long-term unemployed and working poor, and they die younger because they do not have any social mobility. May I suggest that this is the time for building back better so that we can address this lost generation that is already with us?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that we want to make sure to avoid this potential loss for young people, and education is of course a major protective factor in their lives. However, more disadvantaged students are in better schools than they were in 2010, with 86% of our schools being “good” or “outstanding”. During the pandemic, many school leaders have gone above and beyond the call of duty to ensure that disadvantaged students can catch up. Just one of the initiatives is that as of April, any adult who does not have a level 3 qualification can go to an FE college or other college or institution and get their first qualification at that level.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will have seen today the IPPR report on the state of the north, which again shows shocking levels of child poverty. It is obvious that Covid has pushed these children even further down the ladder. Levelling up will work only if the toxic link between child poverty and school failure is broken. Why is that long-term strategy not being prioritised in the spending review? When can we expect a long-term plan for children’s learning and welfare which is equal to the urgency and gravity of the situation?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that specific emergency help has been provided to ensure that children who needed a meal when their schools were closed were given support and that the early years sector in particular was given funding, as were schools, irrespective of the young people who were attending them. Vulnerable children with an EHC plan or those who were in need were offered a school place even during the lockdown. Enabling more disadvantaged students to do well is core to the Government’s strategy.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the pandemic has exacerbated the lack of opportunities and inequalities for so many. We continue to witness the return on capital exceeding economic growth. Are the Government seriously considering implementing higher taxation on wealth and inheritance to help improve opportunities for those who are limited in them?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, social mobility, as the noble Lord has rightly outlined, is more than just for the Department for Education. It also impacts on the Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Unfortunately, I am not able to answer the noble Lord’s specific question, but I will write to him once I have a response from Her Majesty’s Treasury.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, as highlighted in a recent report by the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre of NESTA, only 16% of people who work in the creative industries are from working-class social origins. Covid has had a devastating impact on the opportunities of people from that background and from black and minority-ethnic backgrounds. Will my noble friend look at the recommendations of the policy and evidence centre—including, for example, reforming the Kickstart programme—and work with it, as we come out of the pandemic, to increase life chances?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure he is aware that, through the Culture Recovery Fund, we have given £1.57 billion to support that sector. I hope he is aware of the educational aspects of cultural diversity that sit within the Department for Education, such as the music and dance scheme. I have yet to read of a scheme like that that is not pivoted towards disadvantaged children and children who have free school meals, or towards improving the diversity of those who access culture.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, we all know that social mobility relies not just on education but on work opportunities beyond education. What work will the Government undertake to bring together companies that have profited substantially during the pandemic—those that distribute to households, supermarkets, and pharmaceutical and alcohol companies—to make up the deficit of hundreds of thousands of internships and apprenticeships that have been cancelled by companies that have lost profit and business during the pandemic? Will the Government commit to the #10000BlackInterns programme launched by two City businessmen, three weeks ago?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it is encouraging to see, even without being asked by the Government, the flurry of businesses returning their business rates relief. We all have to tackle this pandemic together and the effect on different employers has been disparate. I can assure the noble Lord that, on apprenticeships, we have offered employers £2,000 for anybody under the age of 25 they take on, and £1,500 for anybody over the age of 25. We are doing what we can to support them, as well as the £2 billion Kickstart scheme, which offers six-month jobs for those between 16 and 24 on universal credit to give them an entry into the workplace.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, women in low-paid insecure work have borne the triple threat of job losses, falling income and the explosion of unpaid care needs during the Covid pandemic. What work is being done by the Government now to address the structural barriers that women—working-class women in particular—face, including to combat low pay and secure further gains on shared childcare and caring responsibilities more generally?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I also have the privilege of being the Minister for Women, and we are looking at the entitlement to flexible working. I am also pleased that we are focused on ensuring that the economic recovery is for women as well. We have been encouraged by how the digital skills boot camps have not only met targets for women’s participation but exceeded them. I am pleased to say that, in April 2021, the national living wage will be going up 2.2% to £8.91, so we are looking to help women in particular gain the advantages of the economy recovering.
Lord Addington (LD)
Would the Minister give a thought to people who have failed in the examinations system, who will increasingly become unemployed and present themselves for benefits? Could some assessment be made of whether they have commonly occurring educational problems such as dyslexia and dyspraxia, so that they can have a form of assessment and thus start to implement at least basic coping strategies, if not educational programmes?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as part of our response to the pandemic, the Government are investing £900 million in additional work coaches. We have also made £100 million available for high-value courses for 18 and 19 year-olds who might leave college when there are no employment opportunities. That is in addition to the digital skills boot camps and the online skills portal that we have set up, so we are providing opportunities and supporting more work coaches. We have invested more in the careers service, as well, to help with the issue that the noble Lord outlines.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester [V]
My Lords, I speak today on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, who has been delayed travelling to London. Like her, I am very aware of the relationship between child poverty and a lack of social mobility, but she has a special interest as independent chair of the North of Tyne Inclusive Economy Board. Child poverty is central to the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Since 35% of children in the north-east of England live in relative poverty, would the Minister tell us if Her Majesty’s Government will work with the Social Mobility Commission to develop a national child poverty strategy in response to the Covid-19 pandemic?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Social Mobility Commission is an arm’s-length body of the department. We monitor its reports carefully and take its recommendations into account. I will write to the right reverend Prelate on this specific request.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, as far as social mobility policies are concerned, how much of the splendid proposed “biggest funding boost” for schools will be spent on teaching children how to buy and cook the right food, economically, to reduce the obesity epidemic and narrow the gap between rich and poor?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, we have a childhood obesity strategy. Part of the national curriculum is also about food and nutrition. That is compulsory in maintained schools, but can form part of education in academies. There is also now a food and nutrition GCSE, so this is provided for within the school system.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Conduct Committee Report
14:09 - Division conducted remotely on Lord Mance’s Motion - Ayes: 408 / Noes: 24 - Motion agreed.
Lord Mance
That the Report from the Select Committee The conduct of Lord Maginnis of Drumglass be agreed to. (8th Report, HL Paper 185).
Lord Mance (CB) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to Standing Order 68A, which states that Motions on the report resulting from an investigation under the Code of Conduct must be decided without debate because reports are highly sensitive and often involve vulnerable people. The House has established a system of decision-making and appeals on which, I hope noble Lords agree, it can rely. Therefore, the House’s procedures do not permit me to take questions today. However, a Member has given notice of his intention to divide the House on this report. I have received an email from that Member suggesting that, notwithstanding Standing Order 68A, Members should have a chance between publication and decision by the House to make representations to the committee, which would then meet and decide whether to confirm its initial report. However, that would represent a procedure quite different from what the House has instituted. The House has entrusted disciplinary matters in the first instance to the independent Commissioner for Standards and, on an appeal from her or in a case such as this, where she feels a sanction that is outside her powers is required, to the Conduct Committee.
I remind your Lordships that the Conduct Committee now consists of five Peers and four independent lay members. The latter bring to the committee a valuable range of experience, including in standards and disciplinary fields such as victim support, justice, professional legal and police discipline. All nine members of the committee sat on the present matter and I assure the House that it received very anxious and careful consideration. The upshot is that the present report upholds the Commissioner’s findings that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, breached the Code of Conduct by bullying a parliamentary security officer and harassing three Members of Parliament on the basis of sexual orientation, with homophobic comments on a number of different occasions spread over some two months. The first, in early January this year, involved offensive and bullying behaviour toward the security guard and then toward a Member of Parliament who happened to by passing by and intervened. This was compounded by further insults toward the security guard and homophobic comments, which were made later to the Huffington Post.
The other two incidents took place a month apart, in early February and early March. The first consisted of further homophobic comments about the chair of an APPG in an email sent by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, after a dinner at which the noble Lord had evidently wanted to ask a question but was not called. These remarks were joined gratuitously with further comments of a homophobic nature about the MP involved in the first instance. The incident in March involved further homophobic comments made at the same APPG—this time, at a breakfast event and to a previously uninvolved MP—regarding the chair of the APPG and the MP involved in the earlier instance. The entire tone of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, was described as
“unapologetically homophobic, aggressive and disrespectful”—
a description that he said sounded fairly accurate when asked about it by the Commissioner.
The Conduct Committee underlines in its report that
“the issue of concern was not his beliefs but his behaviour. Lord Maginnis is entitled to hold the beliefs he does and to express them freely in Parliament”—
or outside it—
“but in doing so he must treat others with courtesy and respect”
and must not engage in what, here, were repeated incidents of bullying and/or harassing misconduct.
The report recommends
“that Lord Maginnis of Drumglass be suspended from the service of the House for a period of at least 18 months and until he has successfully completed a designated course of bespoke behaviour change training and coaching. At the end of this period the Conduct Committee will consider whether it is appropriate to end the suspension”
and will take into account whether he shows that he has engaged with the training and has gained insight into why his behaviour was inappropriate.
The House may ask why the Conduct Committee increased the minimum recommended period of suspension from the nine months recommended by the commissioner to 18 months. As I said, we gave very careful consideration to the sanction. As we explained in our report at paragraph 21(a), we identified on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, both an absence of any remorse and a complete lack of insight into the impact of his behaviour on, in particular, the victims of such behaviour. As the report states, he
“portrayed himself as a victim of a conspiracy by people who disapproved of his views, and insisted that all his conduct had been provoked. He also continued to refer to the complainants in a disobliging and sometimes offensive manner”
and said that he was not in fact minded to accept either any training course or suspension.
As I hope your Lordships will all agree, it is of paramount importance that all members of the parliamentary community—of all backgrounds, sexual orientation and beliefs, and of any status—should feel safe and respected when they come here to work. Bullying and harassment such as that demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, must be subject to significant sanction to safeguard all members of the parliamentary community. Evidence is then required that the perpetrator understands why their behaviour was wrong and how it must change before they can be allowed back into Parliament. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, said, under Standing Order 68A, agreed earlier this year, no debate is permitted on this Motion. I must therefore now put the Question that this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say “Content”; to the contrary, “Not-Content”. Members have also given notice by email that they wish to see a Division on this Motion. I will therefore instruct the clerk to start a remote Division.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That, in accordance with Standing Order 12, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass be suspended from the service of the House for a period of at least 18 months and until the Conduct Committee confirms that he has satisfactorily completed the other requirements of the sanction; and that, in accordance with section 1 of the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, in the opinion of this House, the conduct giving rise to this resolution occurred after the coming into force of that Act.
Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14, 20, 22 October and 2 November be approved.
Relevant documents: 32nd, 33rd and 34th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 December.
Conflict Minerals (Compliance) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 2 December.
Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved.
Relevant document: 32nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 2 December.
Trade Bill
Monday 7th December 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Trade Bill 2019-21 View all Trade Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 128-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (2 Dec 2020)
17:02 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 6 - Ayes: 308 / Noes: 261 - Amendment 6 agreed.
20:52 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 8 - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 221 - Amendment 8 agreed.
23:01 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 9 - Ayes: 287 / Noes: 161 - Amendment 9 agreed.
23:58 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 11 - Ayes: 232 / Noes: 143 - Amendment 11 agreed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to 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 in 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 the 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.
Clause 2: Implementation of international trade agreements
Amendment 1
Lord Berkeley
“(c) an international treaty or private law convention (including any amendment or protocol thereto) that facilitates trade or the financing thereof.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the amendments in the name of Lord Berkeley to page 2, line 23 and page 2, line 33, will enable the ratification of international treaties which have the UK as a signatory and enable trade or the financing thereof.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1 I shall also speak to Amendments 4 and 5. The purpose of these amendments is to provide a legal basis for the Government to bring forward a statutory instrument to ratify the Luxembourg Rail Protocol. Noble Lords will probably remember that I spoke about and explained the purpose of this protocol in Committee. Very briefly, I remind the House that the Luxembourg Rail Protocol is a protocol to the Cape Town convention to reduce the risk for creditors, which in turn will reduce the cost of financing for new and current rolling stock.
An Oxera study published this week showed, I think, a saving to the rail sector of about £130 million per year. However, it is particularly important for the British rolling stock manufacturing community looking to develop new markets outside the UK, which I believe is one of the purposes of the Trade Bill. This rail protocol follows an older protocol on aircraft leasing and financing, which I think most people believe has been very successful in financing aircraft.
In Committee, the Minister replied that the Government support the ratification of the protocol. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, on this. Since they felt it was more appropriate to get the necessary legal basis through the private international law Bill, I agreed that I would not move my amendment. We had discussions with Ministers on the private international law Bill. I am once again grateful to Alex Chalk MP, the Justice Minister, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, for their help in drafting the new amendment to the PIL Bill when it came back to your Lordships’ House for ping-pong. I am grateful to the Ministers for their discussion.
During the debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, agreed how important the rail protocol is to the industry but suggested that the application of the protocol was narrower than I might have thought, saying:
“The Government consider this to be an important issue and are thinking about how best to implement the protocol in the United Kingdom. As we discussed last week, we consider that the power in this Bill”—
that is, the PIL Bill—
“is too narrow to fully implement the protocol, although the provisions in applicable law would be within its scope.”—[Official Report, 19/11/20; col. 1574.]
That is very good but all it did was allow half the protocol to be implemented, which noble Lords will probably agree is not a good situation.
The Government appear to support the ratification of this protocol and to consider it important for the rail industry. However, I feel that I have been sent round the houses, from the Trade Bill to the PIL Bill, and now the Ministers have discovered that it will allow only half the protocol to be ratified. I was grateful for further discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, by email recently, in which he suggested that
“the Trade Bill should not be expanded beyond essential readiness for trading as an independent country outside the EU.”
I would argue that this protocol would allow the rail sector to do just that. I think it would be very useful if it could be included.
The Minister again suggests that the Trade Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for matters relating to finance and transport, which should be considered elsewhere. If it were a matter of motor manufacture or printing-press manufacture, surely those would be trade issues as well. For motor manufacture, is the Department of Transport involved or is it a trade matter? That question must be resolved. Government lawyers from probably three different departments are dancing around a pinhead. This merry-go-round must stop because it is wasting a lot of government time, as well as Parliament’s.
I have been sent around the houses: transport, trade and justice, and now we are back in trade. I am very pleased to be back in trade this afternoon. Ministers say that they support the protocol to help achieve better trade in railway equipment, so in order to stop this merry-go-round, will the Minister urgently arrange a meeting with myself, the Department of Transport, the Department for International Trade and the Ministry of Justice if necessary? Will he then bring forward an amendment at Third Reading, which I assume and hope would be agreed across government, to enable the Luxembourg Rail Protocol to be ratified? Surely the Government can get their lawyers to agree.
If the Minister could commit to arranging such a meeting with me to resolve these issues and bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading, I would be very content. If not—and I hope it does not go that way—I am minded to seek the opinion of the House, if only to demonstrate the strength of internecine warfare in this Government on an issue that they all support but cannot work out how to deal with. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise primarily to support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, as I did in Committee, in his efforts to get the Luxembourg Rail Protocol to the Cape Town Convention implemented in the UK. As we have heard, some steps have been taken, thanks to the good offices of the Minister and of Alex Chalk in the other place, but sadly they have not quite done the trick. I refer to my business interests in the register, including the UK-ASEAN Business Council, and a new role as chair of Crown Agents, which curiously, I find, did a great deal of work on rail and rolling stock during its long history.
I see two advantages to the protocol that was signed by the UK as long ago as 26 February 2016—obviously a very different world then. First, it will reduce the risk to creditors, which in turn will reduce the cost of financing new and current rolling stock—everything from engines to equipment and parts, data and manuals. Whether these are for a new line that is being built or for existing lines, by lowering creditor risk the protocol will assist in lowering the cost of new, more efficient, locomotives and wagons for freight and passenger transport. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just said, an Oxera study to be published this week suggests a saving to the rail sector of about £130 million a year. This is quite significant when rail funding is under pressure, and particularly desirable as part of a move to net zero as we seek to combat climate change.
Secondly, it would help British rolling stock manufacturers seeking to develop new markets outside of the UK. There is an urgent need, for example in Africa, for more railway equipment both for urban transport—light rail, metro and trams—and for intercity rolling stock. The markets are there for British exporters, but the Governments and their operating agencies do not have the resources. I am talking about countries such as Namibia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Zambia and South Africa. The lack of resources has been a major constraint, and in a number of cases, operators have bought Chinese rolling stock instead, even when it is less suitable, because it comes with Chinese state-backed financing.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in utter frustration. The Luxembourg Rail Protocol was adopted at a diplomatic conference in 2007 and is due to come into force in 2021 because enough countries will have ratified it by then to create that effect. It creates a worldwide legal framework to support private-sector investment in railways and rolling stock, as the noble Baroness said, by establishing a new international registry for security interests, making it far more difficult for valuable rail equipment to be lost or stolen. These concerns have limited private investment in railway schemes across the globe, especially in the developing world.
Of course investment in rail matters, because it supports economic development and the battle against climate change. As others have suggested, the UK is a beneficiary both as a buyer of rolling stock—bringing down the price is therefore an advantage—and as a manufacturer, which will be able to market itself more effectively across the globe.
The UK is a signatory to the protocol, but it just cannot seem to get around to ratifying it. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has introduced these amendments to try to achieve that ratification. I am very keen that ratification should happen, but I am concerned that the noble Lord is being forced by the Government to choose a route that adds even more unaccountable powers to the Government’s rapidly increasing range of widening and unchecked powers in this Bill and in others. I will be interested to hear the Minister address this issue because I hope that he will explain that I am wrong, that this could be construed as a narrow power simply to allow us to get the Luxembourg Rail Protocol done. I would like to be wrong, but I fear that I am not. We have already been through one shambles—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, did not use this phrase, but I will—with the Private International Law Bill, which was supposed to enable ratification of this protocol but turned out to be inadequate.
Let me address the narrow purpose of the Trade Bill. The Long Title of the Bill makes it perfectly legitimate to include language that would enable the Luxembourg Rail Protocol to be ratified. Everyone who has spoken on this subject so far has been a Minister at some point or other. Many of us have seen Bills with a slightly broader purpose dealing with an urgent gap in legislation, so it is not unusual and it does not undermine the character of the Trade Bill at large.
So I really would urge the Government to come back at Third Reading with a clause that allows them to ratify a protocol that they, the Opposition, the industry and those who seek to buy rolling stock across the world want to see ratified. This is an outstanding opportunity; I very much hope that the Government seize it.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on the substance of this amendment, I have very little to add to the excellent speeches that we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, with additional support from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, we have watched his progress from Bill to Bill, from department to department and from Minister to Minister almost with affection as he wends his way around, receiving much the same answer from everybody: they all agree that this is a terrifically important thing to do, but, of course, supporting it is not their job or that of their Bill or department. I do not think that he should divide the House on this issue because it is not something that we can progress by amendment or Division but, at the very least, when the Minister comes to respond, he should commit to come back to my noble friend with a clear plan of what he needs do to get this protocol agreed. Clearly there is willingness and there are lawyers and opportunities; we just need a plan.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I turn to Amendments 1, 4 and 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I acknowledge without reservation how much this topic means to him; no one could have worked more assiduously than he has on it.
The amendments before us would expand the scope of the Clause 2 power, creating a power to make regulations implementing private international law conventions as well as agreements that facilitate trade or trade financing. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his engagement on this matter with DIT, the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Justice in relation to the private international law Bill.
In Committee, the noble Lord outlined that this amendment would allow the UK to implement the provisions of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol; for those who were not present, this protocol relates to the financing of railway rolling stock. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that the Government recognise the competitive advantages of ratifying the Luxembourg Rail Protocol. We have identified the benefits that this could bring to both the UK rail sector and UK financial services. Thus the Government support the ratification of this protocol; the challenge has always been finding an appropriate parliamentary time and a suitable vehicle to implement it, given the very significant pressures on parliamentary time—as your Lordships will be all too aware.
Turning to the appropriateness of this amendment, as we argued in Committee, we believe that the scope of the Trade Bill
“should not expand beyond essential readiness”—[Official Report, 29/9/20; col. GC 40.]
for trading as an independent country outside the European Union. I am afraid that the Trade Bill is not a suitable vehicle to provide powers for the implementation of this agreement. As previously explained, the powers granted by this Bill are limited but vital for the delivery of the UK’s independent trade policy.
In Committee, we argued that technical matters relating to finance and transport should be considered outside the Trade Bill in a way that is suitable to matters related explicitly to finance and transport. I was pleased to see Peers support amendments to the private international law Bill that will help to support the implementation of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol, but it is obviously disappointing that this is not a final solution. I assure your Lordships that the Department for Transport will continue to explore all available options and vehicles to implement the protocol fully.
As I have made clear, the Government fully support the implementation of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol. However, I repeat: we do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate place to achieve this. We will therefore oppose this amendment on this occasion, but I would be happy to work with colleagues across government and facilitate further conversations between the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the Department for Transport to discuss our policy in this sector at greater length and see whether a plan can be put together.
Again, to be clear, we do not believe that this is the appropriate legislation for this amendment and we will not bring forward an amendment to the Trade Bill on this topic at Third Reading. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lord Stevenson for their support. I am grateful to the Minister for his response, courtesy and offer of further support.
We have not moved very far from where we were in Committee and the Minister did not really answer the question about why it is inappropriate for a Trade Bill that is designed to encourage trading when we become a completely independent country at the end of the year to include a text that allows a trade in railway equipment to be ratified. As I said in my earlier remarks, if this had been the motor or printing trades, I am sure that the Department for International Trade would have been only too keen to do it.
The Minister is pushing me in the direction of the Department for Transport. The most useful way of achieving this would be to have an early meeting with Ministers there and the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone—I hope that he would be happy to join us—to see what we can do. It would be good, and it is important, to have this done before the end of the year for the same reason that so much other legislation is needed. I am doubtful about whether the Department for Transport will have a slot in its parliamentary programme, but we will have to see.
As my noble friend Lord Stevenson said, there is no point in dividing the House on this because it will not help to achieve the objective that I think we all want; on that basis, I look forward to further meetings but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 2
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would limit the application of delegated powers to the “roll-over” of existing agreements.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to speak on Report and, in particular, to speak to and move Amendment 2 and speak to Amendment 3. I would like to think that the amendments are fairly self-explanatory but, effectively, they both seek to
“limit the application of delegated powers to the ‘roll-over’ of existing agreements”—
exactly as is set out in and is the intention of the Explanatory Notes. The reason for this is that the clause, as currently drafted, grants powers to implement agreements between the UK and our EU partner countries.
The Law Society of Scotland—to which I am grateful for briefing me and helping me to draft this amendment—has brought to my attention and alerted me about its concerns about the delegation of powers to implement a free trade or international agreement that relates mainly to trade. It believes, in relation to reassurances that have been given that these powers could be used only for continuity measures, that the Bill itself does not limit the use of these regulation-making powers to implementing continuity Bills.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Baroness. I have a great deal of sympathy with the intention behind these amendments, which also relate to the fact that, from January onwards, the Bill will have to operate for agreements it was never intended to implement. The House does not need reminding that it was the Government’s categorical position in the past that there was no doubt that all continuity agreements would be signed by March 2019, then summer 2019, then the end of 2019—it goes on. The reality is that there are currently 13 countries outside the EU with which we will be trading on terms less favourable than we did before, because those agreements have not been rolled over. The status of those agreements, with regard to this Bill, is now in a degree of limbo. For example, we know that our agreement with Canada is a temporary continuity agreement because we expect the negotiations to roll on regarding an almost immediate successor agreement. It is justifiable for the Government to clarify what status that has with regard to these powers.
Some of the agreements that we did reach have run out of time for full ratification, so they will have to be provisionally applied. That means that the Bill will be used for implementing agreements as well as adjusting ones that are made and ratified, ones that have been made but not yet ratified, and ones to be made and to be ratified. This is a very broad scope for these delegated regulatory powers. In Committee, the Government said that these delegated powers had a purpose. The Minister was quite clear that they are simply for technical adjustments to things, such as the names of quangos or certain terminology, that you would not wish to reopen a treaty for. That has a degree of sense; they should be limited. However, we are in a different position now, even from where we were at the beginning of Committee, with the full knowledge that there will be very many agreements that have not been successfully rolled over and will have to be implemented, some of which will be initiating new agreements at the same time.
I am, therefore, glad that the noble Baroness has again asked the Government to be clear what the intended purpose of these powers is. We want to avoid them being used to implement agreements. We also want to completely avoid them being used for implementing part of a border operating model that we know the Government are not ready for. We want the reassurance that any implementation of a response to questions for our export procedures which are still outstanding will not be used under the Bill. It would reassure the House if the Minister gave the assurance that the intended purpose of these delegated powers remains technical and limited.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for raising this issue and, through her, to the Law Society of Scotland for reminding noble Lords of some of the detailed points which we often ignore when we put down amendments, particularly at this stage of a Bill’s progress. As the noble Baroness said, and as was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, some rather unforeseen issues are now arising, particularly in relation to the rollover agreements which were originally intended to be done and completed by 31 December but which, for a variety of reasons, are not going to be. Some of them are being done under emergency power provisions; some will not be done at all. We need to have on the record from the Minister where exactly these will fit in the structure of this Bill. I look forward to his response.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I turn to Amendments 2 and 3, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which seek to restrict the Clause 2 power so that it can only be used to implement agreements which are “wholly or substantially similar” to previous EU agreements. I can assure noble Lords that all the continuity agreements that we have signed to date have stayed true to our mandate of replicating the predecessor EU agreements, and that will not change for those that we are yet to conclude.
As noble Lords know, we have voluntarily published parliamentary reports for your Lordships’ reference alongside every continuity agreement, which outline any differences required to make the agreements operable in a UK context. As those reports show, none of our continuity agreements have diverged significantly from previous EU agreements. None of the debates in which these agreements have been discussed has resulted in a negative resolution. During the passage of this Bill, we have heard suggestions that the Government are delivering agreements which go above and beyond continuity, and that a more extensive scrutiny process is therefore required for them. The evidence is clear that this is not the case. We are seeking only technical changes to make agreements function in a UK-specific context, meaning that the current scrutiny measures are fit for purpose. I know that noble Lords will point to the recent UK-Japan CEPA. It is correct that that agreement goes further than the EU-Japan EPA in areas including digital trade. However, as your Lordships are aware, as the Government knew that this agreement would go beyond continuity, we provided enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of it.
Setting the UK-Japan CEPA to one side, your Lordships will appreciate that technical changes are required in some areas to allow agreements to work in a UK bilateral context. In these circumstances, the Clause 2 power could be used to make technical changes to UK domestic law to ensure the obligations under the agreement are met. The power in Clause 2 is therefore essential to allow us to implement in domestic law the obligations that arise from continuity agreements. The substantially similar wording is unfortunately ambiguous and could lead to uncertainty as to whether a trade agreement could be implemented via the Clause 2 power. The effect of this could be a possible disruption to concluding and implementing continuity trade agreements, potentially resulting in a gap in preferential trading relationships after the end of the transition period.
To paraphrase what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh, said, they asked: “Why not put this on the face of the Bill, and if the power is not needed to transition trade continuity agreements, why do we need it at all?” As stated in the impact assessment and Explanatory Notes, the Trade Bill is not needed to transition trade continuity agreements themselves. However, the power will provide the implementing powers necessary to fully implement trade continuity agreements over time and in all circumstances. The Clause 2 power is intended to be used only to ensure that a limited number of obligations in these trade continuity agreements, particularly in relation to procurement and mutual recognition, are fully implemented in domestic law via secondary legislation.
I hope that with those explanations, my noble friend Lady McIntosh is reassured that our use of this power will be limited to continuity agreements that faithfully replicate predecessor EU agreements. As a result, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie. With the reassurance he has given me that any agreement will be a continuity agreement and will “faithfully replicate” its predecessor, and with the further reassurance—which I would like to write into the record if I have understood it correctly—that if any future continuity agreement, such as the Japan CEPA agreement, will go further, there will be “enhanced parliamentary scrutiny”, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 6. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may only speak once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 6
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“Parliamentary approval of trade agreements
(1) Nothing in this section restricts the power conferred by Her Majesty’s prerogative to commence, conduct negotiations towards and then conclude a trade agreement.(2) If a decision has been made by the Secretary of State to commence negotiations towards a free trade agreement, a statement must be made to both Houses of Parliament.(3) Negotiations for that trade agreement may not proceed until the Secretary of State has laid draft negotiating objectives in respect of that agreement before Parliament, and a motion endorsing draft negotiating objectives has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(4) Prior to the draft negotiating objectives being laid, the Secretary of State must—(a) consult each devolved authority on the content of the draft negotiating objectives, and(b) produce a sustainability impact assessment including, but not limited to, an assessment of the impact of the proposed negotiating objectives on human, animal or plant life or health, animal welfare, environmental protection, human rights and equalities, and employment and labour.(5) A sustainability impact assessment under subsection (4)(b) must include—(a) a statement on how the proposed trade agreement will advance the meeting of the Sustainable Development Goals; and(b) a plan to maintain UK levels of statutory protection on the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, animal welfare, environmental protection, human rights and equalities, and employment and labour.(6) The Secretary of State must inform both Houses of Parliament, and any Select Committee charged by the relevant House with scrutinising trade negotiations in a manner and to an extent agreed with the Committee, of developments in the negotiations, but this does not affect the power of the Secretary of State to conduct negotiations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), “developments” means—(a) a pause in negotiations;(b) an ending of negotiations;(c) the conclusion of a negotiated round of discussions;(d) the decision to agree in principle an agreement; or(e) other necessary aspects of the negotiations of which the Secretary of State considers it necessary to inform Parliament.(8) The United Kingdom may not become a signatory to a free trade agreement to which this section applies unless a draft of the agreement in the terms in which it is to be presented for signature by parties to the agreement has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament.(9) Before a Minister of the Crown moves a resolution to approve the text of a proposed free trade agreement in either House of Parliament, the Secretary of State must— (a) consult each devolved authority on the text of the proposed agreement, and(b) lay before Parliament an independent impact assessment of the agreement including, but not limited to, the requirements in subsection (4).(10) In this section—“devolved authority” has the meaning given in section 4(1) of this Act;“free trade agreement” means any agreement which is—(a) within the definition given in section 4(1) of this Act, and(b) an agreement between the United Kingdom and one or more partners that includes components that facilitate the trade of goods, services or intellectual property;“UK levels of statutory protection” means levels of protection provided for by or under any—(a) primary legislation,(b) subordinate legislation, or(c) retained direct EU legislation,which has effect in the United Kingdom, or the relevant part of the United Kingdom, on the date on which the sustainability impact assessment is produced.”
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I rise to move Amendment 6, and I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on Amendment 12, because these amendments concern an issue that has been a focus of Committee and a major part of today’s debate on Report. I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to the debates we had in Committee on scrutiny of agreements. There seemed to be some areas of agreement across the House, and I hope I am accurate in outlining what I consider them to be: it is the Government’s prerogative to make a decision to open, conduct and conclude negotiations; the Government believe the scrutiny powers of the European Parliament and the role of British MPs in agreements made by the European Union were effective; Parliament needed a greater role here at home; the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process is insufficient in itself to allow for proper scrutiny and accountability. This last point has been agreed by everybody, including the Government, who have been at pains to say that they acted “above and beyond” the requirements of CRaG on the Japan EPA—in fact, the noble Viscount referred to that in an earlier group. It is fair to suggest that any Government who go above and beyond the legislative requirements they have to have regard to might point to those requirements being insufficient.
Outside groups as varied as the National Farmers’ Union and the BMA have been in touch with noble Lords asking them to support Amendment 6, and I am grateful for their support. It shows the breadth of interest in updating and improving parliamentary accountability for agreements that go far beyond tariffs and quotas, as we have stated repeatedly during the passage of the Bill.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, who set out the arguments for Amendment 6 with his customary clarity and precision, for which the House will be most grateful. In large measure, I agree that we have managed to secure quite a degree of consensus on many of these issues, and it is useful now, on Report, to see to what extent we want to put statutory backing behind that consensus. We have come to the right place at the right time.
I will in due course refer to Amendment 12, which is in my name, but I shall start with Amendment 6. Both amendments are concerned with the processes by which international trade agreements are scrutinised and approved by Parliament. I emphasise to those worried about the wider aspects of treaty making that this is about international trade agreements; we are not seeking to go beyond the scope of this Bill and impact on the Government’s treaty-making powers in general.
Amendments 6 and 12 seek to achieve different purposes. Amendment 6 would require prior approval, by each House of Parliament, of the draft negotiating objectives before the Government could proceed with negotiations. It also places a number of statutory obligations on the Government to report developments to Parliament, and it would require Parliament to approve a draft agreement before it is signed. I emphasise signed—not, in this case, ratified. In each of those three respects, Amendment 6 marks a significant change in the extent to which Parliament is not only engaged in, but to some extent potentially able to control, the process of making a free trade agreement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that despite the assertion in the first subsection of his amendment that it would not restrict the prerogative power, it would in reality do so—by placing statutory limitations on the exercise of the prerogative power to proceed with negotiations.
Secondly, I share the view of the Constitution Committee of this House, which said in April 2019:
“We do not believe that Parliament should be required to endorse the Government’s mandate prior to commencing treaty negotiations.”
In that regard, I cannot support Amendment 6, because subsection (3) makes it very clear that parliamentary approval for such negotiating objectives is required.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that there is a degree of consensus, and I subscribe to much of what is implied in Amendment 6: that the Government should seek the views of Parliament, as well as conduct a public and stakeholder consultation, when setting negotiating objectives. Parliament should be directly involved in that process, and the Government should provide updates to Parliament when significant developments occur during negotiations. Speaking as a member of the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee, I should say that our experience over recent months has been that the Minister and colleagues in his department have engaged with us substantively and constructively in the way that we would wish.
Secondly, the text of the Written Ministerial Statement, which the Minister was kind enough to send me last night, gives some reassurance as to the way in which Ministers intend to engage in future. It does not extend the nature of that engagement or change its statutory force, but to some extent it helps to answer the question that we asked repeatedly, at Second Reading and in Committee, about the extent to which the Government reiterate what was in the Command Paper back in February 2019. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend the Minister, in not only laying the WMS but responding to this debate, will continue to reiterate the Government’s full intentions in those respects.
That brings me to Amendment 12, which is in my name. This does not seek to restrict the Government’s right to initiate and conduct international trade agreements. It is focused only on the procedures by which Parliament is able, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act—CRaG—to approve an agreement before ratification. Amendment 12 would strengthen the CRaG processes in relation to international trade agreements in three respects.
First, it would require Ministers to publish, with their agreement or before it, an analysis of how an agreement would need to be implemented into domestic legislation. As we have learnt repeatedly during debates on this Bill, Parliament’s principal constraint over the Government’s treaty-making power occurs when it requires changes to domestic legislation. Parliament has control over that. For example, there is no merit in a Government agreeing a treaty offering access to the UK market for a product that it would be unlawful to sell in this country, when they know that Parliament would not agree to change the law. We need to know if an agreement would require changes to domestic legislation, and that should be a key issue in deciding whether Parliament will approve ratification. Ministers should not ratify an agreement that Parliament would not implement.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the revision he has made as he has engaged with the Government. I am grateful for his very clear exposition and will be concise in my support.
Modern trade agreements affect huge swathes of public policy, including consumer and workers’ rights, environmental legislation, food standards, health, public services and international development. MPs, who represent constituencies and work with a variety of stakeholders, deserve the right to assess the consequences of an agreement, as does your Lordships’ House. It has been argued that Brexit is about the UK taking back power, but I fear the Government have perhaps not moved past the 2016 divide and view Parliament as a body waiting for a chance to take us back into the single market and intending to scupper any agreement. That is not the case. Colleagues only want the best for their constituencies and our nation. Any suggestion that the Government may be ruling through fiat will inevitably produce poorer outcomes.
What this amendment proposes is far from radical. As has already been alluded to, we are currently outliers on parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals. The UK lags behind on transparency and accountability compared to the US, the EU and Japan, among others. These are fair and reasonable measures that will protect the interests of local industries across the UK; this amendment will allow us to strike deals that benefit the entire economy. I hope that noble Lords will support Amendment 6.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to add my name to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, which he presented so articulately. This is a critically important Bill and I am concerned that, as with other Bills associated with leaving the European Union, we do not have much time. This new chapter in our history gives us a unique opportunity to make sure that we adopt best practice and put in place appropriate conditions and processes that reposition the UK as a global leading influence. I said during the debate on the Agriculture Bill that we should be ambitious and set the bar at a level that demonstrates our commitment to deliver on issues of deep concern. We will debate some of these later today.
The Trade Bill is an opportunity to make a statement about our intentions and ambitions as a nation. This principle also applies to the scrutiny process we put in place as a democracy to match the best of them, whether that of our former partners in the EU, the US or, as has been mentioned, Japan. We need to ensure that we have a transparent and robust process and that Parliament has the opportunity to be consulted and to debate the purpose, intention and outcome of trade deals. Government should see this amendment not as an attempt to slow down or thwart the negotiating process but as a helpful and positive contribution to give Ministers confidence in their negotiations. If this amendment is accepted, they will have the reassurance of having the backing and support of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and to follow the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, with whom I largely agree on this matter and on many similar matters we have debated in recent weeks.
The House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for finding a way around the difficulties which were raised against amendments in these areas in Committee and for overcoming the hurdle imposed by the prerogative considerations relating to trade deals. I cannot agree with the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on this dimension. His Amendment 12 could have an application for devolved Parliaments, for reasons I will qualify, but I recognise the general reasons he has put forward and will support him if he presses his amendment to a vote in due course.
As noble Lords might well anticipate, I speak from the viewpoint of the devolved Governments and Parliaments. In the context of Wales, in Committee we addressed several of the issues which might arise in the negotiation of free trade agreements. In Amendment 6, particularly subsection (9) of its proposed new clause, the obvious issue is whether the implications of free trade agreements could have an adverse impact on the economies of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. The need for these devolved Governments to be drawn in at an early stage is twofold.
First, it is to enable them to alert the UK Government to any negative impact they might not have fully taken on board, not least negative effects on, say, farming, environmental dimensions or food safety considerations, which conflict with the devolved Governments’ policies on such devolved matters. Secondly, the beneficial provision of the proposed new clause in this amendment is to enable the devolved authorities to flag any special dimension that might help the devolved nations capitalise on new opportunities arising from trade negotiations, which would be beneficial for them and, possibly, the people of England.
I realise that trade treaties lie outside the ability of Parliament to amend as they progress, and that the devolved Governments will also have to work within parallel constraints. It is for another occasion for us to debate that principle, and I suggest that there are two sides to that argument. There can, however, be no doubt that the devolved Parliaments should have just as strong a voice on the impact of trade deals on matters within their competence as Westminster does on issues that impact policies that affect England only.
I would go further than this amendment provides, as we have in other legislation before Parliament, by requiring that, if the devolved Governments are not agreeable to the steps taken by the UK Government, there should be a requirement for ministerial explanation and a cooling-off period. That, however, is not before us today.
I have one last point. If Westminster is implacably opposed to the devolved Governments having their say in these matters, it will certainly only hasten the day when these Parliaments seek the powers to make international treaties for themselves to protect the interests of their people. Is that what noble Lords really want? I urge all sides to support this reasonable amendment and for the Government to accept it.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and his underlining of the importance to be attached to the views of the devolved Administrations when dealing with trade agreements. I will speak to Amendments 6 and 12, on parliamentary scrutiny, with the experience I have gained as chair of your Lordships’ EU International Agreements Sub-Committee, but not on its behalf, save to the extent that I draw on reports already made by the committee. In any event, members of the committee are free to give their own views, and I note that some, including the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, are speaking in this debate.
There are two points I want to deal with. The first is to comment on the commitments made today by the Minister in the Written Ministerial Statement, to which attention has already been paid. I thank him for sending me a copy of that and I fully underline, support and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that the Minister has been courteous, co-operative and helpful, so far, in his engagement with the committee on the trade agreements he is responsible for dealing with.
I welcome that the Government have put the commitments in the Written Ministerial Statement on the record today, and I look forward to hearing them repeated in this debate and to discussing and developing the detail to ensure that Parliament is able to scrutinise all future UK trade agreements meaningfully. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has rightly underlined, these amendments deal with trade agreements only and not other international agreements. The committee that I chair is involved in those other agreements. The UK will be making many important new trade agreements, which can be just as crucial as the laws we make in Parliament. I will return to that point. Therefore, Parliament’s ability to scrutinise these agreements comprehensively will be of great importance.
I therefore commend the Government for their commitment to work with the International Trade Committee and the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee to ensure that we are briefed throughout the negotiations and have access to treaty texts and other related documents, to the extent necessary, on a confidential basis and at a reasonable time, before the start of the short 21-day scrutiny period set out in CRaG. This approach was introduced for the UK-Japan trade agreement, but will be particularly important for the upcoming US, Australia and New Zealand agreements, for which, unlike the Japan agreement, there will be no underlying EU agreements to refer to and make a comparison with.
Effective scrutiny, however, also requires that those who are affected by trade agreements, and experts, have the chance to comment on the consequences of any agreement. While “extensive stakeholder engagement”—I quote from the Government—on trade negotiations by the Government is welcome, it is imperative that specified stakeholders and experts also have early enough sight of the agreements to enable them to form a view and to feed into parliamentary scrutiny of the agreements. Again, this will be particularly relevant where there is no underlying EU agreement standing as a comparator and baseline.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
I rise to support Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I do so for two reasons. First, I believe that it provides a robust framework for the appropriate scrutiny of international trade agreements. The CRaG arrangements are not satisfactory. It is important that both civil society and Parliament have opportunities at the right time to scrutinise what is going through and what is being negotiated. I hope that the changes that have been made since we discussed these issues in Committee will convince the Government that they can agree to this amendment. I support it not just on the principle of parliamentary scrutiny but because the amendment sets out the areas to be covered in both the sustainability impact assessment in subsection (4) and the independent assessment in subsection (9).
In his contribution, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans reminded us that trade agreements cover a huge swathe of public policy. As was suggested during earlier stages of the Bill, there is a temptation to consider that there is a simple economic impact that is the criterion by which we judge trade agreements. I do not believe that that is sustainable. We run the risk of importing into this country goods and services that diminish our stated—and, indeed, our statutory—responsibilities in areas such as climate change and environmental protection.
Equally, we run the risk of losing opportunities in the huge green economy that is coming. We have seen that the Government recognise this. There have been some welcome recent developments, such as the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan and our raised commitments on climate change and emissions, but it is really important that we go from these high-level aspirations to ensuring that we implement and integrate these commitments—particularly on the environment and climate change—into policy and legislation. That is not some soft, optimistic, rose-coloured view of the world; indeed, the Prime Minister himself said:
“Green and growth can go hand-in-hand.”
If that is so, we must look at what trade agreements we implement and how they fit in with our responsibilities and aspirations.
In Committee, I was critical of the fact that there was no mention anywhere in the Bill of the environment and climate change. I ought to pay tribute to the Minister and the Government for making clear in the Written Ministerial Statement and accepting the argument that a wide swathe of policies are affected by trade deals, saying that, when they publish the proposed independently verified impact assessment, it will cover the economic and environmental impacts of the deal. As I understand it, the legal advice is that “environmental” would cover climate change—I am delighted to see the Minister nodding on that—so I hope that we can move from that progress, which I very much welcome and am grateful for, to accepting this amendment and making this a statutory requirement.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed. I will also refer briefly to Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
I served on the Joint Committee that examined the draft legislation that eventually emerged as the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—usually referred to as CRaG, as it has been during the debates on this Bill. On that committee, we were quite clear that we sought to correct the previous anomaly, which enabled the Government of the day to push through very significant international treaties with minimal or non-existent parliamentary scrutiny. There was a great deal of pressure for extensive ratification rights for both Houses, not least from Conservative colleagues who were, of course, in opposition then. However, we eventually resolved—for the sake of unanimity on the committee—on a minimalist compromise. Part 2 of CRaG therefore provided only for both Houses to have a statutory right to scrutinise treaties, with the Commons given a theoretical power to delay ratification. Under that Act, neither House had an obligation to debate the terms of a proposed treaty, let alone vote on it, but both could seek assurances and explanations from the appropriate Minister before consenting to ratification.
It is important to remind your Lordships that, in 2010, we were all in a totally different political and diplomatic environment. The United Kingdom was involved—and bringing extensive experience to bear—in combined treaty negotiations with our EU partners. However, our Government, and therefore our Parliament, were not engaged in the intricate details and the much higher level of trade discussions that now face us, with unprecedented complexity and significance for the future of our nation. In its report from April 2019, Parliamentary Scrutiny of Treaties, the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House put the challenge very well, saying that
“the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 were enacted in a time where leaving the EU had not been seriously contemplated.”
This was its primary conclusion:
“The current mechanisms available to Parliament to scrutinise treaties through CRAG are limited and flawed.”
That has obviously been repeated often this afternoon. I am sure that all members of that Joint Committee would join with me in accepting the wisdom of that contemporary view.
Moreover, it was endorsed by the EU Committee in its June 2019 report, Scrutiny of International Agreements: Lessons Learned, which stated:
“We therefore agree with the Constitution Committee that the CRAG Act is poorly designed to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of treaties.”
In its following report, Treaty Scrutiny: Working Practices—dated July 2020—the committee went on to warn that cosmetic changes, with no statutory backing, would be unlikely to be sufficient. It said:
“If we cannot make treaty scrutiny work within the current framework, legislative change may prove the only means to ensure adequate scrutiny of international agreements.”
Ministerial Statements are not the same thing. Therefore, the first justification for my noble friend’s amendment—now supported by distinguished Members from many parts of the House—is that it carefully and comprehensively spells out the essential elements for detailed parliamentary scrutiny for all new international trade agreements. As my noble friend Lord Purvis stated earlier, in essence, this amendment updates CRaG to meet the dramatically different requirements of Brexit and establishes a critical, crucial constitutional principle.
In the debate on the committee report in your Lordships’ House, my noble friend Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, drawing on her experience in EU negotiations, commented:
“The Government’s approach is overly biased towards maximising their secretive freedom, believing that that always enables playing their best hand. That is not my experience. The Government can be in a stronger negotiating position if Parliament is on their side on the journey.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. GC 130.]
That view has been reiterated this afternoon.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, these two amendments have much to commend them and dovetail neatly with parts of my Amendment 7, which we will consider in a moment: in particular, that any trade agreement or report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission should be laid before Parliament in sufficient time for it to be considered. I will go into more detail when we come to that group of amendments, but it would also extend the period during which a vote shall be held in each House to up to 42 days, so there is an overlap between Amendment 6 and my Amendment 7. This is important for the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, my noble friend Lord Lansley and others, particularly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who chairs the committee and speaks with great authority on these issues. There must be time for both Houses of Parliament to consider those agreements, in the terms set out by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others supporting Amendment 6.
I refer again to the useful table included on page 77 of the National Food Strategy, part 1, which I refer to as the Dimbleby report, part 1, which sets out the scrutiny of trade agreements in the various legislative Chambers. It is true that in Australia, Parliament must vote on legislation to implement a trade agreement only where it requires changes to national laws. However, tariffs are set in statute in Australia, so that effectively gives Parliament a vote on trade treaties. For TTIP, the House in Australia spent two days debating the treaty and the Senate one day. In Canada, as in Australia, Parliament does not have a formal vote on treaties; the Executive must lay a deal before Parliament 21 days before any action to implement the agreement is taken. However, as in Australia, Canada’s tariffs are set in statute, so again, Parliament inevitably needs to vote on the deal as a whole as well as any implementing legislation.
Perhaps the most thorough—albeit that we are leaving the European Union—is the European Union process itself. In New Zealand, Parliament must vote on legislation to implement the trade agreement, which means that the treaty is voted on again by the House only if it requires a change in domestic legislation. It has already been said that in Japan, the approval of the National Diet, the Japanese Parliament, is required for any trade agreement to come into force, and in Switzerland, all trade agreements must be approved by the Federal Assembly, the Swiss Parliament. If 50,000 Swiss citizens request it, they must be put to a referendum. Our scrutiny of trade agreements—not continuity agreements but new agreements, where, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, identified, there is no underlying EU agreement—is deficient compared to that of other national jurisdictions and Parliaments.
I have sympathy with Amendment 6, although I will go on to explain when we come to the group beginning with Amendment 7 why I believe that my wording is preferable.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I support the objectives of Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and colleagues, which seeks to ensure that trade deals are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and that consultation takes place with the devolved Administrations, a feature that is currently missing. This is particularly acute as we have just three weeks until the end of the transition period and do not know whether there is to be a trade deal or whether, if agreed, it will be zero tariff, or whether the UK will be operating under WTO rules.
This amendment, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and other noble Lords, has been supported by the Trade Justice Movement and Greener UK. It has five properties, which are very important for the scrutiny of trade deals. First, before negotiations, there will be a debate and vote by MPs on the Government’s negotiating objectives; secondly, during negotiations, there will be additional scrutiny through a dedicated parliamentary committee; thirdly, after negotiations, there will be a vote in both Houses on a final deal, prior to ratification; fourthly, there will be mandatory sustainability impact assessments on the impact of the new trade deal on the environment, public health, human rights and global development; and, fifthly, there will be consultation with the devolved authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, those things absolutely are important. Coming from Northern Ireland and having been a representative of the devolved institution there, I say that it is important that we recognise and acknowledge the devolution settlements.
Those five provisions offer a considerable improvement on the level of parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals in the UK, whose processes lag behind those of the EU and other countries. The current treaty scrutiny system, as outlined in the CRaG Act, is inadequate and has been criticised by five parliamentary committees, including the Lords Constitution Committee and the Lords International Agreements Sub-Committee.
Modern trade agreements affect large parts of public policy, including consumer and workers’ rights, environmental and climate change legislation, food standards, health, public services and international development. In such a context, it is vital that trade deals are developed democratically. I support Amendment 6. I also support Amendment 12, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. If the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, eventually presses his amendment, I will support him in the Lobbies this evening.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I agree with everything that she said. I was going to speak only to Amendment 6 but the opening speech on Amendment 12 was very convincing, so if the House divides on either amendment, I shall vote for them.
My problem with the Bill is one that I have had for the last two years with this Government—particularly in the last year, when they have kept trying to reduce our democracy. I simply do not understand how a Conservative Government can justify that. If they were sitting on the Opposition Benches at the moment, they would be shouting loudest about how corrupt it all was and how we were trying to take power back for the people, not for politicians, and so on. For me, it is incredibly frustrating constantly to hear and see these attacks on democracy. I do not think that this Government have a clue about it.
We have discussed these issues more than once over the past four years; it is getting quite repetitive. When we in this House amend and improve any legislation, it goes back to the Commons and then of course it is all whipped out or the Bill is delayed for a few years, so in some ways all our work is for nothing. With this Bill, the Government are again trying to bypass scrutiny. Why would they want to do that? Scrutiny helps—it can highlight the problems, as well as improvements—so why anybody would want to do that, I just do not understand. It should be enough, even for the most loyal Conservatives on the Government Benches, to ask, “What on earth we are doing here? Why are we bothering? There is all this hard work from the second Chamber and it comes to nothing.”
The Greens believe that the market and the economy should serve the people, not necessarily politicians or even big business. Therefore, I strongly support Amendment 6. It is a case of caring very much about climate change, the environment, workers’ rights and the quality of our food; I just do not understand why the Government are choosing to fight this. I accept that having a huge majority in the Commons means that they can pretty much do what they like, but why would they? Why not honour some of the promises that they made in the Brexit debate and give power back to the people?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, although I cannot accept her diagnosis of this being an attack on democracy. I shall make just three short points, because we do not want this to go on all day.
First, noble Lords who have brought forward these amendments have not adduced any evidence as to why they are needed. The core procedures for the handling of treaties have served this country well. The Ponsonby rule, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, reminded us of again today, is now enshrined in CRaG. As I said, no practical issues have been put forward for these amendments being needed. The Government have responded to the desire, as expressed by both Houses of Parliament, for more information and more involvement in the processes of scrutiny of trade treaties, most recently in the latest Ministerial Written Statement. I think that I am the only noble Lord speaking here today who has not seen a copy of that Statement but I am sure that it is splendid.
My second point is on the royal prerogative and prerogative power. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley that, despite Amendment 6 saying that it does not seek to override or diminish prerogative power, its effect is that, in practical terms, it does so—in particular, in relation to the approval of the negotiating objectives, which is not part of our current processes—and could easily restrict the prerogative power available to government. That is why I think that the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House did not recommend that we go down that route.
My third point is on parliamentary accountability. Both amendments in this group are predicated on a view that parliamentary accountability requires legislation to make it effective. That is plainly not in accord with our parliamentary history. It is also, I submit, a dangerous route to go down. The strength of the UK’s parliamentary system is its capacity to evolve constantly, as we have seen in relation to free trade agreements with the way in which the Government have been open to involving Parliament increasingly and in different ways, including through engagement with committees.
If we wrote too much into legislation, that could work against the flexibility that is the hallmark of our system and has served us well, in particular over the last couple of years. I believe that that could end up being Parliament’s loss at the end of the day. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, referred to the constructive partnership that has been emerging between his committee on treaties and the Government, and the practical ways in which the work of his excellent committee is being helped to be effective. I have to say to noble Lords that the more you codify, the more it is less likely that constructive partnership becomes the hallmark of an ongoing approach. Noble Lords really cannot have it both ways.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, I also find Amendment 6 rather severe: not only is it asking for accountability to Parliament but it challenges the entire CRaG process. However, I accept that there is strong public feeling on this, which is confronting the Government’s post-Brexit policy directly and the political impetus towards global free trade. Many stakeholders and charities have already commented on several FTAs currently passing through Parliament; they want to be sure that there are safeguards throughout the process of scrutiny, and I understand that. I agree in principle with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the right reverend Prelate. It is an impressive spectrum of opinion.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, refers to CRaG as minimalist, and he may well be right. However, I said earlier in our proceedings on the Bill that I had accepted the Government’s view that they had been flexible and that CRaG was, for the time being, fit for purpose and need not be altered yet—at least not radically. We have made a good start. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, uses the word “consensus”; I admire what I know of the European Parliament’s scrutiny processes, especially its opening up to civil society in all member countries, but I have misgivings about a debate on the objectives of every FGA, because I can guess how much it would slow down our own process.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made an important point about domestic legislation, but all this adds to the CRaG process. It is desirable, and there may be a time for it, but as we are entering a new era of trade agreements, we should wait to see how our existing process will cope with so much demand. Do we have the resources to do this? I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has taken that on board. We have already missed the boat with a row of important new agreements, either past or imminent. I suggest instead that CRaG and the issue of 21 days should be reviewed in a year’s time. So while I am sympathetic to the amendment I may have to abstain on the vote.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. No? Then I call the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness was unable to give us the benefit of her wisdom.
An advantage of being “tail-end Charlie” as the last speaker of 15, is that most of the points have already been made, which helps to speed things up. Let me start with Amendment 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. He made some convincing arguments and, unless the Minister can convince me otherwise, we should support the amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said that CRaG was fit for purpose. I contend that it is not. It was designed in another era, when we were part of the EU and the EU was doing our trade deals. Now we are doing our own trade deals—good luck to the Minister and godspeed to all his civil servants; they will need it in this complicated world. The trade deals that we negotiated 50 years ago are hugely different from those we are negotiating now. Today’s deals are much more complex and involve not only trade but each and every one of us—the environment, biodiversity, the way we live. Therefore, it is important that Parliament is properly involved.
How complex trade deals have become is the compelling argument for Parliament to be given a statutory right to look into these matters. Trade deals are only going to get more complicated, therefore the discrepancy between the current situation, which is out of date, and what is needed in the future, is growing. Effective scrutiny by Parliament on a statutory basis would improve the quality of decision-making. Nothing hones a civil servant’s pen quite like getting Parliament to have a good look at what they are doing.
We have heard that a common objection to the wording of Amendment 6 is that it ties the Government’s negotiating arms and affects their room to negotiate with the other side. I do not think it does. In America, Congress is a very useful weapon that the US negotiators use. They constantly say, “We couldn’t possibly get that through Congress”. Our discussions with the EU are at a very delicate stage, and if there had been a mandate from Parliament that one of the negotiating objectives of this Government was that we would be a sovereign state equal to the EU, we would not be having prevarications with some of the EU states. We would have had a much better chance of getting a deal. Rather than the Prime Minister saying: “We are going to be a sovereign state”, he could quite rightly say: “Parliament has said that we are going to be a sovereign state”. That would have saved a lot of the rather frustrating and silly discussions that are going on at the last minute. It would also consolidate the position of the UK as a serious negotiating partner which will ratify whatever deal is agreed if Parliament has had a proper say.
I am very much aware that the Minister has made concessions on a number of points, but that is not the same as having them in statute. In this day and age, given what has happened in America and how the EU looks at its trade deals and has adapted, it is time that we adapted and took a firmer view, giving Parliament the statutory backing that it needs to look at these matters, but not to the extent of tying the hands of the Minister and the Government in any negotiating deal. Therefore, I support Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry that technical difficulties meant that I could not come in just now. I support Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, who made the case for it comprehensively. In Committee, the involvement of the devolved Administrations in consultation over trade was stressed whenever UK Ministers wished to make an agreement that included issues that fall within devolved competences. Respect for, and consideration of, the devolved responsibilities and implications of agreements will result in clearer communication between Westminster and the Government, in better relations with the devolved Administrations, and in clear messages to the population overall. This amendment would bring agreement centrally into Westminster, not disrupted by protesting voices from devolved nations that fuel separatist movements. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has set out the benefits with arguments that I endorse.
On issues relating to health we discussed at length the importance of the Government’s commitment that the NHS is not up for sale. This country’s unique databases have enormous potential value. As health, whether human, animal or ecological, is a devolved responsibility, it is essential that anything touching on health in its broadest context is the subject of consultation with the devolved Administrations. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, eloquently stressed that Ministers should not ratify an agreement that would not be approved by Parliament. In respecting the royal prerogative, the individual nations must not find themselves sidelined.
Amendment 6 is essential to consolidate, not destabilise, the united nature of the United Kingdom. To break up the United Kingdom would indeed be an “abject failure of statecraft”.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have had a good and wide-ranging debate today. I want to pick up on the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who introduced Amendment 6, which I have signed, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, whom I thank for his clear introduction to Amendment 12, which we also support. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is not a normal ally on many of the issues we have discussed in your Lordships’ House over the years. However, he made the point about the importance of trade so well that I wanted to endorse it. Trade is now central to our existence as a country and very important to the individuals who live here because it impacts on almost every aspect of our lives.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I would like to thank noble Lords for the courteous way in which this debate has been conducted. I will begin with Amendment 6, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. During the passage of this legislation, I believe there has been a general acceptance on all sides of the importance of Parliament’s being able to effectively scrutinise trade policy, including our new FTAs with the likes of the US, Australia and New Zealand. We have consistently ensured that there is sufficient scope for Parliament to do this.
The Government have taken a number of important steps, and it is pleasing that noble Lords recognise this and have supported us. For example, we have shared extensive and comprehensive information with Parliament ahead of negotiations with the US, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. On 12 October, I made a Written Ministerial Statement setting out the transparency and scrutiny arrangements for specific international trade deals, starting with Japan. Today, I have made a further comprehensive statement setting out arrangements for trade agreements with the United States, Australia and New Zealand and the UK’s proposed accession to the CPTPP. I believe this statement adds further weight to the enhanced procedures we have already outlined. I was pleased that the nobel Baroness, Lady Hayman, picked up on and welcomed the reference to environmental impacts, and grateful for the pragmatic comments about the statement from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I was also grateful for the comments made about the statement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
I believe that our approach to transparency, and openness to scrutiny by Parliament and stakeholders, is at least as strong as any other Westminster-style democracy, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that nothing should be read into the omission of South Africa from this list.
Your Lordships have drawn comparisons between our approach and those taken by the EU and US. They are more similar to each other with their federalised arrangements, than they are to the UK. The European Commission negotiates on behalf of the interests of the 27 member states and its scrutiny arrangements reflect the specific and unique structure of the EU. The same applies to the US. The role the US Congress plays in scrutinising international trade agreements is a product of the constitutional make-up of the United States. I suggest it would be wholly inappropriate for the UK, with our own unique constitutional framework, to import the regime of another country, particularly one where the constitutional circumstances differ so markedly.
We have frequently repeated our commitment to ensuring a transparent trade policy and we have delivered on this time and time again. We have made significant progress in this space. We have listened to concerns from parliamentarians and have taken actions to address them, including putting the Trade and Agriculture Commission tack on to a statutory footing, which will be discussed in the next group of amendments.
We have kept Parliament regularly updated on the negotiations as they have progressed. We have done this via Written Ministerial Statements to update Parliament on key milestones and we have held regular, open briefing sessions for all parliamentarians throughout the negotiations on our FTAs. We have engaged closely with the International Trade Committee and the International Agreements Sub-Committee, including writing to the chairs of both committees at every key stage and facilitating private briefings for them with Ministers and our chief negotiators. My noble friend Lord Lansley, as a member of the IASC, has seen us in action on this and has complimented us on it. We will continue to share confidential treaty text on the FTAs that are currently under negotiation, and on the CPTPP when it comes down the track, with the ITC and the IAS. We will ensure that they both have time to produce a report on any such concluded agreement before it is laid before Parliament under the CRaG procedure.
I hope noble Lords will also realise and accept that we have demonstrated this with the Japan agreement. I accept absolutely the importance of this, as described so cogently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Both of the committees’ reports on Japan have now been published, with, if I may say, both committees praising the engagement that they have had with my department. The IASC report notes that
“DIT has been a constructive partner in helping to determine the right processes by which parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s new function of negotiating trade deals can be facilitated.”
In addition, the ITC and IASC reports congratulate the Government on their achievement in securing the Japan agreement, noting the warm welcome that it has had from witnesses in their inquiries.
I turn to the devolved Administrations. The Government have always been clear that we want to engage meaningfully with them on our trade policy. As Counsel General for Wales, Jeremy Miles MS, recently confirmed in his evidence on 19 November to the Welsh Affairs Committee, the DIT has listened to the devolved Administrations. We have established a new ministerial forum on trade and we have used it to consult the DAs on all of our trade agreements. The forum has met three times already this year and will meet for a fourth time later this week. I can assure the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that our desire to engage with the devolved Administrations is both deep and sincere, and we will continue to do so. I believe that putting these arrangements into statute would upset this balance. While in practice, the Government engage with the devolved Administrations on international trade policy, it is important to remember that this has legal status as a reserved matter. We have to take care to preserve this status.
I turn to impact assessments. The Government are committed to an inclusive and transparent trade policy. Scoping assessments are published to assess analytically the impacts of new FTAs in advance of negotiations, and following the conclusion of negotiations currently in train, a full impact assessment will be published prior to implementation. This will be presented to Parliament, alongside the final treaty text, together with an explanatory memorandum to aid parliamentarians in their scrutiny role. Of course, this is in addition to the CRaG procedure. We will also ensure that the impact assessments are independently scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee.
In drafting the amendment, I welcome the fact that the noble Lord has tried to address our point at previous stages of the Bill; namely, that the negotiation and making of treaties, including international trade agreements, is a function of the Executive held under the royal prerogative. However, despite the drafting of subsection (1), that
“Nothing in this section restricts the power conferred by Her Majesty’s prerogative to commence, conduct negotiations towards and then conclude a trade agreement”,
I am afraid that the amendment does exactly that because it places restrictions on the ability of the Government to enter into treaty negotiations and to ratify treaties. With all due respect to the drafters of the amendment, it starts by saying one thing and then it goes on to say another. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lady Noakes for also spotting that and pointing it out to your Lordships.
Giving Parliament a veto over our negotiating objectives would curtail the royal prerogative, whatever the preamble to the proposed new clause says, and would limit our flexibility to negotiate in the best interests of the UK. I know that noble Lords are aware that the Constitution Committee of this House recommended in its 2019 report on the scrutiny of treaties that mandates for treaties should not be subject to parliamentary approval.
Ultimately, if Parliament is not content with a trade agreement that we have negotiated, it can—like for the majority of all other treaties—raise concerns by resolving against ratification under the statutory CRaG procedure. Under that, as noble Lords will know well, Parliament can delay ratification indefinitely, giving it, in effect, the power to block ratification. The Government are committed to a transparent trade policy with comprehensive engagement with Parliament. We have already demonstrated this and we will continue to do so. The Government have moved a long way in developing comprehensive scrutiny arrangements that are appropriate to our constitutional make-up.
I turn now to Amendment 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. I thank him for the amendment. He and I have already had constructive discussions on the topic, and I think it is fair to say that we are in mutual agreement on the importance of strong parliamentary scrutiny and the transparency of our trade deals.
On implementing our trade deals, noble Lords will be aware that it has long been UK practice not to ratify international agreements until any necessary implementing legislation has been passed domestically. This is a well-established process that the FCDO has followed historically for treaties for centuries in order to ensure that the UK will not be in breach of the treaty when it enters into force. The Government have no intention of deviating from this process in relation to our new trade agreements. However, we believe that putting this on to a statutory footing would be inappropriate and would deprive and restrict the Government’s flexibility in the conclusion of our international trade agreements, as well as curtailing the treaty-making prerogative.
I know that my noble friend has expressed concerns about the level of detail in the explanatory memorandums that are laid alongside treaties. I agree with him that Parliament should know clearly how the Government intend to implement any commitments made in an FTA and what legislation Parliament will need to pass in order to implement it domestically. I would argue that, in part, we already do this. For example, in paragraph 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the recent Japan agreement, we outline how the agreement will be implemented in domestic legislation. It includes details on how commitments in specific policy areas, such as tariffs, procurement and technical barriers to trade, will be implemented, and where legislation will need to change. I can say without reservation that I would be more than happy to explore with my noble friend how we might make this clearer and more useful to parliamentarians. However, I do not believe that this is an issue which is best resolved in legislation.
In respect of facilitating debates on FTAs as part of CRaG, we have been clear that the Government will facilitate requests for debate on the agreement—including, of course, those from the relevant Select Committees—with the only caveat being that it is subject to available parliamentary time. As many noble Lords know far better than I, it would not be appropriate for the Government to guarantee debating time in the way suggested in this amendment. As I am sure my noble friend with his ministerial experience can appreciate, any Minister would like to be able to guarantee debating time. However, the pandemic and other matters have shown us the need to remain flexible in how we manage precious parliamentary time.
I assure noble Lords—I said this in Committee and willingly repeat it now—that it is not the Government’s intention to shy away from scrutiny. I believe that scrutiny gives us better free trade agreements; the Government want these agreements to be examined by parliamentarians and effectively scrutinised. I hope that noble Lords do not mind my saying that the Government’s practical record on this has been good. Requests for debates have been met, most recently on our FTA with Japan, which was debated in your Lordships’ House on 26 November. I am very pleased that 31 speakers participated in that debate, which followed on from the six earlier debates on our continuity agreements that we facilitated. I hope that these will be the first of many debates on our forthcoming agreements that the Government will facilitate, where—I repeat—parliamentary time allows.
This debate has allowed me to outline the extensive steps that the Government have taken to ensure that Parliament has an effective scrutiny role in the constitutional context of the UK. This includes our long-standing commitments to provide comprehensive information to Parliament in advance of starting negotiations—beyond what many other partner countries undertake—along with conducting thorough engagement throughout negotiations. In addition, we have further enhanced arrangements at the end of negotiations. On this point, I thank noble Lords for helping us to shape these arrangements; I am sure that we will continue to shape and improve them as we go forward. Noble Lords have helped to improve the process of FTA scrutiny and, frankly, persuaded the Government to bring forward their amendments on the Trade and Agriculture Commission. The EU International Agreements Sub-Committee of your Lordships’ House persuaded the Government to ensure that it is given time ahead of the start of the CRaG period to produce a report on the agreement. This will ensure that your Lordships are better informed and able to scrutinise our new agreements more effectively.
As many noble Lords have expressed over the course of this Bill, this is the first time in nearly 50 years that the UK has undertaken trade negotiations; I hope that noble Lords recognise that my officials are not doing a bad job of it. I believe that we should utilise the flexibilities afforded to us under our constitutional arrangements to ensure a robust scrutiny process. I repeat the Government’s commitment to continue to ensure that these arrangements remain fit for purpose, working in close collaboration with the relevant committees.
I hope that I have been able to address your Lordships’ concerns adequately. I therefore ask my noble friend Lord Lansley not to move his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a very thorough response; he will find out how persuasive I have found him in a moment after I draw out two or three points from the debate. I am grateful to all those who have taken part and, indeed, for the support that I have received, including from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara.
I have been a Member of this House for seven years. While the noble Lord was making his remarks, I reflected on the fact that if the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, supports a liberal amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, persuades a Green Peer, it is pretty evident that there is some cross-party backing. We can rely on the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to be consistent in her position. I am grateful to her. She always makes me think in these debates, even though she does not often persuade me. I have a copy of the Written Ministerial Statement, which I can share with her if she likes; I am afraid that it is rather heavily annotated, which will not surprise her. I think the point that she made was ably addressed by the noble Earl. Yes, these are our first trade negotiations in 50 years, but almost by definition, as the noble Earl and the noble Baroness indicated, these agreements are very different in nature from those of 50 years ago. They are primarily concerned with non-tariff measures rather than tariff measures.
I agree with the Minister that our approach must suit our own unique constitutional arrangements. With regard to that, the Minister should reflect that the prerogative power is not a static thing as part of those constitutional arrangements. It has been demonstrated that there have been changes in the use of that prerogative power over many years. It used to be a prerogative power that Parliament had no say in the deployment of troops, for example; this is now recognised to be rather different. I assure the Minister as the drafter of this amendment that amendments do not get tabled in this House without the beady eye of the Public Bill Office ensuring that one clause does not contradict another. So I believe in the robustness of this amendment, but I am grateful for his advice.
If I were arguing that, if Parliament is not content with the Trade Bill, it can raise any concerns it may have over a trade deal by resolving against ratification and delaying any implementing legislation indefinitely, I think that the noble Baroness would be frustrated with me for proposing such an argument. What would it say if a sovereign entity—the sovereign Government—signed an agreement then Parliament used a mechanism to delay the implementing legislation indefinitely? That would massively undermine the sovereignty of the Government that had signed an international agreement—yet that is the Government’s position in the Written Ministerial Statement; I quoted from it. It is not a fit-for-purpose mechanism; it is not an appropriate way of considering how we approve trade agreements.
Secondly, I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. These procedures are not very good; I would love him to have a right of reply to the Minister too. I will not endeavour to speak for him, nor would he want me to, but the noble Lord’s question—with regard to the amendment—about the ability of Parliament to make a decision before the signature is deliberate. In trade agreements, we know that there is a finalisation process and then, often, an initialling process. The initialled text will then usually go to the Parliament before there is full signature by the sovereign country. It is no accident that, at that stage, in Japan, which went through the process on 24 November, the law then authorised the Japanese Government to put their formal signature on the agreement. If there are problems, the time to highlight them is not as we have it—after the event, where a treaty has basically been made—after which we have the power only to delay the implementation. The right time is at the time of signing. This allows a judgment to be made to avoid problems down the line if there is still a great deal of unease with the agreement that has been signed.
This brings me to my last point. I am glad that the Minister referenced the next group. One of the points that he was at pains to make—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made a slight reference to this—concerned whether we are now putting a great deal of restriction on this power. As I mentioned before, the prerogative power has not been set in stone over the years, nor have the restrictions on any British Government over how they conduct or conclude negotiations. No British Government would go into any negotiations that would breach human rights agreements—the ECHR, for example. There are international obligations that we are bound to accept. We are a sovereign Parliament and the prerogative power, as the Minister would suggest, should be completely unfettered. Well, there is quite a high level of fettering about that.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 7. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 7
“Trade and Agriculture Commission
(1) A body corporate called the Trade and Agriculture Commission (“TAC”) is established.(2) The TAC must establish criteria for maintaining standards equivalent to standards applied within the United Kingdom at the time of import for goods imported under a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and any other state.(3) When the Secretary of State is undertaking negotiations for an international trade agreement on behalf of the United Kingdom with another state, the Secretary of State must consider any advice given by the TAC for the purposes of ensuring that the international trade agreement does not reduce or compromise standards.(4) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 that contains provisions relating to the importation of goods into the United Kingdom unless Conditions A, B and C have been met.(5) Condition A is that the TAC has prepared a report assessing the extent to which the international trade agreement is likely to reduce the ability of the United Kingdom to maintain standards.(6) Condition B is that a Minister of the Crown has laid the report before Parliament.(7) Condition C is that each House of Parliament has agreed a motion, moved in accordance with subsection (8) by a Minister of the Crown, that the international trade agreement does not diminish standards within the meaning of this section.(8) So far as practicable, a Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for the motion mentioned in subsection (7) to be debated and voted on by each House of Parliament within a period of 42 days beginning with the day on which the report was laid under subsection (6).(9) In this section, “standards” means standards relating to—(a) animal welfare, (b) protection of the environment,(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability,(d) plant health, and(e) employment and human rights.(10) Schedule (The Trade and Agriculture Commission) makes further provision about the TAC.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 7 I will speak also to Amendment 44 and to the government amendments in this group. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister, my noble friend Lord Grimstone, for reaching out to those of us with an interest in this group of amendments with the meeting that was held between Committee stage and today, and for coming forward with the government amendments in his name.
At that meeting, there were a number of potential deficiencies in the anticipated amendments to the Trade Bill, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Grimstone, that we now have before us today. In particular, a number of us expressed concern about the absence of labour and human rights standards being upheld—as was contained in the original Fairhead amendment, now superseded by Amendment 6. We also expressed concern about the fact that the independence of the Trade and Agriculture Commission still seemed to be in doubt as, at the time, there was no reference to resources, staffing, offices, et cetera, and new appointments would need to be made, as the current members of the Trade and Agriculture Commission were initially appointed for a period of six months and are unpaid, as I understand it. We were also concerned about the extent to which Parliament would have a role in scrutinising these appointments and what form that scrutiny would take. There was also, again, a general lack of understanding about the exact form of scrutiny, and about the timing of the report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and further reports of individual trade deals as negotiated, that Parliament would receive and what the procedure was for looking at that.
Taking these points in turn, I will first go through my Amendments 7 and 44. As I say, I am grateful to my noble friend for coming forward with his amendments, which I believe will, for the most part, resolve many of my concerns. It was remiss of me not to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for their support for Amendments 7 and 44, and I take this opportunity to do so—I am most grateful to them.
The thrust of Amendment 7 is that the Trade and Agriculture Commission
“must establish criteria for maintaining standards equivalent to standards applied within the United Kingdom at the time of import for goods imported under a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and any other state … When the Secretary of State is undertaking negotiations for an international trade agreement … with another state, the Secretary of State must consider any advice given by the TAC for the purposes of ensuring that the international trade agreement does not reduce or compromise standards.”
In subsection (4) of the proposed new clause, we set out that:
“A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010”—
which we have called “CRAG” throughout these proceedings—
“that contains provisions relating to the importation of goods”
unless certain criteria have been met. We set out those criteria in subsections (5), (6) and (7): first,
“that the TAC has prepared a report assessing the extent to which the international trade agreement is likely to reduce the ability of the United Kingdom to maintain”
its own standards; secondly,
“that a Minister of the Crown has laid the report before Parliament”
and, thirdly,
“that each House of Parliament has agreed a motion, moved in accordance with subsection (8) … that the international trade agreement does not diminish standards within the meaning of”
subsection (8), where we state that that Motion should
“be debated and voted on by each House of Parliament within a period of 42 days beginning with the day on which the report was laid”.
This builds on the argument that we have had on the preceding Amendment 6 and subsequent amendments in this group. In my view, the period of 21 days is simply not enough time to take these arguments into consideration, and a period of up to 42 days—it need not take the whole of that—would be more appropriate.
We set out in subsection (9) what the standards mean. In addition to
“animal welfare … protection of the environment … food safety, hygiene and traceability … plant health”,
we add, in paragraph (e), what I know is of considerable importance to a number of noble Lords: “employment and human rights.” I do not believe that those appear anywhere else. I would be interested to know the extent to which my noble friend is prepared to look at employment and human rights, as they are generally understood to be terms and standards that are met. I think it was involved in previous negotiations and possibly also in the Fairhead amendment.
The main thrust of Amendment 44 goes to the point that I raised earlier about the independence of the Trade and Agriculture Commission. It is very similar to, but goes further than, that in the name of my noble friend Lord Grimstone: we suggest that we take the standard wording here, that:
“The TAC is not to be regarded … as the servant or agent of the Crown”
and that its property is also not to be considered as such, but add that:
“The TAC is to consist of … a Chair appointed by the Secretary of State … other non-executive members appointed by the Secretary of State … a chief executive appointed by the Chair with the approval of the Secretary of State or, if the first Chair has not been appointed, by the Secretary of State”.
At this stage I have a question for my noble friend the Minister about both Amendment 44 and his government amendment, which we shall come on to. Is it his understanding—certainly it would be our wish, and my fervent desire—that all these future appointments will follow the usual procedures where they have a pre-appointment hearing, particularly for an incoming chair of the Trade and Agriculture Commission? It may be the present chairman; indeed, it is my current hope that the present chairman of the commission will be reappointed but, as this will be a statutory body in future, under this group of amendments they would be subject to the pre-appointment hearings by the relevant Select Committee. I hope the Minister will confirm that that is his understanding as well.
We then set out the terms of appointment and tenure of members. I understand that we took this from previous such provisions, not least for the Trade Remedies Authority, which is also part and parcel of this Act. So we do not mean to be prescriptive; we are literally lifting, for shorthand purposes, these provisions that exist elsewhere and are tried, tested and understood. I hope the Minister will understand the basis on which we have drafted Amendments 7 and 44.
I turn to the amendments that the Minister has presented and will shortly move today. He will be pleased to hear that I like government Amendment 31 but, as I indicated earlier, there are a number of omissions from what is generally understood. The obvious one is employment and human rights, but I believe that food safety, hygiene and traceability are also very important. That has been covered in debates in this House and in the other place.
Government Amendment 34 seems to cover a lot of the ground that is in Amendments 7 and 44, as previously discussed. I ask for clarification on subsection (2), which inserts the words:
“In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must”,
and then goes on to say,
“except insofar as they relate to human life or health”.
There is a general understanding regarding this. I know that a previous amendment was carried in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that failed to mention the original Article 36 provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which refer to public health and safety, although I forget the actual wording. I seek clarification that that is in fact what the Minister is referring to here.
Obviously, I am delighted that, under subsections (3) and (4), there will be a report of advice received, which I presume will be laid. What appears to be missing here is whether that report will be debated. Does the Minister understand that to be the case, or is it not the Government’s intention that it would be debated?
Government Amendment 35 shares many of the provisions that we have set out in Amendment 44, giving a degree of independence that is most welcome, and I thank the Minister for tabling that amendment. Again, if I may seek clarification, in the new clause inserted by Amendment 35, subsection (1) is fairly standard, but subsection (2), which mentions
“staff, accommodation, equipment or other facilities”,
omits any mention of resources, and I wonder if that is intentional. That omission has to be seen together with that in subsection (3), which says:
“The Secretary of State may pay, or make provision for paying, expenses to any member of the TAC in connection with the preparation of advice”.
Again, that does not actually say if there is a limit to the resources or the extent to which those provisions will extend. Clarification there would be most helpful.
Then we come to government Amendments 49 and 50. I welcome the fact that Amendment 49 puts the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing; that is something that many of us have held dear and which I have specifically requested during the passage of this Bill and indeed the Agriculture Act, so I thank the Minister warmly for that. I presume that government Amendment 50 is consequential in that regard, so those two amendments are absolutely welcome and I am most grateful to him.
Now I would like to pause and turn to government Amendment 36. It potentially effectively repeals the very existence of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, not just as set out in the provisions that we are debating in this group of amendments as part of the Trade Bill before us today but, as the Member’s explanatory statement says:
“This amendment would empower the Secretary of State to repeal provision relating to the Trade and Agriculture Commission if the Secretary of State’s duty to seek its advice under the Agriculture Act 2020 is repealed.”
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her introduction to this group of amendments on the Trade and Agriculture Commission. We very much see this as unfinished business from the Agriculture Bill, a not entirely satisfactory outcome to the issue of food standards. A proper recognition of the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s food standards should have been inserted in statute through that Bill rather than just having it as a manifesto commitment. However useful as a mechanism, the TAC cannot block a trade deal that may lead to a lowering of standards. We see this as not entirely good enough, yet the Government are now agreeing that they should, and could, have brought this body into existence at any time, and they are doing it more proactively. With the outcome of the statutory enshrinement of a TAC, together with added improvements through other amendments, we can understand and agree that the non-regression of standards could be said to have been delivered. However, anxieties exist about the Government’s full commitment to the Trade and Agriculture Commission. As a method to monitor food standards and trade deals it is very precarious, but there are many crossovers and references to other amendments and we concede that, in conjunction with those, this is a satisfactory way to proceed at the moment.
Amendment 7, paired with Amendment 44 which introduces a new schedule, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and other noble Lords, has many similarities to the discussions in debates during the passage of the Agriculture Bill. If the noble Baroness will forgive me, the amendment would pre-empt the Government’s amendments, to which I will give more detailed attention, as the Government have already signalled that they will agree to put the TAC on a statutory basis in this Bill. On that basis, I will examine their proposals. As the noble Baroness has outlined, the Government’s amendments are far from ideal, in many respects, compared to hers.
Amendment 31 sets up the TAC to be an expert body, with which we are in agreement, but it is rather silent on precise membership recommendations. Will the Minister outline, in his response to these amendments, how far this statutory body will reflect what already exists in its present, rather weak, form, especially regarding membership? During the passage of the Agriculture Bill, many noble Lords thought that that membership should have been extended to contain consumer interests as well as further food and nutrition interests.
Amendment 32 mirrors further discussions on the Agriculture Bill in that full and precise considerations should be shared with the devolved Administrations. The Minister may be able to give fulsome answers to this in his response to the previous amendment on how the present TAC is set up. We would rather answer the question of membership and its extension though Amendment 33, in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. This extends the possibility of trade commissions being set up for any other industries as may become apparent and necessary through other trade deals which the Government may wish to enter into. We do not necessarily see that the agriculture industry should be unique in having its own carve-out in appreciation of the effect on it of trade Bills. I would very much welcome the Minister’s response to that. There could well be opportunities and circumstances in future trade deals where there may be a severe imbalance in their outcome on different industries, with one industry feeling more imperilled than another by the measures brought about by a future trade Bill. We would not wish a balance of benefits for one industry to played against the detriment of another’s sacrifice.
I turn to further specifics in the Government’s proposals. Our concerns begin to mount with Amendment 34, on the commission’s advisory functions. This proposes an immediate restriction to the process, brought in by amendments to the Agriculture Bill, regarding the functions of the Trade and Agriculture Commission. We find it rather alarming that, when the Agriculture Minister was answering for the whole Government during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, he was very much alive to the aspect of human health, and the implication for that of food, yet in another Bill, barely a month later, a Minister from another department wishes to contradict that.
However, I am glad to see that, through those discussions, Amendment 34 now allows the Trade and Agriculture Commission to report directly to Parliament, independent of the process which the Government had previously been reluctant to stray from, by making the TAC report only through the Trade Committees of the Commons and your Lordships’ House. This gives better recognition to its work and the importance that the greatest percentage of the UK’s population places on food standards being maintained, as well as on plant health, the environment and animal welfare.
We also have severe reservations about the Government’s Amendment 36, which repeals the advisory body barely three years after its enactment. That amendment proposes that the TAC’s provision, set up in primary statute, could then be repealed or severely altered by secondary statutory order only, as soon as its third anniversary. This would diminish the TAC and its prime process—being part of the parliamentary scrutiny of Trade Bills—which we thought the Government had agreed. It hardly allows the Trade and Agriculture Commission to consider all the new major trade deals which the Government may wish to enact, in addition to the rollover deals that the UK is inheriting through its previous membership of the EU. It is still unknown when, and at what speed, new international trade agreements with America and Australia could come through. Indeed, the Government could time those negotiations to come to fruition exactly as they were disbanding the TAC. That would be a tremendous mistake.
Having proposed the creation of the TAC on a statutory basis, it should now be allowed to gain experience and expertise, and to be taken seriously in that role. It should be able to undertake further research and investigations into agricultural and trade matters in addition to providing momentary comments on each trade deal that the Government may wish it to advise on. Will the Minister outline how the Government intend the TAC to function in this regard?
We have resisted further amendments to the Government’s clauses, especially to the period of only three years before it could be disbanded, and reserve the option of bringing further amendments, following any replies that the Minister may provide, at Third Reading. It is crucial, as the UK begins to undertake its own trade policy, for these matters to be dealt with appropriately and robustly for many years to come.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I will speak briefly to Amendment 32.
There was a great deal of discussion during the passage of the Agriculture Bill on the importance of the role of the Trade and Agriculture Commission. All who took part will be relieved that the Government have decided to put the TAC on a formal footing, as set out in government Amendment 31. The NFU lobbied heavily for this, was disappointed that the measure was not included in the Agriculture Bill but, like others, is pleased to see it added to the Trade Bill.
I have added my name to Amendment 32, from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, as it is essential that the devolved Administrations have the opportunity to comment on proposed members of the TAC. It is also vital that those who have the expertise to ensure that the TAC makes informed decisions have a seat on the commission. While the list of areas of expertise in government Amendment 31 does not include the bodies that will provide that expertise, it is implicit that they will represent the views of animal and plant safety experts and the interests of the farming community.
In addition to these very welcome changes, the devolved Administrations must have the opportunity to comment. If they cannot respond within the timeframe given—one month—the Secretary of State may proceed with appointments. This is a reasonable timeframe and should not hold up appointments to, and operation of, the TAC.
I and some of my colleagues are engaged in reviewing a number of statutory instruments from Defra, to ensure that legislation operates effectively after 1 January 2021. It is clear from this legislation that there are very differing views and methods of operating among the devolved Administrations, not least those affected by the Northern Ireland protocol. There is little point in appointing people to the TAC if none of them has the knowledge or ability to represent the views of the devolved Administrations, especially when there are many instances of legislation on animal and crop farming differing between them. This is an important amendment that I hope the Minister will agree to.
Lastly, I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, about government Amendment 36, on repealing the Trade and Agriculture Commission. This is extremely worrying and undermines all previous discussions about the commission, both in this Bill and in the Agriculture Bill, and I look forward to reassurance on this point from the Minister.
Baroness Henig (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I will speak to Amendments 7 and 44, and in doing so I welcome government Amendments 31 and 34 in this group. I and other co-signatories have been urging the Government to move in this direction for a considerable time, and I am very pleased to see this commitment to the establishment of a permanent Trade and Agriculture Commission.
Like previous speakers, I find Amendment 36 rather concerning. Can the Minister explain why it is included? It rather casts a large shadow over the Government’s intentions in this area, and I look forward to hearing what the rationale is for this clause.
Leaving aside Amendment 36, the Government’s new clauses are a tentative step forward in establishing the Trade and Agriculture Commission. It is, however, only a first step. What needs to follow is for the commission to establish itself as a credible body in terms of its membership, its leadership credentials and the impartiality and quality of its advice. I hope that the Minister does not mind me commenting that, thus far, too many individuals appointed to trade positions by the Department for International Trade are as likely to be chums and cronies of Ministers, or former Conservative politicians looking for a cosy berth, as to be independent and well-respected specialists on trade and agricultural issues.
This new body will only be successful to the extent that those appointed to it have, between them, a wide range of expertise and are well regarded in their fields for fully understanding the relevant issues in a non-partisan way. I agree, therefore, with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that the appointment of commission members should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval.
There will be many important roles for this new commission. One will clearly be to give advice on the best way to uphold existing British food and animal welfare standards and to look at the protection of environmental and plant health. Another, I have no doubt, will be to act as an important champion of British agriculture, which would be very welcome. If it is possible for the commission to extend its scope to look at human rights and employment issues, I would welcome that.
Another role for the commission would be to consider and report on the impact of pending trade deals, which are likely to contain provisions put forward by trade competitors looking to access British markets and to undercut British product and food standards. One of the first agreements that members of this commission will need to consider carefully is the CPTPP, to which the Government have already announced they wish to accede. That would raise significant issues about food and agriculture standards, and about regulations, which would differ considerably from those by which farmers, manufacturers and traders are currently bound.
That is why it is so important that the members of this commission are highly respected and well-regarded experts in their fields: their advice could impact heavily on the future livelihoods and businesses of large numbers of people in many sectors of our economy. Their reports on potential trade deals should be of value not just to the Minister but to Parliament too, in the form, as we have heard, of committees in the Lords and Commons whose duties it is to scrutinise deals. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, mentioned this, I think, in an earlier debate.
There is a wider role, that urgently needs to be played, to which I hope that members of this new commission might be able to contribute significantly, namely to outline to the British public what the Government’s trade strategy is. Is it to do deals with any willing partner? Are there preferred options, and if so on what basis are they preferred? Why do we seek to join CPTPP, with its distinct set of trade regulations, while wanting to have nothing to do with European regulations? Are we happy to conclude a trade deal with China? I got no answer to that question when I raised it some weeks ago.
In addition to articulating a trade strategy, perhaps this commission could also help to clarify which sections of British commerce and agriculture we are seeking to prioritise in trade deals. Which sectors will be deemed less important? What will be the core principles of British trade policy? They are, at present, difficult to discern. It seems that safeguarding jobs in fishing—relatively few though they are—is at the moment considered more important than jobs in the automobile or chemicals industry or in agriculture. Those selling fish to Europe seem to be prioritised above those selling lamb to Europe. Does this make commercial and economic sense? These are the sort of issues and choices our new commission members will need to look at as a matter of urgency. After all, a new start requires a clear strategy that we can all get behind and support. Mobilising energies and support on a wide basis behind our trade strategies will be crucial to success in this area.
I welcome most of the Government’s amendments in this group as far as they go, but I strongly hope that the new Trade and Agriculture Commission will be able to help in articulating a set of coherent trade and agricultural priorities that we in Parliament, and the wider public, will be happy to support.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and to hear not only her very cogent arguments but also her questions. I do hope the Minister will answer them, particularly on trade with China.
I support Amendments 7 and 44 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. It is obvious immediately, from the way she laid things out at the very beginning, that the Government have done a little but not enough. It is a pleasure for me to speak in this group and have a tiny part in the Government’s compromise amendments. Although they are welcome, they just do not do the job. Why do they not guarantee the commission its independence? The weakness is exposed when compared with the non-government amendments in this group. While I would like to call a win a win, I do not think we really have a win here. I am worried that this welcome but small compromise will actually create nothing more than a talking shop, which can simply be ignored by the Government.
The Government have put the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing, with Amendments 49 and 50, given it a degree of permanency and have even seemed to incorporate what we were pushing for in that it should have its own staff and facilities, but then government Amendment 36 throws all that out. A Secretary of State can ditch the whole thing with a statutory instrument. How is that sticking to a promise about making this a body that can properly do the job?
I hope that the Minister will think again before Third Reading, so that we do not have to compromise endlessly with a body that is too feeble and inconsequential to do the job.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I am a signatory to Amendments 7 and 44, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her very accurate, extensive and comprehensive exposition of those amendments, as well as her critique of the government amendments in this group. While we welcome the establishment of the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a permanent basis in statute, there are certain distances yet to come. Obviously, like other noble Lords, I question the content, the purpose and remit of Amendment 36, which seems to nullify the impact of the Trade and Agriculture Commission. Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Henig and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I ask the Minister to outline the purpose and remit to see whether he can provide us with any assurances that it is not simply there to negative what is already in existence by way of secondary legislation or in a statutory instrument.
Amendment 7 provides 42 days for parliamentary scrutiny, which is better because it allows adequate time for that scrutiny to take place. A new schedule outlined in Amendment 44 provides for a Trade and Agriculture Commission with greater independence to link in with the whole agricultural area. We should always remember that those involved in the farming industry need this independent body to advise on trade matters, agricultural and food standards, and environmental standards. Like other noble Lords, I would like to see references, and hope the Minister could provide us with some detail about the need for food safety, as well as for employment and human rights. Those are equally important requirements.
In submissions that we have received over the last few days, Greener UK has lobbied along with the farming organisations for the Trade and Agriculture Commission. Given that the UK’s food standards are high on the negotiating priorities of many of our prospective trading partners, stakeholder input and scrutiny of trade deals in relation to agri-food standards, it is important that the UK delivers the public’s expectation to maintain high standards. It has been recognised that the Government have taken a step in the right direction by putting the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing through the various government amendments, but again I question Amendment 36. I thank the Minister for the meeting he had, on a cross-party basis, with noble Lords on the various issues to do with the Trade and Agriculture Commission, but I believe that the Government could go a little further. Perhaps the Minister could specify if there are any additional details to be provided at Third Reading. The new schedule proposed in our Amendment 44 underpins the need for the independence of the TAC.
Will the Minister spell out how the Trade and Agriculture Commission will be required to produce an annual report with recommendations on how to improve food import standards and how to incorporate changes in domestic standards into existing and future trade deals? How will the Secretary of State be required to take all these recommendations into account when setting trade negotiating objectives, and how will the Government issue a response to the recommendations? Will the Minister provide some assurances in that regard and will he be bringing something forward at Third Reading?
We also note that the TAC’s scope in the government amendment is limited to agricultural goods and does not address wider scrutiny of regulations and standards pertaining to other goods and services that may be impacted by trade deals, such as chemicals, which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, makes provision for. This, from memory, has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in his submission.
I am very happy to support Amendments 7 and 44. I am pleased that the Trade and Agriculture Commission will be put on a permanent basis, but I plead with the Government not to negative the good work by having Amendment 36, and ask the Minister not to press that.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak primarily on Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and other noble Lords. I also support Amendment 32 on the need for consent from devolved Ministers. In my Second Reading speech on the Agriculture Bill, I welcomed the setting up of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, particularly the appointment of the president of the Farmers’ Union of Wales as a member. I played a small part in the founding of the union 65 years ago—rather a long time.
I received an excellent briefing note from the NFU, and I hope that the Minister will give the assurances that it seeks in that note. The establishment of the commission as a statutory board is important and gives it a degree of permanence, and I welcome the thrust of the government amendments. The NFU has raised the issue of the range of necessary expertise required of its members. It is the word “expertise” on which we need further reassurance. I emphasise the obvious point that agricultural expertise is a vital requirement. I need not say anything further on that.
It also raises the issue of ensuring that devolved interests are properly catered for. I hope that the Government will accept Amendment 32. It was around 1 March 1977 when agricultural responsibility in Wales was transferred from the Government, of which I was a Member, to the Secretary of State for Wales. I tried to anticipate how experience in handling agricultural matters outside Whitehall would be important for a future devolved Government in Wales. Regrettably, this important step had to wait until 1999, but this is one example of the building bricks that were necessary to be transferred and that were so important to the future devolved Administration—hence it is vital that they are properly consulted.
When I was the Welsh Secretary, I also ensured that, when Brussels was concerned with Welsh interests, I attended with the Whitehall Minister of Agriculture. I would be particularly pleased to hear more about the scope of work intended for the commission. This should be spelled out before we leave this important issue.
Lastly, I believe that reassurance is needed about the intention of the Government to review the TAC every three years. It is vital to have wide consultations with relevant interests at this stage. This is a very important body. I welcome it and, in particular, its extended remit and degree of permanence. It will be there to give the views of agriculture to the Government of the day. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I had very much hoped to give three loud cheers to the Government for putting down this amendment but, at the moment, my noble friend has one and a half cheers. But I am extremely grateful to the Government for at least putting down this amendment.
A number of points have been raised, and the point which struck home was that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who said that public expectation is high for the TAC. She is absolutely right. I fear that the TAC, as proposed in the amendments before us, will turn out to be a peely-wally TAC. As a result, it will give the Minister every opportunity to use the proposed new clause in Amendment 36 to repeal it by statutory instrument. That will lead to a huge loss of public confidence in the Government and in agriculture, which has been a matter of so much debate.
We brought the Government to this state, kicking and screaming, through the hard work on the Agriculture Bill. Could my noble friend tell me what membership he envisages for this commission? The point has been made that it is a bit vague, but unless the commission has experts and access to experts, it will not be able to report to the high standard that we hoped and expected of it. Can the commission do work other than looking at trade deals once they have been negotiated? Will there be a lull? If a negotiation is going on, the commission can look at it, and that might bring up other bits of work that it ought to do for future trade deals. But the Government could turn around and say to the commission that because there is no trade deal under negotiation, sorry, your job is finished. Could my noble friend be more specific on the workload he expects of the TAC?
The next point I want to raise was also raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh when she introduced Amendment 7. It is on the wording of the proposed new subsection (2)(4A)(a) in Amendment 34, which refers to “human life or health”. What happens around food security that affects people’s health? Will it be covered by the work of the commission? When we were discussing the Agriculture Bill, the quality of food that would be produced by and imported to this country was a huge concern. It affects human health and, if the TAC is not allowed to look at human health, will aspects of that be omitted?
My last point concerns the shortness of the TAC’s life. Is my noble friend convinced that he will get the right quality of people to serve on it, given that it is an intermittent body, with every likelihood that a Minister could wake up one morning and lay a statutory instrument for its demise? Before a Government decision is made and such a statutory instrument is laid, will my noble friend confirm that he will consult all relevant interested parties and publish their advice? If that is not the case, I fear that the TAC will not produce the quality of reports that we want and will not continue in existence for as long as many noble Lords have anticipated. I hope that my noble friend can change my one and a half cheers into three cheers.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, as always, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I greatly agree with what he said and want to amplify one of his points. I also support Amendment 7, but do not think that it is finished business yet.
When the Agriculture Bill passed through Parliament, many noble Lords advocated amendments about the UK’s food standards: that they should be written into law to protect us from lower food standards in the future. This was backed massively by the public, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and many other noble Lords have said. Some 2.6 million people signed a number of related petitions, and 260,000 people took the trouble to write to their MP because they were concerned about this. The Government have instead opted to put the Trade and Agriculture Commission on to a statutory footing, extending its lifespan and requiring it to look after these important matters. Is this enough? I think not.
We know that trade deals can put huge pressure on food standards and lead to the import of food produced to lower—or indeed higher—standards. Evidence shows that a number of prospective future trading partners want the UK to lower its food and animal welfare standards and to allow the import of currently banned products, including the well-known examples of chlorine chicken and hormone beef as well as others such as products containing residue of pesticides.
The TAC was formed by the Government in response to consumer and farming concerns. Its main aim is to consider the development of the Government’s trade policy, to reflect consumer and developing world interests and to consider how we engage with the WTO on animal welfare. However, as it stands, it will relate only ever to broad farming, food, environmental and animal welfare concerns. Food safety is considered, but not public health.
However, we now have it on a statutory footing and have expanded proposals for membership to include experts on trade, animal and plant health, and animal welfare. This is welcome but not enough. The Government’s amendment categorically excludes the TAC from considering the impact of agri-food trade on human health. Its reference to what the TAC reports on states that, in preparing the report for Parliament, the Secretary of State for International Trade must
“request advice from the Trade and Agriculture Commission … except insofar as they relate to human life or health”.
If the TAC is limited to thinking about health very narrowly, within the confines of a sanitary or phytosanitary source, wider considerations such as impacts to diets, antimicrobial resistance or pesticide residues will be lost. If it is not the role of the TAC to consider this, who will consider it? We all know the long impact of bad diets—those heavy in sugar, fats and salts. We have seen this as Covid has torn through our communities this year. We legislate very well and effectively that food will not kill you today, but we have nothing on food that will kill you tomorrow or, more to the point, in your children’s tomorrows.
The Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics published a report just last week showing how future trading partners for the UK are giving livestock antibiotics to make them grow faster, a practice which has rightly been illegal in the UK and across the EU since 2006. When I raised this in this House the other day, the Minister was emphatic that we have good antibiotic rulings. However, in 2022 the EU will ban the importation of meat and dairy produced in this way but the UK Government have not yet committed to this. This new report shows that, overall, farm antibiotic use per animal is about five times higher in the US and Canada compared with us, with use in United States cattle being about seven times higher. Antibiotic use per animal in Australian poultry is 16 times higher than ours. These are very serious facts.
Where is public health? Somewhere between the Agriculture Bill, the Trade Bill and the TAC. Why is it not in a leading role as we go forward in these crucial debates? I understand, although I might not agree, why the Government chose not to put public health right at the top of the Agriculture Bill as a public good. I know it is impossible to recompense people for growing food which has a monetary value, but I do not feel reassured about where this is going to be. I am also not reassured that it will be left in the hands of the Food Standards Agency, much as I admire it, because I do not understand its relationship to the Trade and Agriculture Commission. At the moment we do not have a public health expert on that body. This is slithering through the cracks; if we do not catch it now, in future it could have very serious consequences for us all.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as recorded in the register. It is a great honour and privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Boycott, whose contributions are always thought-provoking and based on her immense knowledge of food and agriculture. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her amendments and continuing commitment to the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s purpose, in the Agriculture Bill and this Bill.
I will speak to Amendments 31, 34, 35 and 36 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone of Boscobel. I very much welcome these amendments and congratulate the Government on introducing them into the Bill. The future of the Trade and Agriculture Commission was the subject, as has already been mentioned this afternoon, of much debate on the Agriculture Bill. The amendments to that Bill—Clause 42, which the Government finally introduced under pressure—complement the amendments we are considering this afternoon.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. It is clear that the government amendments the Minister is bringing forward today have had a long gestation period—over many years—and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, played a significant role in developing the higher standards which we now take for granted in many respects but which we cannot take for granted in our trading relationships. We still need the existing level of protection.
I commend noble Lords who have shown great endurance and persistence and, ultimately, a degree of success in their work. Among them, I include very much my noble friend Lady Bakewell. Like her, I feel that, having sat for many hours on the trade Bills and the Agriculture Bill, it is nice to see, finally, the Government accepting and then acting on a case that has been made powerfully. In that regard, I welcome the way in which the Minister brought forward the amendments and his openness in discussing them.
He will be aware of the response that I and my noble friend gave, which is reflected in our amendment. My noble friend outlined that in clear terms, and I will simply refer to it before I close. However, before doing so, I want to say that I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, about the motives behind the Government putting this advisory body, but not others, on a statutory footing. We know that that is probably because of the strong campaigning that took place, and that is to the credit of the campaigners, who pressed hard for it. However, the Government have been slightly coy about saying why the agriculture advisory group will be put on a statutory footing but not the trade advisory groups that cover key sectors of the British economy: agri-food; automotive, aerospace and marine; British manufactured and consumer goods, telecoms and technology; chemicals; life sciences; the creative industries; investment; transport services; professional advisory services; and financial services. All those areas are covered by trade advisory groups. What interaction will there be when the trade agreement is being prepared but before it is laid before Parliament under the CRaG process? Why, uniquely, does a report on the elements in Section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020 have to be received from the Trade and Agriculture Commission but not from the other trade advisory groups?
If the intention behind this is, as the Minister will surely say, to enhance scrutiny, how will we know the views of the trade advisory groups for those other sectors of the economy at exactly the same time as the report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission is presented to Parliament? Perhaps the Minister could make that clear. The situation could be resolved quite straightforwardly: he could state at the Dispatch Box that the Government intend to make sure that the other trade advisory groups are able to submit, and we are able to look at, their views on the impact assessments of an agreement.
I hope that the amendment eloquently outlined by my noble friend does not fall foul of the castigatory remarks from the Minister that my amendment received on the last occasion. In this amendment, I have simply used the Government’s wording. I quite liked the wording of their amendment to the internal market Bill—consulting the devolved authorities on appointments to the office of the internal market. In fact, I liked it so much that I thought it should be used in this Bill too. If the Government appoint members of an advisory body for internal United Kingdom trade and consult the devolved authorities, they should also consult the devolved Administrations when appointing members of an external trade advisory body. That would be quite straightforward, and for the Minister to accept that quickly when he winds up at the Dispatch Box would not create any great problems.
My wider question on the period of three years for the life of the Trade and Agriculture Commission is a good one to ask, as that period slightly jars with the five-year period in this Bill for the regulation-making powers. We have the slightly odd situation whereby, under the regulation-making powers in this legislation, the Government have five years but the Trade and Agriculture Commission has only three. Why there is that disjoint, I simply do not know. It would make sense if, at the very least, the lifetime of the regulation-making powers was the same as that of the Trade and Agriculture Commission.
The amendments on consultation should be straightforward. I am not being facetious but I hope the Minister can provide reassurance on the Government’s intention to consult before the appointments are made. I am not sure whether the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend will allow the noble Earl to have two or two and a half cheers. I think that they enhance this. I am grateful to him for allowing me to explain to my noble friend Lord Fox what peely-wally means. I hope that, with these amendments, the government amendments will be less peely-wally and that maybe there will be an improvement.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, this group consists of government amendments, together with amendments from my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Purvis of Tweed. I will try to set a good example by keeping my comments tight and to the point, and I will of course write to noble Lords whose comments I do not do justice to in my response. I am convinced that one thing I have learned in taking this Bill through your Lordships’ House is that it is not possible to please all the people all the time in relation to the contents of the Bill.
I turn, first, to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh. Although their purpose and intent are similar to those underpinning the government amendments before your Lordships—to ensure that high standards of imports into the UK are maintained—my noble friend’s amendments go further. They would create a body responsible for setting criteria for assessing whether provisions in trade agreements on UK imports meet or exceed domestic standards on a very wide range of issues. This would, as a result, set restrictions on what goods could be imported under trade agreements.
It is not appropriate for the UK to impose our standards on other countries and prohibit imports of goods that do not meet our standards where there is no basis to do so. Not only could doing so put us in breach of our WTO obligations but, as we spoke about in Committee on a similar amendment, such action has the potential to harm the economies of developing countries and some of the poorest people in society, and to increase protectionism.
The amendment is unnecessary as the standards that it seeks to protect are already enshrined in domestic statute and the Government will uphold them. Any changes to existing standards would, of course, require new legislation to be scrutinised by Parliament. I believe that the Government have taken decisive action to uphold our commitments to high standards. Extending the remit of the TAC to areas such as human rights would run the risk of duplicating the functions of trusted bodies such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I am sure that that is not something my noble friend would wish.
Similarly, my noble friend’s amendments apply to all trade agreements, including continuity agreements. Instead, the TAC should focus on only new free trade agreements and agreements signed with continuity partners from 2023 onwards. The UK’s continuity FTAs, as I have said previously, roll over existing EU arrangements that we now wish to hold on a bilateral basis. Those agreements were scrutinised under EU scrutiny procedures and simply replicate existing EU trade agreements, with necessary adjustments to reflect the UK context.
The Government have listened carefully to the concerns of the House with regard to independent scrutiny of FTAs. I am very pleased to bring forward Amendments 31, 34, 35, 36, 49 and 50, which will put the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing. This step is integral to boost scrutiny of our new free trade agreements as we move on from continuity.
The current TAC had a different function. It was established as an independent advisory board in July 2020 to advise and inform the Government on their future trade policy. It aims to ensure that animal welfare and environmental standards in food production are not undermined, that consumer and developing country interests are represented and that new export opportunities are secured for producers in all parts of the UK. The amendments today will not impact the role of the current TAC, which will still produce a report by February 2021. I put on record that the Government are thankful for the commitment, time, investment and hard work that current TAC members and representatives of its working groups have put in, and we commend the success it has had to date. We believe that the action we are now taking to put the TAC on to a statutory footing will be an important development in boosting the scrutiny of the Government’s trade policy.
Amendment 34 places the Secretary of State under a duty to seek advice from the TAC on matters set out in Section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020, excluding human life and health—I know that this point is of concern to a number of noble Lords; I will come back to it in a moment—in preparing a report to Parliament to accompany relevant free trade agreements laid under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act procedures. I particularly reassure the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that the omission of human health from the remit of the TAC does not in any way diminish the importance that we will attach to it. It is just that, when we looked at the composition of the TAC and its range of duties, it seemed that expert advice relevant to human life and health would best be sourced separately from other, more expert bodies in that field. The report under the Agriculture Act will include both advice that comes from the TAC and advice that comes from other relevant bodies in relation to human life and health. The duty will be exercised, but not through the TAC.
Section 42 of the Agriculture Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to report on whether the measures in certain future FTAs applicable to trade in agricultural products are consistent with maintaining UK domestic statutory protections for human, animal or plant life or health, animal welfare and the environment. The TAC advice will inform that report. It will be laid separately before Parliament as an independent report, but it will not be the totality of the report under the Act.
The role of the statutory TAC will therefore represent an evolution of the current TAC. The statutory TAC’s purpose—to provide advice under Section 42 of the Agriculture Act—is set out in Amendment 31, and the TAC advice will ensure independent expert scrutiny of new free trade agreements. The request for advice by the Secretary of State and any guidelines will be published, and advice supplied by the TAC will be laid before Parliament. That is the role of the TAC. It is not a standing body producing advisory reports, as one might have deduced from the existing TAC; it is an independent expert body scrutinising new free trade agreements as and when they come along.
Amendment 31 creates a power for the Secretary of State to appoint members and, of course, a duty to have regard to the desirability of appointing members with expertise specific to the role of the TAC. The Government will work to ascertain the range of skills and knowledge required for the commission, noting that additional skills and expertise might be required and that the list in the amendment is not, of course, exclusive. The TAC must have those skills but the Secretary of State is free to decide that it might need additional skills other than those on the list.
I can absolutely affirm to your Lordships that the Secretary of State will make appointments in line with all the usual public law principles applicable to all ministerial decision-making and within the confines of the new statutory provisions. These will be direct appointments and will follow established protocols, demonstrating the department’s commitment to a robust process and eliminating any conflicts of interest. The steps required as part of this process will be reflected in the TAC’s terms of reference.
As a non-incorporated expert committee—I might just dwell on those words for a moment—the commission will provide the Government with independent external advice to deliver additional scrutiny of free trade agreements. It will comprise technical experts who can analyse complex treaty text and provide robust and balanced advice to Parliaments. Members of the TAC will be chosen to have knowledge of standards across the whole of the UK. To my noble friend Lady McIntosh, I say that what we are establishing is not a body with a CEO that produces annual reports; it is a group of experts who have a specified task to do, which is put in front of them every time a new FTA comes down the tracks.
Amendment 34 will require the TAC to be reviewed every three years. Of course, I can see from this debate that there is perhaps a misunderstanding among noble Lords about what exactly that means. In my experience, it is good practice for these bodies to be reviewed after a period of time, and three years is not an uncommon period. However, it in no way means that the body will be wound up after that time, because the TAC must stay in place unless the Government bring forward secondary legislation via the affirmative procedure to repeal the TAC’s provisions. There is a review every three years, but only if that review comes forward with recommendations that both Houses of Parliament accept can the TAC be discontinued.
I want completely to reassure noble Lords about the consequences of Amendment 36, which, I fear, has been misunderstood by Members. Amendment 36 is entirely dependent on Amendment 34. Only if the Amendment 34 process every three years resulted in a decision by Parliament that the TAC should be wound up would the provisions of Amendment 36 come into effect to pass the necessary statutory instruments to repeal the TAC. Amendment 36 does not stand alone so it could not be used for the Secretary of State to wind up the TAC on a whim; that would be a ludicrous proposition. I apologise if noble Lords have found the drafting of the amendment confusing in that respect, but I can give them complete reassurance on that matter.
I believe that the role of the statutory TAC complements other measures that the Government have taken to further enhance scrutiny of new FTAs and ensure that the views of the agricultural sector are taken into account during the negotiations process. Indeed, this will not be the only independent scrutiny that our new free trade agreement will receive: the International Trade Committee in the other place and our own IAC will also, of course, provide critical scrutiny and advice on our negotiated deals, just as this took place with the Japan agreement. I reassure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to listening to and engaging with consumers, farmers and industry in negotiating our free trade agreements, and we value the input that they provide in this process.
It is important to remember that our expert trade and advisory groups, representing businesses, consumers and civil society, already provide advice during free trade agreement negotiations—this is an essential difference from the TAC—and we will not seek to duplicate that important work. In particular, there is a dedicated agri-food trade advisory group, in which the agri-foods sector is represented; it does an excellent job of representing that sector.
I believe that these amendments will help the UK safeguard our current standards of agricultural products, put British farming at the heart of our trade policy and ensure that our agricultural sector is among the most competitive and innovative in the world. I hope that noble Lords will be able to support the amendments brought forward by the Government.
On the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, as I have already mentioned, the TAC will be an expert committee; members will be independent experts, appointed as individuals, not as representatives of academia, business or other organisations for which many of them may work. As I said before, the Secretary of State will make appointments in line with established protocols, following the usual public law principles applicable to all ministerial decision-making. The statutory TAC will represent an evolution of the current TAC to reflect its purpose as set out in Amendment 33. Of course, the membership will be considered accordingly. We are committed to ensuring that only expertise will drive the appointment of new members. It is critical for the success of the TAC that the advice is independent and underpinned by the expertise listed in the amendment.
As I have said before, the central purpose of the TAC is to improve scrutiny of FTAs prior to their ratification. Therefore, as I said earlier, it is related to a reserved matter: the ratification of free trade agreements. As such, the TAC amendment does not engage the legislative consent process under the Sewel convention. While we acknowledge, of course, that the work of the TAC will touch on the devolved matter of agriculture, this does not alter the fact that its function relates to a reserved matter.
However, the UK Government recognise that, as agriculture is a devolved matter, the devolved Administrations, of course, have a legitimate interest in the TAC’s work. Therefore, the Minister of State for Trade Policy has written to them, seeking their views on the statutory TAC, and he will discuss it with them at the ministerial forum for trade later this week. I hope that noble Lords understand that the commitments that we have made, when pulled together, create a further commitment to produce a report on standards in FTAs in relation to specific concerns, as outlined in Section 42 of the Agriculture Act. Through our amendment, we are proposing to put the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing—I sense that noble Lords welcome this—and to provide advice in relation to this. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw Amendment 7.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I have received a request to ask a short question from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, so I call the noble Lord to ask a short question of elucidation.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his extensive explanations behind his amendments, although, obviously, I will look carefully at Hansard later, and we may further follow up aspects of this. I would like to draw out from him one further explanation. I listened carefully to his explanations, and I concede that due process would take place before Amendment 36 was invoked and after Amendment 34 had been implemented. But what could be the circumstances in which a review would give rise to an abandonment of the TAC process in future trade assessments?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. Pragmatically, the most likely circumstance would be if a bigger and better idea came along. For a Trade Minister to come to this House or the other place and say they were winding up the TAC and nothing was being put in its place would lead to a difficult debate. This is, perhaps, part of the whole process. We are new to trade agreements, the way we are handling them is evolving, and matters may evolve with that.
I stress again that there is nothing Machiavellian about the three-year review point. It is certainly not Machiavellian to require both Houses to agree to any winding up of the TAC. Other noble Lords will be more expert than I am on this, but I would be surprised if either our House or the other place resolved to wind up the TAC unless something bigger and better was being put in its place.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken in this debate and in particular to the Minister for his response to the concerns that have been raised. His conclusion backs ours; nearly everybody who has spoken has spoken in favour of the permanency, beyond an initial three or six years, of the TAC. He himself just accepted that in his last few words.
To come back to the basic points: we all agree it is excellent that the government amendments put the TAC on a statutory footing. In the words of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that goes a little way but not far enough towards independence.
I am not sure I got an answer on which resources will be allocated. I realise it is not our place, in this House, to say that, but we did not get an answer on it. On the question of permanence, I will revert to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, identified a gap in all the amendments—government amendments and Amendments 7 and 44—in a lack of understanding about what government strategy for trade will be. I agree with her on that. Why would we want to tie ourselves to all these commitments, which, inevitably, a CPTPP free trade agreement would involve, when we are tying ourselves up in knots regarding those with the EU? It also begs the question of why we have committed ourselves to a strict regime on state aid with the Japan free trade agreement, which goes further than what we are currently willing to agree to in a future trade agreement with the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, put his finger on the point in his last question, but also on the fact that the matter of standards is unfinished business, which we have carried over from the Agriculture Act. I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to all the farm organisations—the NFU, the TFA, the CLA and all the green organisations, which have been united with the public. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, mentioned the 1 million signatures we had that gave rise to amendments in this group, which were previously tabled during the passage of the Agriculture Bill.
My noble friend Lord Caithness was right to stop at one and a half cheers. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, have identified the need to know more about what the membership of the Trade and Agriculture Commission will be going forward Although my noble friend the Minister has put a little more meat on the bones, it is still vague.
I did not understand entirely whether the relevant committee, especially in the Commons, will be entitled to do a public appointment hearing regarding the future chair, or the reappointment of the current chair, of the TAC. My noble friend may have misunderstood the role of human rights issues and employment law in this regard. These are now standard in agreements before the World Trade Organization and international agreements, so I am slightly surprised that he thought I was seeking to undermine the Equality and Human Rights Commission in this country, which of course was not my intention.
On independence, I am not sure that we are 100% where we should be, certainly on resources. It would have been helpful to have further clarification. I have made my point about how appointments should be scrutinised by the relevant committee and I stand by that. I am sorry if I did not hear my noble friend confirm that. Also, when my noble friend says that reports on agreements will be “laid before Parliament”, I presume he means that they will be debated and voted on in the usual way.
It would be more helpful than anything else if my noble friend would withdraw government Amendment 36 at this stage. I do not think that it has been drafted clearly and it does not sum up the debate that we have heard on this group. What compounds this is that, on a closer reading of government Amendment 34 on which my noble friend has relied in summing up his arguments, the review to which he has referred, in subsection (4) of government Amendment 34, allows that, in subsection (6B) of proposed new Section 42 of the Agriculture Act:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations repeal subsections (4A), (4B) and (6A), and amend subsection (5) to remove reference to advice requested in accordance with subsection (4A)”
That of course is the very advice that is the subject of this group of amendments: requesting advice from the Trade and Agriculture Commission on the matters referred to in subsection (2) of the new clause
“except insofar as they relate to human life or health.”
I also did not quite understand what the Minister said in summing up how the Government will report. He said that the TAC will report on so much as regards advice, but not on public health. He did not outline how or when that duty will be exercised in terms of future trade agreements, which body would be doing those, and to whom that advice would be tendered if it is not going to be tendered by the Trade and Agriculture Commission.
I think that the will of the House has been expressed strongly this evening that public health and food security should continue to be included. I do not know whether I have an opportunity to revert to my noble friend to answer those two points before I decide whether to withdraw my Amendment 7.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
Is the noble Baroness withdrawing her amendment? I cannot hear a response.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
I am so sorry. I am seeking clarification as to whether it is the Government’s intention to withdraw Amendment 36 this evening.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Perhaps I can help my noble friend. The Minister is happy with what he has said, and I urge my noble friend to draw her remarks to a close.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 8. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 8
Lord Collins of Highbury
“Free trade agreements: determination on compliance with international obligations and state actions
(1) Before publishing the objectives and any initial impact assessments of a proposed trade agreement to be implemented under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the Government must conduct a risk assessment which considers whether the agreement would comply with the United Kingdom’s international treaties and other obligations, with particular reference to human rights, and examines serious violations committed, or alleged to have been committed by the state or states who will be signatory to the proposed trade agreement.(2) The risk assessment under subsection (1) must be presented to the relevant Committees in both Houses of Parliament.(3) Before a trade agreement can be laid before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (“the CRAG procedure”), Ministers of the Crown must determine whether the trade agreement, if ratified, would be compliant with the United Kingdom’s international obligations, with particular reference to human rights, and whether serious violations have been committed by the state or states of the signed trade agreement. Such a determination must be published and made available to the relevant Committees at the same time as they are requested to consider a signed trade agreement.(4) The Government must present an annual report to the relevant Committees in both Houses of Parliament on the continuing compliance of trade agreements with the United Kingdom’s international obligations, with particular reference to human rights, and which examines serious violations committed or alleged to have been committed by the state or states who are signatory to the trade agreement since it was signed. If breaches of the United Kingdom’s international obligations or serious violations have taken place, Ministers of the Crown must make a determination on the continuation of a trade agreement.(5) In this section, “serious violations” include an activity by a state which would violate an individual’s—(a) right to life, including but not limited to genocide;(b) right not to be subjected to torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;(c) right to be free from slavery and not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour; or(d) other major violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms as set out in relevant international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.(6) In this section, “trade agreement” refers to any agreement between the United Kingdom and one or more partners that includes components that facilitate the trade of goods, services or intellectual property, including but not limited to—(a) free trade agreements as defined by section 4;(b) Interim Association Agreements and Association Agreements; (c) Economic Partnership Agreements;(d) Interim Partnership Agreements;(e) Stabilisation and Association Agreements;(f) Global Agreements;(g) Economic Area Agreements;(h) Cooperation Agreements;(i) Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreements;(j) Association Agreements with strong trade component;(k) Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnerships; and(l) Investment Protection Agreements.”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for signing this amendment. I also particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his support. Despite what we might read in the newspapers, there is no difference between us on these issues and, in particular, in ensuring that those people who commit genocide are held to account. We have a long record of working together on this and I am sure we will continue that co-operative approach tonight.
As we heard in the previous group of amendments, all EU trade deals since 2009 have had human rights clauses embedded in them, allowing the EU to suspend a deal, either partially or fully, if the third country is adjudged responsible for human rights abuses. While this power has not been exercised in any case so far, EU representatives say that it is vital, first as a basis for dialogue and progress on human rights issues during the negotiation phase for any new deal and, secondly, to apply ongoing pressure on third countries around these issues.
In February 2019, the then International Trade Secretary Liam Fox revealed that the watering down of human rights provisions was something many third countries were demanding as the price of agreeing a deal. He suggested then that the UK would not accept these demands, saying:
“Some countries have said that they did not like some of the human rights elements that were incorporated by the EU and they would like us to drop those in order to roll the agreements over.”
Mr Fox went on to say:
“I am not inclined to do so, because the value we attach to human rights is an important part of who we are as a country.”—[Official Report, 13/2/19; cols. 892-93.]
I totally agree with Mr Fox in that regard, and the Minister’s words in Committee expressed similar sentiments, but how are such words being translated into reality? Is there evidence of a consistent approach on human rights? Do we have a joined-up government approach? In 2016, Simon McDonald, head of the Diplomatic Service, told MPs that
“clearly more resource is devoted … to prosperity than to human rights.”
Human rights are one of the things we follow, but not one of our top priorities. When Theresa May visited China in 2018, she was praised by the Chinese state media for sidestepping the issue of human rights, putting the importance of what it called “pragmatic collaboration” with China first. The media concluded:
“May will definitely not make any comment contrary to the goals of her China trip…. For the Prime Minister the losses outweigh the gains if she appeases the UK media at the cost of the visit’s friendly atmosphere.”
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Government may be concerned to see noble Lords return from that intermission invigorated and fortified for the remainder of the evening that lies ahead. I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on the way in which he introduced his important amendment, to which I am a signatory, and the thoughtful way he expressed the reasons that lie behind it. I will not say it is a pleasure, because the issues we are discussing are hardly that, but I am always glad to be able to stand with the noble Lord, specifically when we deal with atrocity crimes and human rights, and tonight is no exception. I support Amendments 8 and 11 and the consequential new Schedule, which is linked to Amendment 11. I am a signatory to those amendments, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Collins, and Lord Blencathra, from whom the House will hear in due course.
In his well-judged opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, explained that the amendments focus on our duty to examine the human rights records of trading partners. Later, as the noble Lord said, the House will debate Amendment 9, an all-party amendment in my name, which is more narrowly drawn, specifically targeting trade agreements with states accused of committing genocide, and putting in place a judicial mechanism to break the vicious circle that leads to inaction as genocides emerge.
Like Amendment 9, Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, also provides a judicial mechanism to enable a wholly independent judge to assess human rights violations wider than genocide. Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, provides the opportunity, through risk assessment, parliamentary scrutiny and an annual report to Parliament, to look at serious violations of human rights, including torture and servitude. I should declare that I am a trustee of a charity, the Arise Foundation, which combats modern-day slavery, and a patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response.
These amendments are not dependent on one another, or mutually exclusive. Taken together, they could provide a combination of oversight and pressure from within and outside Parliament, providing belt and braces. If enacted, they will enable us to redefine our willingness to trade with those responsible for egregious crimes against humanity—an opportunity which I flagged at Second Reading. Subsequently, on 29 September, during day 1 of our Committee proceedings, I moved Amendment 33, an all-party amendment which I described as an attempt to open a debate around three things: first, doing business with regimes which commit serious breaches of human rights; secondly, the overreliance on non-democratic countries in the provision of our national infrastructure; and thirdly, the role that Parliament and the judicial authorities might have in informing those questions. On 13 October, the fifth day of Committee, I moved Amendments 68 and 76A on the narrower point of trading with countries judged by the High Court of England and Wales to be complicit in genocide.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 8 and my own Amendments 10 and 45—that is 10 and 45, not 11 and 45. I have been monitoring proceedings—watching them upstairs in my office—and I have popped down to the Chamber for this debate. I shall attempt to be brief because much has been said, in such wonderful ways and in such a powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whom I regard as my noble friend, and by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury—I think it is the first speech I have ever agreed with him on, although he may not find that helpful.
My Amendment 10 is designed to emulate the excellent Amendment 9 of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because I seem to recall that, when he moved his amendments in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, commended the approach of involving the courts, and I thought, “That amendment has got some traction”. As such, my amendment on human rights—not genocide—follows the structure of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. For the human right abuses, I have selected, in the main, the principal ones from the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not intend to push my amendments to a vote because I hope Amendment 8 will succeed, and I will vote for it.
The only little quibble I have with Amendment 8 concerns subsection (5)(d) of the proposed new clause. Subsection (5) talks about “serious violations” and lists “genocide”, “torture”, “inhuman or degrading treatment”, “slavery” and so on—but paragraph (d) then talks about
“other major violations of human rights”
and lists:
“the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
My worry here is that one is getting down to less important human rights, some of which I regard almost as motherhood and apple pie. My concern is: would the Government use this as an excuse not to go down this route?
Yes, of course, they might accept genocide, slavery and torture, but I question reporting to Parliament every time that one of the more minor human rights is contravened. We may consider this terribly important in our western liberal democracy, but I suspect that, if you look at the huge range of UN human rights, the protocols and the additions to them, almost every single country in the world could be accused of breaching one of them. That is my concern, and it is why, in my Amendment 45, to which Amendment 10 refers, I listed the main ones from the European Convention on Human Rights:
“The right to life
Freedom from torture
Freedom from slavery
The right to liberty
The right to a fair trial …
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly
The right to marry and start a family”
and so on—because it is important to concentrate on the main ones.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has set out in detail the incredible abuses of the Uighur people in China. I put it this way: would we dream of doing a trade deal with the regime in Burma, considering what it has done? Would we do a trade deal with the late and highly unlamented Mugabe of Zimbabwe, after his extermination of 20,000 of the Matabele people? No—of course not. Yet in China—again, I distinguish between the people of China and the communist regime—the regime is equally as bad as Burma or Mugabe, and, as the noble Lord described, it is doing genocide in slow motion, whereas Mugabe exterminated 20,000 Matabele in a few months.
Of course we would not do a trade deal with those countries or other regimes, but we are trading with China because it has got a grip on us: we are overreliant on trade with it and overdependent on it. This is not the time to get into and debate this with my noble friend the Minister, but I wish all success with Project Defend, which is aimed at trying to make sure that we reshore some of the things that we are dependent on China for or that we source them from other countries. Even something as bog-standard as paracetamol, which costs about a penny a tablet, should not be 99% sourced from chemicals in China and then produced in India; we must source more of these vital products and services from other countries. That is why I support Amendment 8.
To save time, because we are running rather late tonight, I intend to withdraw from speaking on Amendment 9, but I completely support it. I will vote for it, and I hope it passes because it is probably the most important amendment we have dealt with today or tomorrow—or whenever we will address this Bill again; it is the most important amendment, and I think the Government can easily, and should, accept it. If the wording is slightly wrong, they have time to clean it up in the other place for us to get it back here during ping-pong. With those remarks, I will conclude and let others speak.
I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, would make a comment, if he can bear it, on my point about some of the more trivial human rights abuses in case that weakens the argument. I may be totally wrong, but if he has a chance to comment on it, I would greatly welcome that.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who will be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Curry.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
I thank noble Lords for putting down these amendments, which I wish to support. Noble Lords who have spoken have laid out clearly why the amendments are needed and how vital it is that we do not slip backwards with regard to human rights. As noble Lords have explained, Amendment 8 sets out three ways in which to ensure that in agreeing to potential trade deals we do not condone the abuse of human rights. Ministers must assess human rights in the country or countries in question before starting trade negotiations, present their conclusions for scrutiny by the relevant parliamentary committees, and reassess when the negotiations are complete. They must also present an annual report on the matter. The courts could play a role in those first two stages, ensuring that these are not empty gestures, for example to a Parliament with an overwhelming majority for the Government of the day.
The amendment’s definition of serious human rights violations includes genocide, torture, slavery and forced labour, complementing the amendment that we will consider in the next group. As noble Lords have said, the amendment reflects the language used by the Government in relation to the Magnitsky sanctions and arms export licensing. Of course, the FCDO produces an annual report on countries of concern with regard to their human rights.
The noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Alton, have laid out many instances of human rights abuses around the world, including genocide. Until now, we have made trade agreements as part of the EU, and as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has explained, human rights conditions are now applied to all EU trade deals. Surely we do not intend to drop below those standards. However, I noted during scrutiny of a recent SI on conflict minerals that we have fully signed up so far only to what the EU is implementing for Northern Ireland—because of the Northern Ireland protocol. That does not reflect centrality for human rights. I realise that the FCDO has a huge amount on its plate, but EU agreements, with their human rights provisions, are scrutinised in the European Parliament. We have just passed an amendment that will, we hope, ensure that scrutiny by Parliament is part of our democratic future, just as it was when we were in the EU.
The Government have made it clear that high human rights standards and values will drive global Britain. Yet we hear that countries seek to exploit the fact that we are in a weaker position, as a nation of 67 million people, than the powerful economic bloc that is the EU. We can already see how the EU is, for example, seeking to drive up environmental standards using its muscle.
The Government indicated that we could simply roll over agreements with other countries—a somewhat peculiar thought, since it implied that there would be no advantages from leaving the EU. We have since discovered that other countries do not regard our market as being as significant as the EU’s, and, moreover, they want to see how useful we might be as a route into the EU. All this means that in future it is likely to be more difficult to make sure we build in human rights when seeking trade deals with other countries. It has been a feature of the whole Brexit process that things have been promised that turn out not to be easy to achieve after all.
Amendment 8 is totally in keeping with what the Government say they wish to do, so they should surely support it. If they do not, it becomes even clearer that we need this amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I fully endorse the wise comments of the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Alton and Lord Blencathra, and the remarks made just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I fully support these amendments and will reserve my comments for the debate on Amendment 9 in the next group.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 8; I also support Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. In response to his kind invitation, I say to him that I do not think that the reference in his proposed new schedule to other human rights weakens the argument in any way. I hope that he rests assured that that is the position, and that his amendment stands as a good amendment that should be carefully considered.
I do not believe that this country has been at all at fault in its support for the international treaties and obligations with reference to human rights to which the amendment refers. Indeed, we have led the way from the very start in the international campaign for the protection of human rights that began more than seven decades ago. Legislation has been brought forward with the minimum of delay on each occasion to incorporate each of the protections and rights into our domestic law. Nevertheless, there are gaps in the mechanisms for giving effect to our international obligations. With the exception of the UN Convention against Torture, which enables the contracting parties to bring proceedings against any persons within their jurisdiction for acts of torture, wherever they were committed, and some extensions of the reach of the European Convention on Human Rights that have resulted from decisions of the European Court in Strasbourg, the contracting parties can deal only with offending acts that are committed within their own territories. They can deal only with persons who have infringed their provisions; they cannot deal with acts, however egregious, committed by states. The fact is, however, that some of the most horrific infringements have been committed by state actors, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred, with the encouragement and support of the states themselves. The prospect of those states bringing the perpetrators to justice is remote. The result is that there are places across the world where those who are crying out for the benefit of internationally recognised human rights are without any effective protection whatever.
Quite how to meet this problem has puzzled many minds: it is not easy to find a workable solution, but we cannot stand idly by. We have to do the best we can. The amendment that follows, Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, offers one way in the case of the international crime of genocide. This amendment, which reaches out more widely across a whole range of violations affecting our international human rights and obligations and, happily, has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, too, offers another. It fits in neatly with the aims and purposes of this Bill. Furthermore, the way it seeks to give effect to our international obligations should serve as an example to other state parties that have joined with us in the endeavour to extend the protection of fundamental human rights throughout the world. The amendment would show leadership in an area of human affairs where this is much needed. I hope very much, therefore, that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on so eloquently moving his amendment. He has done the House a great service and expressed himself much more clearly than I was able to do on subsection (9)(e) of the new clause proposed by my Amendment 7, where I briefly spoke about human rights. I ally myself with comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Alton, my noble friend Lord Blencathra and, in particular, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, whom I am delighted to follow. I was a little disappointed by the less-than-enthusiastic response by my noble friend the Minister to my raising of human rights in the context of Amendment 7, and I hope that he will do full justice to this group of amendments, which I intend to support if they are pressed to a vote.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my first point on these amendments is that I am fundamentally in favour of trade. It is a huge part of our history as a nation and is certainly part of our ambitions for our future outside the EU. Being in favour of trade does not mean that I am against human rights, but I believe that a mature trading nation has to be able to balance competing interests; for example, the desire for all nations to uphold the highest standards of behaviour towards their citizens against the economic well-being of our own nation.
Human rights abuses are not a black and white issue. At one extreme, there is appalling abuse, such as the treatment of the Uighurs in China—though we must not forget that China contests the facts. At the other extreme, there might be a nation state that has never committed a human rights abuse, but I am not sure one exists. The UK, for example, has been founding wanting by the European Court of Human Rights on several occasions, and our own courts have found the same. Importantly, there is a spectrum of grey where the difficult task of responsible government arises.
Both Amendments 8 and 10 envisage using the courts to decide whether a human rights abuse is one that could, in effect, override or cancel the free trade agreement. In the case of Amendment 10 in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, this is explicit, but in the case of Amendment 8, the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury—I think that I am quoting him correctly—said that the Government’s determinations under his new clause could be challenged by the courts. The courts in the UK may be good at determining whether human rights abuses have been committed in this country, but I do not believe that they are well placed to make any such determination in relation to overseas territories.
Furthermore, both amendments open our courts to vexatious claims by human rights activists of all kinds. I have a vision of our hard-pressed judicial system being swamped by the kind of litigation that is bound to follow if these amendments become law. It is not wise to invite our courts into the territory that is properly the domain of the Government’s foreign and trade policy; that would be a very poor outcome.
Amendment 8, unlike Amendment 10, does try to restrict itself to “serious violations”, but it defines them widely in subsection (5)(d) as
“other major violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
I do not know what that means and I do not want our courts getting sucked into these sorts of issues, which are, inevitably, political judgments at the end of the day.
I have one fundamental objection to these amendments: they attack free trade agreements only. They do nothing about trade that carries on on WTO terms. We do not have a free trade agreement with China but we certainly trade with it. If noble Lords think that passing either of these amendments, or Amendment 9 in the next group, will do anything for the Uighurs in China, they are not being honest with themselves. We should be wary of using our power to legislate to do no more than virtue-signal.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 8. We have been privileged to belong to the European Union and follow the Copenhagen principles, as they were once called. We followed these rules as EU members; they will now be translated into our own legislation. Even in the EU, there are countries where the rule of law falls short, yet we still trade with them. Beyond that, how can we influence and do business with the more serious human rights offenders? Should we bring them aid and trade on the grounds that, in time, that might lead to a culture that could introduce new ideas and alleviate human rights offences? It is an outdated, even arrogant, position—I am not sure that it worked with Macaulay and Curzon in India—but we still argue it. Sometimes, we have to go further and resort to sanctions.
On the International Agreements Committee, I have argued for a stronger reference to human rights in the Explanatory Memorandum. In the past, you would see the phrase “no significant human rights considerations”, but I know from the Minister’s reassurance that the FCDO has been working hard on this and things such as trafficking. The rollover agreements reiterate the EU clauses, including protection for minorities. Can the Minister confirm that there has been further progress there as far as the new free trade agreements are concerned?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 8. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I also support Amendment 9.
In opening the debate on this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked whether we have a consistent approach on human rights. The Prime Minister spent a lot of time when he was Foreign Secretary, and since then as Prime Minister, talking about going global. That is not just about trade, which concerns the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but about a wider set of interests and principles. We can trade widely but is that all that we should be doing? I do not believe that it is mere virtue-signalling to suggest that, if we want free trade agreements, we should also think about wider issues associated with the countries with which we are trading.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is right that there are difficulties in adjudicating on genocide. Whenever genocide is raised with the Ministers at the FCDO, they say, “We cannot possibly talk about it unless it has been brought as a legal case and confirmed by the courts.” That is why Amendment 8 is important as a wider amendment that talks about human rights more generally, but the two go together.
As my noble friend Lady Northover pointed out, it is important that the Government support this amendment. Free trade should not be the only thing that matters. If, as an independent country now separate from the European Union, we seek to play a major role in the world, surely that should be based on our fundamental values and principles—not just on the value of trading contracts but on the value of relationships more generally. Trade in goods that comes from forced labour, modern slavery and concentration camps is surely not something that anybody in this country or Her Majesty’s Government can condone. As my noble friend Lady Northover said, surely the Government can support this amendment. If they cannot, it is even more important to have it in the Bill. I support Amendment 8.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I declare my position as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong, which may have some relevance to this. I join with many other noble Lords in thanking those noble Lords who have tabled and supported these amendments. I should warn the House that, in about the next minute of my contribution, I am going to be very concrete and graphic—this needs a trigger warning for anyone who has been a victim of torture or abuse.
This is an account provided by Ömir Bekali, a Uighur Muslim from Xinjiang in the far south-west of China, the former owner of a small tourism business, who spoke to the “Varsity” magazine in Cambridge in October. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, talked about the big picture of what is happening in Xinjiang, but this is one man’s story. Ömir said:
“They shackled my hands and put black fabric [over] my eyes … I feel my body tremble whenever I remember that moment … My feet and my hands were tied up with iron shackles and they beat my hands, they beat my feet … they beat my back and my stomach … They put needles in between my nails and my fingers”.
After I have spoken, I will tweet a link to the report, which contains much more and worse than what I have just put on the record.
The world has, sadly, been hearing reports of human rights abuses for decades, centuries and millennia. I have to respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who suggested that these amendments would not help the Uighurs. What we are doing is making sure that we do not go backwards from the inadequate but still existing controls that we have with regard to human rights and trade under our former EU membership. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who said that the calling out of human rights abuse and putting it on to the international agenda is crucially important in terms of influencing the behaviour of peoples and nations.
In the UK, we have often had the cover of saying, “Perhaps little can be done in far-away places with few connections with over here, and there is little that we can do to help.” It was often the excuse—a very thin and inadequate excuse—that that was only the word of one individual; it was not hard evidence of what was happening. But that is not the case anymore, because we now have satellite pictures of massive so-called re-education camps, concentration camps or straight-out prisons in Xinjiang. We have even, due to the globalisation of the economy, the occasional desperate note pleading for rescue from abusive forced labour falling from a holiday present into the living-room of a shocked British household. That is a practical demonstration of the fact that we know well: our trade, companies and society, and our prosperity, are inextricably linked in a crucial way to the economic structures that are fed by these abuses. Our economic structures and political arrangements all too regularly, either tacitly or even explicitly, condone or accept such behaviour.
I note that Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has been criticised as being too weak, but it is a start and a step in the right direction of acknowledging the link between trade and human rights. Amendment 10, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, steps up to and links with Amendment 9 that we will consider in the next group. The Green group will support them all. The amendment provides a strong and clear focus on genocide, even if it is limited in scope.
Let us start here and see how far we can get. I would say to Members of your Lordships’ House that if you will not be joining the many Lords who have said that they will back at least some of these steps, my question is this: what will you say to Ömir, who has spoken out bravely in the hope of action to protect people still in Xinjiang and people around the world who are suffering human rights abuses? Choosing not to do something is not a neutral act, but an active choice, a choice of morality, a choice about the kind of world we all live in, now and in the future.
I am sure that many noble Lords will be familiar with the short story by the late and brilliant Ursula K Le Guin, “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”. For those who are not, it is about a wonderful, prosperous and flourishing city that relies for its prosperity entirely on the permanent misery and the deliberate abuse of the human rights of a single child. Those who walk away are those who reject this bargain. We have today a trade system built on the misery not of one but of millions. Will noble Lords reject that bargain?
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Alton of Liverpool, my noble friend Lord Blencathra and other noble Lords for bringing forward amendments. They give us an opportunity to consider some important issues. I will talk about Amendments 8, 10 and 45, and refer to Amendment 9. Having done so, I will not speak on the next group.
With Amendment 8, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has set out an encompassing process for an examination of the human rights situation in countries with which we might enter into international agreements. The list of agreements to be included at the end of his amendment is very wide ranging indeed. Many of these agreements would extend far beyond trade, but it is not criticised on that account; it is intended to be encompassing. This is a very wide-ranging process on the route into trade agreements, on the point at which they are laid before and, if necessary, reported to this House and subsequently in annual reports.
The question that immediately comes to mind is what happens as a consequence. What happens is that one of the two Houses of Parliament has to do something about it. From listening to the debate, noble Lords have specific and sometimes compelling examples of the human rights abuses, violations and even—as Amendment 9 refers to—genocide that may be the responsibility of states with which we enter into agreements. The first point to make is that we should be responsible for thinking in precise terms about whether to enter into those kinds of agreement with those states and under those circumstances. We should not set up a wide-ranging, encompassing, endless process of bureaucratic scrutiny but take responsibility for determining with whom we have relationships, the character of the relationships we enter into and whether to sustain them.
That brings me to my second point, where I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes: how can we abdicate that responsibility to the High Court? We have spent a lot of our time debating whether Parliament should intervene in the Executive’s prerogative power to initiate, conduct and enter into trade agreements and treaties. Here we are discussing an amendment in which people seem to think that Parliament should not do that but hand responsibility to the High Court to determine whether we remain in an agreement or should revoke an agreement that we have entered into. I cannot, for the life of me, see that it is right for Parliament to abdicate its responsibility to the High Court.
In practice, I come back to how we have to take that responsibility ourselves. Everybody has talked about China, but the noble Lord, Lord Collins, made an interesting speech illustrating this by reference to Egypt. I am not going to take a view on that today, because I do not have the knowledge to argue that it is right or wrong to roll over the agreement with Egypt in the way in which we intend, but the noble Lord asks the right question, in my view, at the right time. We have all the powers available to us to decide whether to enter into such an agreement. We do not need to change the Bill to change that fact; it is a matter only of looking at the circumstances of an individual agreement with an individual counterparty, and asking whether we should do it or not.
Another thing to mention is the timing of this. There is always, “If not now, when?” This is difficult because, yesterday, the Government initiated a review of our own human rights legislation. Our Human Rights Act requires that, if a court were to determine that we are acting in a way that is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, it can make a declaration of incompatibility. Then Ministers can make an order—they do not have to—to remediate that incompatibility.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I remember very clearly the debate that he led in Committee. I think it was just the two of us and the Minister in the Chamber, shortly before midnight, when we debated a framework for human rights and trade. That is the point that he was trying to make, and I agree with him very strongly. That is why I commend the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for tabling this amendment to try to persuade the Government that there will be support if they bring forward a trade and human rights policy that we can engage in and work on with them. That is an appeal. I commend the noble Lord for bringing the amendment forward and I am delighted to have added my name to it.
With regard to a list of countries, we are yet to roll over an agreement with Algeria, which Freedom House has classified as “not free” or similarly with Cameroon, Egypt or Eswatini, which are also classified “not free”. We would not engage in this with Syria—although if we were rolling over all agreements, that could include an agreement that did exist but is not in place because the country is under sanction. We have arrangements with the Palestinian Authority, which Freedom House indicates is “not free”; Zimbabwe again is “not free”.
We have separate debates over Turkey and Vietnam. When it comes to Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, we know that those two countries have had year-long disputes over the definition of genocide within the international tribunals. I agree to an extent that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated, this is a grey area. That is not, however, a reason not to progress into a framework to continue to seek improvements.
I hope the Minister does not mind if I remind him that he has twice been referred to in this way as a private citizen and business leader. As chair of a British financial company he commended the authoritarianism of President Xi over protests in Hong Kong, stating that this ensured economic continuity in Hong Kong and was in the UK’s interest. He has now migrated from business leader to political leader. In many respects, that is illustrative of the challenges that we all face about choices that we make in the business community as well as the political community—it is illustrative of this wider debate.
I serve on the International Relations Committee, as does the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We said in our report on the Middle East that the British Government were on the wrong side of international human rights law in continuing to sell arms to Saudi Arabia as the Yemen tragedy ensued. We have high standards in this country and I believe we are a force for good around the world, but we should not delude ourselves about how others see us: inventor of concentration camps, holder of weapons of mass destruction and declarer of illegal wars. I love my country, but I am not totally rose-tinted about our history.
Still, we have had a proud record post war as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said. We have helped to shape international norms on human rights, in which we can take particular pride. One of the theatres where we have done so was in the European context when we were a member of the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, quite rightly said that a common approach on the use of political clauses was agreed in the European Union in 2009, to ensure that there would be systematic references of human rights clauses in all agreements going forward. I will come back to that.
I want to make it very clear what I am calling for, so that the Minister understands that there is no equivocation: a human rights and trade policy which has proper indicative measures and triggering mechanisms, so that we can replace what we had within the European context and have a distinct United Kingdom approach for all trade. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to proposed new subsection (6). I am pleased that the amendment outlined the breadth of the type of agreements that we have. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, does not mind me saying that Amendment 9 would have been strengthened if it had been more specific about the areas which we will be covering.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked about what proposed new subsection (5)(d) means by some of those
“other … violations of human rights … including … the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
One example is that we hold strongly to the view that countries should not have the death sentence for people who have a mental illness, or for children. That is within the ICCPR and there should be no disagreement that it is a serious human rights violation. If such a violation is being practised, the question is what impact that should have on our trading relationships.
This is all about the trade relationships that we have through agreements, whether it is a full free trade policy or one of the other agreements outlined in proposed new subsection (6). Those all invariably involve preferential access for that third country to our economy: preferential either because there is less tax or because they have access to our markets or partnerships which we would deny to others except, in general, the WTO. As my noble friend Lady Smith asked: what value do we put on that preferential access? One part is economic; the second part is the value that we have for our wider rights.
I return to the common approach in the European Union and the use of political clauses. The agreements with third countries included human rights and they were all under what was termed “essential elements clauses”. Free trade agreements would be linked to the political framework agreements with that country, encapsulating all the agreements that we have. If they did not exist in the framework, this would be included specifically in a free trade agreement. I would be interested to know whether the Government believe that this is of merit too. Should we include our human rights element in our trading agreements, linked with the other partnership agreements that we have with that country? Labour rights have been included in specific trade and sustainable development chapters. I tried my hardest in Committee to get the Government to state their position on the inclusion and sustainable chapters in future agreements. They did not do so; I hope that the Minister can be clear about it today.
The fact that there has been a standard approach since 2009 meant that, during negotiations on agreements with countries, the EU was able to proactively assess the overall positive and negative impacts on trade agreements, including human rights, and the totality of the human rights record and domestic legal frameworks of that country. That informed the negotiations with those countries. It is not necessarily a case of seeking to impose a legislative framework on that country, but we assess what it is. At the very least, we determine how many international obligations, from labour rights to a whole set of legislative requirements on human rights, they have domesticated into their law. In the European context, it is interesting how many countries revised their domestic legislation during the process of negotiations with the EU, and domesticated international obligations—something they had not done up until then.
Up until that point, most of the agreements had the ability to either pause or suspend. It is only in the recent EU-Canada agreement that, for the first time, there is a specific mechanism where, if there is a gross violation of human rights, or non-proliferation, that could serve as grounds for termination of the entire agreement. We will get into this in the next group, but given that this is the first time, I would like to know from the Minister whether that element has been replicated in the UK-Canada agreement? If it has, it would be the first time that the UK has done this. If the Government have not replicated it, that is, in my mind, a very clear signal that they are departing from the approach that we had led up until now.
I hope that the Government will listen carefully to calls from across the Chambers. We need a UK Government impact assessment tool for the UK that is cross-departmental, including the Department of International Trade, the FCDO and BEIS, so that we can take a considered approach to human rights clauses in our trade agreements, sanctions regimes on human rights from our Foreign Office, and, potentially, remedial acts from the Department for Business. Without a proper impact assessment tool, it is very hard for us to consider this. We need mechanisms and we need frameworks. I hope noble Lords do not mind me saying so, but I believe that this is more important at this stage in this Bill than simply referring to individual examples of human rights abuses around the world that we know, to our shame, have existed.
I hope that the Government will respond positively to Amendment 8 and, before Third Reading, set out clear draft human rights clauses for future trade agreements, draft trade and sustainability chapters, and the mechanisms for escalating concerns around the implications of human rights, and the mechanisms that will then be triggered for us to judge not only whether we believe that the relationship should be questioned but what mechanisms can be put in place. At the end of the day, all of this is about the people and the victims. Unless we have a clear framework and a clear position from the Government, we are letting those people down in the countries with which we trade.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for his Amendment 8. It touches on an important issue that, as noble Lords know, this Government take very seriously and to which I would like to assure the House I am personally committed.
Before I address the amendment specifically, I want to emphasise that the Government share the concerns underpinning the amendments before us today. The UK has long supported the promotion of our values globally and remains committed to our international obligations. We are clear that more trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that in rolling over continuity agreements we are seeking to deliver continuity of effect for agreements with all our partners. I can confirm that we are not seeking a continuity agreement with South Sudan.
In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I am sure he appreciates that I cannot comment on agreements presently still under negotiation. I have noted the point of my noble friend Lord Lansley on the ongoing human rights review, and I will make sure it is considered. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that we seek to ensure that human rights are recognised and protected in all our free trade agreements. This includes clauses in our trade agreements with many developing and emerging markets, suspensive powers in our trade preferences regime, and recourse to trade levers through our sanction policy.
Turning to the amendment in hand, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I am sure the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that the Government are already delivering on some of the commitments that his amendment seeks. For instance, the amendment seeks publication of an annual report. My department has already committed to publish an annual report on our programme of trade activity, and we can certainly explore whether that report could be used for the purposes envisaged here.
However, there are a number of concerns and legal risks raised by the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, which means that we are unable to support it. It would constrain the royal prerogative powers to negotiate, ratify and withdraw from treaties. Of course, curtailing the royal prerogative is not something that the Government would do lightly.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I say straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I am pleased that on this fundamental issue of principle we are agreed, and I think that that applies across the House. It has been a very positive debate, even where we have disagreed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is absolutely right that I am committed to trade, but we are not talking about stopping trade; as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, we are talking about preferential arrangements and agreements, going out there and seeking special agreements to enhance trade and to do more. As I said at the beginning of the debate, we are following a principle that has already been adopted, and we want to make sure that we have a proper process. The fundamental issue here is how Parliament scrutinises the actions of government, particularly on this important point of principle.
I will not take up the House’s time too much; I just want to come back to what the Minister said. He said that on the one hand, “We are already doing what you seek”; on the other hand, he said, “There are fundamental problems with what you’re trying to argue for.” The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said that now is not the time and that there are issues here that we need to address elsewhere. I disagree. I think that this is absolutely the time. When the United Kingdom is about to leave the European Union, it is very important that we commit ourselves to clear processes that allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny.
I tend to agree with some of the concerns about the intervention of the courts, but at the end of the day there is a clear separation of power here. If Parliament decrees and the Government fail to act within the requirements of Parliament, our courts have a right to intervene. That is our constitutional position, although I would hope that no Government would ever breach the commitments they have given to Parliament. That is why I think that my amendment, signed by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Purvis, and the right reverend Prelate, is so important. We need that clear process.
I am afraid that the Minister has failed to give us the assurances that we want, so I want to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 9. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 9
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“Agreements with states accused of committing genocide
(1) International bilateral trade agreements are revoked if the High Court of England and Wales makes a preliminary determination that they should be revoked on the ground that another signatory to the relevant agreement represents a state which has committed genocide under Article II of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, following an application to revoke an international bilateral trade agreement on this ground from a person or group of persons belonging to a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, or an organisation representing such a group, which has been the subject of that genocide. (2) This section applies to genocides which occur after this section comes into force, and to those considered by the High Court to have been ongoing at the time of its coming into force.”
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the House has already heard some of the arguments explored in the preceding group of amendments. The House will be relieved to know that I will not rehearse them all again.
Amendment 9 straightforwardly asks the House to give the High Court of England and Wales the opportunity to make a predetermination of genocide if it believes that the evidence substantiates the high threshold set out in the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, my noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—the other sponsors of this all-party amendment—to Peers from all parts of the House and to the Coalition for Genocide Response, notably its co-founders, Luke de Pulford and Ewelina Ochab.
During the preceding debate we heard three things about Amendment 9 which I would like to deal with immediately. The first was from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone. He has now retreated to the Back Benches after the exhaustion of the last few hours and we welcome the noble Viscount to his place to answer this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, talked about the separation of powers. I remind the House that in the case of genocide, whenever the Government speak on this issue in this House, we always say that it is a matter for the courts. This is the same Government. They say that there is a separation of power and indeed, recently said that the recognition of genocide
“is a matter for judicial decision, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies.”—[Official Report, 13/10/20; col. 1042.]
I gently say to the Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that the Government’s position is that the courts make the determination about genocide. That is not to say that Parliament should not have a view about these things—I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said earlier about the role of the courts. I would also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who has left the Back Benches but may be viewing from elsewhere, that this is not about virtue signalling. This is about virtuous behaviour. If we cannot stand up on the crime of genocide and say that once evidence has been placed before the courts, it is shown to be credible and they make a predetermination, we will not then, in those circumstances, stop trading with that country, in what circumstances would we do so? There is a clear issue here on this narrow point of genocide. That is why this amendment is different from those that have preceded it. It is about one question: the crime above all crimes. I realise that some noble Lords who would not have been able to vote on the earlier amendment support this amendment because it is so carefully constructed and defined.
Three speeches were made in Committee that explain the thinking behind this amendment very well. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, rightly said that enabling the UK High Court to make legal determinations on genocide is preferable to other legal avenues. Pursuing such claims through international courts has proven ineffective. The amendment provides a respected means to assessing genocide, allowing the UK to live up to its legal commitments on genocide. He is right. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, added that future trade deals may not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, so it is imperative that the Government decide now to rule out deals with perpetrators of genocide. Not for the first time, the noble Baroness is right.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead, who has a lifetime of experience in the highest reaches of the law, said in a hugely important speech in Committee that there is inadequacy in the judicial architecture currently in place. In comparing the genocide convention with the convention on torture, he said:
“The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide now seems, with hindsight, to be a deplorably weak instrument for dealing with the challenges we face today … we can now see, in today’s world, how ineffective and perhaps naive this relatively simple convention is.”
The noble and learned Lord said that the amendment would
“allow for due process in a hearing in full accordance with the rule of law.”
It would “achieve its object” and result
“in a fully reasoned judgment by one of our judges. That is its strength, as a finding by a judge in proceedings of this kind in the applicant’s favour will carry real weight, quite apart from the effect it will have on the relevant agreement.”—[Official Report, 13/10/20; cols. 1037-38.]
He said that the route we have chosen in this amendment has his “full support” and would be “a big step forward”.
Just three weeks ago, we marked 75 years since the Nuremberg trials. Sir Hartley Shawcross, later a Member of your Lordships’ House, was the Labour Member of Parliament for St Helens and the lead British prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. In his closing speech at Nuremburg, Shawcross remarked that when
“some individual is killed, the murder becomes a sensation, our compassion is aroused, nor do we rest until the criminal is punished and the rule of law is vindicated. Shall we do less when not one but … 12 million men, women, and children, are done to death? Not in battle, not in passion, but in the cold, calculated, deliberate attempt to destroy nations and races”.
Shawcross reminded his generation that such tyranny and brutality, such genocides, could only be resisted in the future not by
“military alliances, but … firmly … in the rule of law.”
Yet we all know how regularly such horrors have recurred while the law we put in place in 1948 has been honoured only in its breach.
I will unpack the vicious circle that the amendment seeks to break. Over the past 20 years, I have raised the issue of genocide on 300 occasions in speeches or Parliamentary Questions in your Lordships’ House. As recently as 5 November, I asked the Government whether they intended to follow the example of Canadian parliamentarians in designating actions by the Government of China against their Uighur population to be a genocide, and what plans they had, if any, to enable an appropriate judicial authority to consider the same evidence and to reach a determination on this matter.
In reply, I was given the usual circular argument that the Government’s policy is not to make such determinations themselves but—and I say this gently to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—to leave it to the courts, knowing that the International Criminal Court would require a referral from the Security Council and that, in this case, China would veto any attempt to hold it to account by the International Criminal Court.
I say gently to my good and noble friend Lord Sandwich, responding to his remarks in the earlier group of amendments, that this amendment does not seek to carry out criminal prosecutions in the High Court of England and Wales. If it did, it would have to overcome all sorts of obstacles to bring about a prosecution. This amendment seeks to establish whether there is sufficient evidence available. We heard some of it from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in her intervention on the last group. Is there sufficient evidence for a predetermination to be made? That is the point: this is not about a criminal prosecution; it is about whether there is evidence that can be established in the High Court of England and Wales.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is with great pride that I support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has just said, he and I have been involved in discussions around this crime for some time, and we have engaged with some of our most senior lawyers and judges on how it can be addressed.
Genocide is the most serious crime in global law; for that reason, it stands apart and is distinct and singular. The term was first coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944; he was a Polish Jewish lawyer who was undoubtedly absolutely bereft as he watched the horrors of the Holocaust and its atrocities unfold. He also drew on the history of previous instances in which entire nations or ethnic or religious peoples had been destroyed. His urgency was a new legal suggestion, and, although it was mentioned at the Nuremberg trials, it was mentioned in descriptive terms rather than as a legal term. It was immediately after the Second World War that genocide was coded as an independent crime under international law, in the 1948 Genocide Convention. That came into force on 12 January 1951; 12 January 2021 will be its 70th anniversary. Think how fine it would be for us to be a nation that had just put some teeth into the law against this most egregious of crimes.
The legal definition of genocide is precise and includes an element that is very hard to prove: intent to commit genocide. This is a very high bar and an evidential hurdle that is great; this is something of which those of us who practice law in this field are all too conscious. It involves efforts to exterminate and dehumanise a people—a whole set of people. You have already heard the horrors experienced by the Uighurs described in this House. I declare immediately that I co-chair the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China—IPAC—and, like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I have travelled to the refugee camps where the Yazidis give accounts of the most horrifying events that have taken place to that people. Witnessing and knowing about the detail of genocide can only convince decent, good people that we have to try to find ways of making this a crime that has no place in this world.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, explained the purposes of this amendment: the genocide amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that there is a preliminary determination by the High Court, not any lower court, as to whether there is genocide. It is pre-emptive: the whole purpose of the Genocide Convention was to prevent genocide by placing a duty on nations to act to prevent it. I will say immediately what this genocide amendment is not: it is not, to use the language of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, an effort to swamp the courts. The bar is so high that such a case could not possibly be brought before the High Court of this country and have any serious reception if it were not presented with a whole body of evidence that was highly persuasive and involved eminent lawyers who could testify to the bar having been passed on the definition of genocide.
What else is it not? It is certainly not a breach of the separation of powers—a constitutional issue—because, of course, no court will be determining that a trade agreement has to be revoked. It would be for the court to determine whether the bar had been met—that is, whether events documented a genocide that needed to be prevented. That preliminary determination of the courts would then, of course, have great import for any Government committed to human rights and their treaty obligations on genocide. One would expect any such Government then to revoke a trade agreement. All our trade agreements going forward would contain a clause indicating that, if there were a determination by the High Court, this would be the basis on which an agreement could be revoked.
The final thing that this is not is that it is not about determining the liability of individuals for criminal offences. That is not what the High Court would be doing in this case at all. Individual determinations of criminality would not be before the court and would not be determined by the court.
What does this amendment do? It creates new law; we are not pretending that this is not novel. It is, clearly and distinctly, something new. We have no doubt, given the interest shown in it by international lawyers from other nations, that it would be a great moment in the development of law—a role that Britain has often played. If passed into law, in time many other nations would follow suit. It is a way of giving teeth to international law. One of the questions we have always asked has been, how do you make international law have an impact? How do you get things before a court when we have a Security Council bound up with nations that will never agree to matters getting before certain courts? What we are seeking to do here is really to make a new development in law, which will undoubtedly be copied by other nations and signals the importance we attach to this crime above all crimes. We are going to see it on our statute books as a way of giving it pre-eminence in the world. I have no doubt that other states will replicate it.
I cannot bear the expression, “virtue signalling”. Yes, we will be signalling something about our values. We will be signalling that we will not stand by and do business and trade with countries that are destroying whole peoples. That is something we should be proud to be taking a stance on. Let us please extinguish that ghastly expression “virtue signalling” from the language, because we should be taking stances that show we can express our values and our virtues, without any snide grandstanding by onlookers who are not prepared to act.
I urge this House to vote for this amendment if the Government do not agree to it. I really want them to agree to it, because, as I say, genocide is a crime above all others and we should not demur in our commitment to seeing it end.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to support this amendment, following the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He reminded us that this is not the first time we have discussed this matter. I took part in a debate with him on such an amendment back in March 2016, almost five years ago. The noble Lord has raised this issue on more than 300 occasions, ably supported, as he was back in March, by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for whom I have the most enormous admiration. At a time last week when, thanks to the First Minister, it was difficult for me to get beyond my garden gate, the noble Baroness was visiting yet another war zone. The whole House should be extremely proud of both the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who is speaking later in this debate, and the indefatigable energy which they have shown in pursuing this cause. I therefore join with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, and other noble Lords from across the House in supporting this amendment, in order to send a clear message once and for all that we as a nation will not be complicit in genocide.
This amendment introduces a mechanism to equip a competent court to make an interim determination of genocide. It provides for what is a novel, I accept, but crucial approach in effectively responding to genocide, especially as Governments of all shades have lamentably failed in their duty to respond as horrific genocides have unfolded. When we had the debate in March 2016, I spoke about the horrors facing Yazidis and Christian minorities—people who use the language of our saviour, of Christ himself—and we were unable to reach out and help them. I asked how much longer we were prepared to stand by and not acknowledge what was going on, which was a systematic attempt to destroy Christianity throughout the Middle East.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and I will then call the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure, as the fourth person to have put my name to the amendment, to speak after the wonderful speeches that we have just heard—most notably, that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has been steadfast on this issue for many years.
Every now and then, two or three times a century, nations are measured in international affairs for what they did or did not do. In the writing of the history of the United Kingdom in our era, Brexit is expected to take centre stage, but we do not know at this stage whether in the long run it will prove to have been a canny move, giving us flexibility to adapt to a new world, or an ill-thought-through wail of frustration at globalisation. Some of the tally of the UK’s actions at this time will stand out; others, mercifully, will be forgotten.
In this amendment, if passed by this place and agreed to by the other place, we can see a stand-out moment—standing out and standing by a relatively small religious group that is subject to a crime against humanity: genocide. At a time when we know that it is happening—when we have the technology, the resources and the testimony of survivors that tell us of such egregious practices—for us to profess ignorance would be nothing less than condoning China’s behaviour against its Uighurs Muslims in Xinjiang.
I and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have spoken over several years in this Chamber about the atrocities committed against the Uighurs. I almost feel that I am repeating myself every time I stand up to make this kind of speech, but I am not, as every time I look at the subject and the detail of what we know today, as opposed to what we knew last month or last year, I can see that things are getting worse.
China is running a gulag worthy of the description of the Soviet gulags by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, except that from what we now know in real time, not in retrospect, it is much worse. From 2015, we learned of detention camps from seeing satellite images. There were Chinese denials. Then, in 2018, the Chinese Government stopped denying their existence when the evidence was irrefutable and declared that they were “vocational education and training camps”. In these camps in Xinjiang, inmates are asked to renounce the Koran and their belief in God and to profess belief in—you could not make this up—"Xi Jinping thought”.
According to the Economist, guards ask prisoners if there is a God and beat those who say that there is. I think that I am the only Muslim speaking in this debate. I can tell noble Lords that it is impossible for a Muslim to renounce God, since the acknowledgment of God’s existence is the foundational principle of being a Muslim. While getting a daily beating may not sound egregious, Muslims will not go there—they will not sign up to “Xi Jinping” thought if it involves giving up God. It is something for which they will be prepared to die—and they are dying.
Then there is the sterilisation of Uighur women. In parts of Xinjiang, the Uighur birth rate fell by 60% between 2015 and 2018. There is, furthermore, the forced transfer of people to undertake forced labour—in detention, with watchtowers to prevent them escaping their factory dormitories. This persecution of the Uighurs is a crime against humanity systematically imposed by a state—a Government—that brooks no internal opposition. It is the most extensive violation in the world today of the principle that individuals have a right to liberty and dignity simply because of their humanity—because they are people.
This amendment abrogates trade deals—revokes them, as it says—if the other signatory, according to a High Court ruling, is a state that has committed genocide. It is needed in this Bill because no party to the genocide convention should be doing business with China while it continues to perpetrate this crime. If we pass this, we in the United Kingdom will be refusing to stand idly by and to elevate commerce above conscience. Not to pass it would be a shame. If we decide to pass it, it will represent us as a beacon of liberty in one of our first acts as a sovereign nation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, spoke of the 70th anniversary of the genocide convention. Other noble Lords have referred to international institutions, as, no doubt, will the Minister, in his closing speech. I remind the House that we cannot leave this to other bodies when there is the disgrace—I go so far as to say the obscenity—of China being elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The time has come: we have to act.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
I thank the noble Lords who have brought forward this amendment. The House has heard the passion, as ever, of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on this terrible issue, and they have heard the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who has made the legal case with great authority.
I feel that the noble Viscount has drawn the short straw in being expected to respond. Having been a Member of this House for a number of years and a Minister for most of the last decade, he will surely know to cross out of his speech all those statements that are put in as standard: that it is not necessary to have this on the face of the Bill, and that there are problems with the drafting of the amendment. He will know that what is critical is the essence of an amendment, and there cannot be anything more important than this. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has said, it is not enough to say “Never again”, as was said after the Nazi genocide: the 20th century saw other genocides and we still do, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, has said. I am sure that none of us would ever wish to have a trade agreement with a country that is practising genocide, but can we be sure?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I echo the final words of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and implore my noble friend on the Front Bench to heed what she said.
I will begin on a personal note: 75 years ago, at the time of the VE celebrations, my parents took me, a six year-old boy, to see newsreels. Among them was Belsen. My mother’s instinctive reaction was to put her arm in front of my eyes; my father’s reaction was to sit me on his knee and say, “The boy must see what evil people can do.” It is one of my earliest and most vivid memories.
As a newly elected Member of the other place, 25 years later, at the invitation of the late Greville Janner, whose memory I honour, I became the first chairman of the all-party group—there were very few in those days—for the release of Soviet Jewry. I spoke on the telephone to those who had been to the gulags. I was refused a visa to Soviet Russia, but we smuggled out a volume of the Jewish scriptures for a young boy’s bar mitzvah gift. His father had been in the gulag. About 25 years after that, as chairman of the All-Party Group for Bosnia, I saw what happened in Srebrenica, which was almost the same time as those ghastly massacres in Rwanda.
Those who have brought this amendment before your Lordships’ House tonight have done us all a great service. The precision of the amendment is its most commending feature, because it concentrates on what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, rightly referred to as the ultimate and most heinous of crimes: genocide.
A week ago, we debated that peculiarly named Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill. We had an amendment, on which a number of us spoke, which would forbid the authorising of young people under the age of 18 from committing crimes. I will certainly continue to support my amendment or others on that subject.
Why, my Lords? Because it is wrong. If anything is wrong on a gargantuan scale, it is of course genocide. We cannot and must not be fobbed off with an answer from the Front Bench that says that it is too difficult, that the wording of the amendment is wrong or that it does not fit in. Some of those excuses have already been rehearsed by those such as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has been pressing for the amendment, which I am also doing.
The Prime Minister talks very proudly of “global Britain”. Global Britain must have a moral compass. Global Britain must not sacrifice its national integrity. The country that was responsible for the abolition of the slave trade and the abolition of slavery throughout the British dominions, in 1807 and 1833 respectively, must draw upon that proud heritage. What is happening in China to the Uighurs, as we have just been reminded in a very moving speech, is despicable and appalling. I believe that we should ensure that those who can pronounce on these things are able to pronounce on this. Is it genocide? I do not believe that there is any doubt that it is right that it should be a legal judgment and pronouncement; if such a pronouncement is made, it is absolutely right that we should not seek to trade on preferential terms with the People’s Republic of China—a great country with a great and civilised people who are having things perpetrated in their name that are the very negation of civilisation.
I say to my noble friend Lady Noakes and others that business does matter, but lives matter more: black lives, white lives, Chinese lives, Muslim lives and Christian lives—all lives matter. We should not in any way be complicit, even tangentially, in turning a blind eye to some of the most evil deeds that have been perpetrated in the past 50 years. I support this amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and his very moving speech. I wish to support this amendment. It presents your Lordships with an alternative way of dealing with the international crime of genocide from that which was considered under Amendment 8. I have noted the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about handing the matter over to the courts. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has just pointed out, there is a legal issue here that needs to be determined. There are complicated issues of fact as well that need to be carefully assessed, so any idea that this is not a matter for the courts really is misplaced. We need to consider this alternative.
As I said when noble Lords considered this amendment in Committee, the campaign to root out genocide and bring its perpetrators to justice is a hard struggle. The problem is that the weakness of the enforcement mechanisms in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide means that the convention is simply not up to the job. Of course, we must be grateful for the declaration in Article 1 that genocide is a crime under international law and for the width of the definition of this crime in Article 2. We can also be sure that the United Kingdom, as one of the contracting parties, will play its full part in bringing to justice any individual who can be brought within the jurisdiction of our courts so that they can be punished for their part in this crime. But there are gaps which the UN convention leaves open. Its object remains largely unfulfilled and we have to face the fact that the international institutions are falling short too.
Of course, the vast majority of countries around the world do not practise genocide. They needed no persuasion when the convention was open for signature that they must refrain from it. The problem is with the minority, those states which have no conscience in this matter and which still engage in this horrific crime with impunity. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is such a steadfast advocate in this field, has reminded us once again that the struggle to fill those gaps cannot be allowed to fail.
The procedure that the noble Lord has chosen had my full support in Committee and it has my full support here, too. I remind your Lordships that it seems to have two very important advantages, which deserve to be emphasised once again. The first is that it meets the requirement that there must be a person, or a group of persons, with a relevant interest to bring the matter before the court. The persons described in the amendment will almost certainly satisfy that requirement. The second is that the procedure it seeks to introduce must allow for due process, with a hearing in open court, in full accordance with the rule of law.
I believe that this object will be achieved. It means that notice of the proceedings will be served on the Secretary of State and on a representative of the other signatory of the bilateral agreement, both of whom must have the right of reply. That will ensure that they can present their cases to the court, thus enabling the court to scrutinise and test all the competing arguments. If the argument of the interested persons is upheld, the “preliminary determination” that the amendment refers to will amount to a direction to the Secretary of State that the United Kingdom must withdraw from the agreement; in the case of a bilateral agreement that will mean, in effect, that the agreement will be revoked.
Withdrawing from an international agreement in circumstances which the agreement itself does not provide for is a sensitive and difficult matter. That is especially so where it is not being suggested that any provisions of the agreement itself have been breached, but I believe that the noble Lord and his cosignatories are right not to have been deflected by these and other similar problems from persevering with this amendment. The strength of their position lies in the—if your Lordships will forgive me for using Latin—jus cogens erga omnes nature of the obligation under international law to prevent and punish acts of genocide.
That expression was used by Lord Bingham of Cornhill in the Appellate Committee of this House in A v Secretary of State (No 2) in 2005, when he was examining the obligation relating to torture under international law. What this means in our context is that the obligation to prevent and punish genocide is a peremptory obligation under international law. Not only that—as Lord Bingham said, it requires us to do more. It requires states to do all they can within lawful means to bring genocide to an end. As it binds all states, it is an obligation which lies at the heart of the relationships that states undertake with each other. It is the kind of obligation that goes without saying. The fact that an agreement does not refer to it does not mean that it does not exist or that it can be forgotten about.
The conclusion that has been drawn from the propositions that I have just summarised involves difficult and overlapping areas of law. The question of whether they provide an answer to an objection that the course which the amendment seeks to follow has no place in a trade agreement is an open question and it needs to be addressed. I believe that it is not capable of sound resolution simply by a debate in this House. It is best resolved by a court after hearing full and carefully reasoned argument from all sides. If that happens, the judgment—the determination—that is issued will carry with it great authority which will resonate throughout the world in a way that we need to be sure is done in order to further the cause of eliminating genocide. That is what this amendment provides for and it is why it has my full support.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, have both withdrawn from speaking to this amendment, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to endorse this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I congratulate him on his impassioned and persuasive introduction, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords. I fully support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in his recognition of the determination of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to uncover atrocities around the world and be fearless in their attempts to unravel them and draw them to our attention.
The number of Members of your Lordships’ House who are listed to speak on this amendment is an indication of the seriousness of the issue that it seeks to address. I shall be brief, but I emphasise that I fully support the view that in this new era of our history it is an opportunity to reset the dial and have the courage of our convictions by taking the global lead. We absolutely cannot condone genocide and must, through the channels available to us, uncover and condemn it. To condemn genocide on one hand as a nation state, then be willing to negotiate trade deals and perpetuate trading arrangements is inconsistent in the extreme. It would be hypocritical, and the Government would be guilty of turning a blind eye to atrocities that have been proven to be taking place. Walking past on the other side, to use a biblical phrase, is not a stance that a responsible global state should adopt, and it would undermine our moral influence.
I quote Robbie Burns, the famous Scottish poet, and complete the phrase “Man’s inhumanity to man”:
“Man’s inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn!”
I hope that the Minister takes the matter very seriously and accepts the amendment.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am sorry that I was not able to vote for the previous amendment, although I am very much in support of this one, because I felt that there were ambiguities—not least because there are offenders against human rights very close to us, such as in Poland, Hungary and Greece.
This amendment is quite different. It is one of the most profound and important amendments to be discussed in your Lordships’ House for a long time. We have an obligation under the genocide convention to prevent and punish genocide and its perpetrators, but if we rely on the Security Council or the International Criminal Court, we are dodging our obligations. We know full well that China’s seat on the Security Council means that it would veto any such move against itself. What a terrible indictment of the international order today, especially the UN and its constituent bodies. Instead of living up to their original ideals of maintaining international peace and security, better living standards, friendly relations and social progress, action—or, more likely, inaction—by the UN has come to represent quite often the very opposite of those ideals: self-seeking and looking for a scapegoat, a cover for some of the most reprehensible Governments in the world.
This amendment possesses the advantage of bringing the UK into compliance with its obligations under the genocide convention. Several states have argued, like the UK, that it is for the international and judicial systems to make the determination of genocide. This argument is profoundly flawed, as it neglects the basic fact that it is the state that is the duty bearer under the genocide convention—hence the states that are parties to the genocide convention must act to ensure that the determination is made by a competent body and that decisive steps follow to fulfil the states’ obligations under the convention to prevent and punish. Moreover, to have the issue of genocide, or not, examined in our courts would be a good thing.
It will likely be argued that the amendment may jeopardise relationships with states accused of genocide in the UK. It should be emphasised that positive genocide judgments are exceptionally rare, owing to the extremely high evidentiary standard. A formal legal examination and determination of genocide in court, to which the trade signatories might make representations, should not be any more diplomatically upsetting than, for example, the UK making complaints at the United Nations against nations such as China for their alleged human rights abuses. The amendment—if passed, as I hope it will be—will in time become a matter of diplomatic pride, sending a strong signal about the values of the UK as a leader in global human rights.
Owing to the rarity of genocide judgments, very few countries would fall within the purview of these provisions. It is difficult to envisage, therefore, that the Government’s ability to trade will be significantly affected. Generally speaking, Governments tend to seek to strike trade deals with nations with which they share common values. The UK does not currently have a trade deal with a country credibly accused of genocide, I believe, and one is not in prospect.
As it happens, we are unlikely to achieve or even want a trade agreement with China. The experience of Canada shows why. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had been expected to come away with an agreement to formally start trade talks, but he insisted that any talks include gender and labour rights and environmental standards. He also raised human rights and China’s use of the death penalty. Basically, he was shown the door and was told no—that there would be no negotiation of a free trade agreement.
Likewise Australia, which, along with many other countries, has been a vocal critic of China’s treatment of the Uighurs in Xinjiang, its suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, and its military activities in the South China Sea. The anti-climax came in April when the Australian Prime Minister took the lead in calling for a thorough investigation into the source of the coronavirus. That incensed China. Since then, the deterioration of the China/Australia relationship has been swift. China is barring Australian goods and putting punitive tariffs on them.
As for the attempted EU-China comprehensive agreement on investment, it is only to be expected that the EU will put finance ahead of human rights, and even the mildest rebuke from the EU about human rights in China elicits a response from China that it should not be meddling in China’s internal affairs—that the Chinese people will not accept an instructor on human rights and oppose double standards. It will all likely end in tears.
This amendment embodies the only thing that we can do. International courts are ineffective; international arrest depends on the perpetrator coming here. It is insulting to the victims of genocide to imagine that putting up monuments, especially after the catastrophe, will make any difference. Nor will lighting candles or pulling down statues—all empty gestures.
If captains of industry and politicians had adopted the practice outlined in this amendment in the 1930s, history might have been very different. For example, IBM had immoral commerce with the Third Reich, supplying it with tabulating machines and punch cards, so useful in rounding up victims.
Can there be any doubt now about the genocidal moves of China? Modern communications ensure that no one can hide from their senses the genocidal policies that it is pursuing against the Uighurs. Foreign companies have wittingly or unwittingly helped China with facial recognition technology and artificial intelligence to enable social control. Trade with any part of China should be under the microscope, and let us not forget Tibet and the danger that now faces Hong Kong. Governments have the power to influence this. If China’s trade and investment are cut down, it may not be able to finance its barbaric projects. Not only should this amendment be passed with acclaim, but other Governments should follow suit.
We must remember the genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda. The world failed to react to the events while they were unfolding. What did the Security Council do? It removed its peacekeeping mission and allowed bureaucratic foot-dragging to obfuscate the need for prompt—indeed, advance—action. That has weighed heavily on the international community, which now realises that it must do more. Advance action is needed to prevent genocide. Once it is happening it is too late. That is why this amendment is so well crafted and so deserving of support from your Lordships.
Baroness O'Loan (CB) [V]
My Lords, I would like to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner and Lady Kennedy, on this important amendment. I would also like to congratulate them and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on their work on the issue of genocide more broadly.
I need to declare an interest: I have been appointed as a member of the panel for the independent review of the Human Rights Act, which was announced today. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was unanimously adopted by the UN in 1948. It is important, perhaps, to remind ourselves of the definition of genocide, because it is not just killing or causing serious bodily harm or mental harm to members of a group because of their national, ethnic, racial or religious affiliations. It is also deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. These are all things we are currently seeing in Xinjiang.
Amendment 9 provides a mechanism for limited prevention and sanction of genocide, and it hence recognises the ongoing obligation of all states with which we trade not to engage in genocide.
There has been reference already to Xinjiang, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke eloquently of the extent of trading contracts in China which involve operations in Xinjiang. Your Lordships will recall that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination described the region as
“a massive internment camp shrouded in secrecy, a … no-rights zone.”
The China Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice, says that the “organised butchery” of living people to sell body parts of those from religious minorities and ethnic groups could be compared
“to the worst atrocities committed in conflicts of the 20th Century”,
such as the Nazi gassing of Jews and the Khmer Rouge massacres in Cambodia. The tribunal went on to say,
“But nothing, or nothing much, will be done by the Government because the damage caused by even trying to extinguish such abuses comes at what seems to be perceived as an unacceptable cost to trade, and ultimately to our other legitimate interests.”
Through Amendment 9 we can show that something will be done, that genocide is unacceptable, that we will not engage with trade deals where genocide occurs, and that such deals will be revoked where the High Court makes a preliminary determination that they should be revoked on the grounds of genocide, should that be the final decision.
Genocide may not be a popular topic, and it happens far from home, but genocide affects us all in various ways and to a varying extent. One of the most direct ways in which genocide affects us is that by trading with genocidaires we become complicit in the genocide itself because we are not taking action to sanction or prevent it. It is not enough to respond by saying that if we do not enter into such a trade agreement, others will. We have moral and legal obligations on the international stage, and our standing will be diminished if we do not recognise the need to protect the peoples of the world against genocide by refusing to contract with those who use people in their jurisdiction as slave labourers, or so regulate their lives that they can be forced to act as slave labourers.
During the struggle against the slave trade, which engaged Parliament for 40 years, ordinary people in their millions boycotted sugar from slave-owning plantations and refused to add to the bottom-line profits of that sordid trade. Recent activity on the public stage tells us that the British people today would not wish to be complicit in slave labour and genocide, even if there is a price to pay.
Amendment 9 is tightly drawn; it will not prevent trade, except in these very exceptional circumstances. It puts down a marker that UK trade is based on an adherence to our obligations in international law to prevent the crime of genocide.
One Minister recently suggested that possible trading partners might be put off by the possibility that the trade arrangements would be ended if they were found to be in breach of this amendment. We should not be entering into trading agreements with any country that is engaged in or planning genocide in its various forms. If countries subsequently move towards genocidal actions we should provide this remedy through our courts, for we are committed to our obligations under the convention against genocide. The Minister said that to withdraw from a trade agreement because of human rights abuses would be extraordinary. Genocide is extraordinary and the measures required to combat it may well be extraordinary, but we need to do this.
Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, in this long dialogue with the Government, notably led in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the facts have been reiterated time and again. There is an international agreement on the definition as set out in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and this carries in bold the duty to prevent such genocide
“at the instant the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed.”
We need only need look at the clear early warning signs of impending murderous attacks on the Rohingya Muslims—which await final legal determination of genocide by an independent tribunal—to acknowledge that prevention of genocide is still a distant goal, fraught as it is with legal and political obstacles. Meanwhile, whole ethnic groups are being slaughtered, and we turn away for want of a mechanism that would go some way to both recognise the crime of genocide and demonstrate with actions our duty to prevent and punish such crimes.
As we have heard time and again, this amendment provides a mechanism, namely to acknowledge the genocidal intent of a state together with a prevention measure, by limiting trade with that state. This is a big ask. After all, trade is also a lifesaver for nations and for millions of people. However, in the absence of a mechanism, it is difficult to see how a state signatory to the Geneva conventions can fulfil its obligations. The record of UK action in fulfilling this obligation is by no means exemplary. The early warning signs in the case of the Rohingyas—which were pretty unmistakeable in that they included mass murder, torture, abuse, rape, violence, sexual violence and more, perpetrated by the military against a defined ethnic group—were first brought to the International Court of Justice not by the UK but by the Gambia.
Her Majesty’s Government place immense confidence in the international judicial bodies to respond to genocide, despite being given all the reasons not to. We would all like these bodies to pass muster, and one day, perhaps, they will. However, hope should not blind us to reality. Totalitarian states that hold the keys to the gates of the international judicial system will not deliver justice—certainly not when they themselves are the offenders. That is why this amendment is so important. It enables actions to be taken immediately to establish whether there is a case to answer, while the Government wait for the international bodies to make the determination.
Understandably, Amendment 9 cannot resolve all these issues, but it can address one. It can ensure that Her Majesty’s Government do not trade with states judged by our own High Court to be probable perpetrators of genocide and do not, therefore, become complicit in these acts. The amendment introduces a domestic mechanism for genocide determination in a very limited number of cases. The UK at least will be able to say that it did not wait to see any unspeakable horrors occur while doing nothing: it saw, and it acted.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, at this very late hour I will be as brief as I can, so that other Members waiting to speak can contribute as well and the House can perhaps get to vote on this crucial amendment at not too unreasonable an hour. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy on their excellent introductions to Amendment 9. Much has already been said on this vital amendment. I will, therefore, make just a couple of very brief points.
First, as has been said, the amendment provides a means for the UK to live up to its commitments to protect against, prevent and punish the crime of genocide, as declared in our signing of the genocide convention. Unless this mechanism is established, we are in real danger of defaulting on these commitments by relying on means which, as noble Lords have eloquently illustrated this evening, can be unreliable in holding alleged perpetrators of genocide to account. Moreover, the amendment has the potential to have wide impact. It will ensure that victims of suspected genocide globally have a viable means to pursue a legal judgment on their case when all other avenues are blocked. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, if we are to be—in the words of the Prime Minister—global Britain, we need a moral compass that guides us.
By passing this amendment, the UK would send a clear signal to other states that it places its values at the centre of any trade deals, and that the international community must stand by its commitments to do all within its power to ensure that the evils of genocide are consigned to the history books. This amendment offers a route to achieving that. Today, we have a very rare opportunity to act on a matter of global and historic significance. I sincerely hope that noble Lords will support this amendment and start us on the long and difficult journey, identified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, of putting meaning into its intentions. I will certainly be supporting it.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to the genocide in Rwanda. When that happened, I was a graduate student writing on the European Parliament. I happened to be visiting a friend in Italy, and she had a visiting Catholic priest from Rwanda who said to me, “Please help”. I was in my 20s and I was involved in a political party, but I was not able to speak in a Parliament. I certainly could not go and stand in the European Parliament and try to effect change. But I always felt that there was something wrong and that there ought to be a way to deal with something that is called genocide without waiting for the UN Security Council to come to a decision, where it is always possible for one state alone to veto the idea of genocide.
Since arriving in your Lordships’ House, I, like other noble Lords, have heard the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, again and again raise the issue of genocide. From the Government Front Bench we always hear the same refrain: “We cannot do anything unless there is a legal ruling. There needs to be a judgment. Unless something is called genocide by a court, we cannot act.” As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, pointed out, this amendment will begin to effect that change. It is not court interference or damaging the separation of powers; it is enabling this House and the other place to remind the Government that there are times when it is vital to act.
Her Majesty’s Government, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, repeatedly tell us that there needs to be a legal case for us to talk about genocide. This amendment would allow that to happen. Surely it is time for the amendment to be passed, for the other place to be able to think about this and to take a lead. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, pointed out, this might be a novel act, but that is no reason not to make that act. Surely, if we want to play a role in the world, sometimes it is necessary to act first.
It is not about virtue signalling; as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, it is about virtuous behaviour. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I think there are times when one has to say that, however important trade is, some issues are more important. You cannot simply equate trade and the value of human life. This is about human life, and we must stand to be counted. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. I join many other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lords who tabled this amendment. I will be brief, because I want to ensure that as many Members of your Lordships’ House as possible have the chance to vote tonight. I must humbly associate myself with the highly powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who made the crucial point about the international importance of our deliberations here tonight on this novel and innovative legal move.
This brings me to the first of the three points I would like to make. In discussing a previous group of amendments, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said that the UK has been a leader for many decades in human rights developments. UK civil society, lawyers and campaign groups certainly have been, and Governments of various stripes have often been dragged along by those campaigners. That is what we are seeing here tonight: individuals in your Lordships’ House and campaign groups saying that we cannot tolerate the current situation and we have to act.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, referred to the Magnitsky sanctions—another new and powerful weapon in the human rights armoury, which has developed from the actions of US civil society and campaigners. I always like to highlight good news, and I think we can see in that pairing a real sign of good news. Although, as many noble Lords have commented, the international community and the United Nations have been inactive or unable to act in hideous case after hideous case of genocide, we are seeing new attempts, new approaches and new ways of ensuring action. That is why this is so important.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Contrary to my intention, I must intervene to correct what I regard as a mischaracterisation of my views. It was not my view, and not the view I expressed, that courts have no role: I entirely accept the proposition at the heart of this that courts will make a determination relating to whether a state has committed genocide. My point was that that being the case does not lead to the executive action that follows from it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said that the authority of the court would lead to the revocation of an international trade agreement. That is not what the amendment says. I am constantly being told in this debate that the amendment is precise—it is not precise. It does not say that; it says:
“International bilateral trade agreements are revoked”
by the action of the High Court. I object to the fact that a High Court determination leads directly to the revocation of the agreement entered into by the Government and endorsed by Parliament. If that determination takes place and we want to pass legislation, it should say that Ministers should act to revoke that international trade agreement in these circumstances, not that it is revoked automatically by the determination of the High Court itself.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I applaud my noble friend Lord Alton for tabling Amendment 9 and for all the work he does to promote justice on this most important of issues. I believe that everything that needs to be said has already been said very powerfully; the case is overwhelming. Personally, I hope that we can get on with the vote as soon as possible, and, therefore, I am abandoning my speech.
Baroness Cox (CB) [V]
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of Amendment 9. In doing so, I return to an issue that I have raised in your Lordships’ House on numerous occasions. Recently, in the context of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill, I spoke about the use of Uighur slave labour and the dangers of working with companies like Huawei, which are complicit in using slave labour and producing the Orwellian surveillance technology that locks up 1 million people, attempting to destroy their religious beliefs and culture. This point has been highlighted powerfully by many noble Lords.
In their policies, we can see many of the indicators that constitute genocide in the strict legal definition of that word. We can also see it in the treatment of Rohingya, Shan and Kachin people in Burma and the murder of thousands of Christians and many Muslims in Nigeria by Islamist militants. Last year, Her Majesty’s Government accepted recommendation 7 of the Bishop of Truro’s report, confirming that genocide determination is a matter for courts. Over the last year, Her Majesty’s Government have had opportunities to put this into practice and support the Gambia proceedings against Myanmar before the ICJ, but they chose to remain silent, monitoring. They cannot have it both ways, saying they are for courts but not doing anything to ensure that they are considering such issues.
My noble friend Lord Alton and I recently had a meeting with the International Criminal Court, trying to get international judicial action against those responsible for or complicit in the massacres in Nigeria. However, sadly, that system now lacks effectiveness, which is why we need a judicial route that can examine evidence and, if the evidence substantiates it, make a predetermination of genocide, which is precisely what Amendment 9 will enable us to do.
Just three weeks ago, I went on a harrowing visit to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh with HART, my small humanitarian charity. I saw videos of the beheading and torture of Armenians captured by Azerbaijan; some were filmed by the perpetrators on the Armenians’ own phones and sent back to their families to see the horrible things that had been perpetrated towards their loved ones. I also recorded many anguished eye-witness statements. I sent our report to the Foreign Secretary and will make a copy available in the Library of your Lordships’ House.
Last week, Human Rights Watch published a report that provided evidence of the torture and humiliation inflicted by Azerbaijan on Armenian prisoners of war. Genocide Watch has designated Azerbaijan as fulfilling all 10 criteria of genocide. In the genocide unleased against the Armenians more than a 100 years ago by the Ottoman Empire, an estimated 1.5 million Middle Eastern Christians—including Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs, Arameans and Maronites —perished between 1915 and 1923. This genocide has received recognition by many countries, including Wales—all credit to Wales—but not the United Kingdom. At the time, the world was indifferent, which led Hitler, on 22 August 1939, infamously to say,
“Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
Hitler considered the Armenian “solution” a precedent for his atrocities against the Jews. We know all too well what that meant.
The Genocide Convention was the response to the horrific atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis against the Jews and was meant to signify the international commitment to “never again” by introducing duties to prevent, supress and punish the crime of genocide—duties that successive Governments have neglected for far too long. It is my passionate hope that the Armenians, who are, as we speak, suffering again from a genocide inflicted by Azerbaijan and Turkey, will receive the genocide recognition that is due, and that the violations of international law perpetrated by Azerbaijan and Turkey will not be allowed to pass with impunity.
In recent months, we have heard a lot about “taking back control”. As we already have control of our own courts, we should give them the first say in recognising this most serious of all crimes: genocide. Amendment 9 would provide such a mechanism to deal with the question of genocide determination. Having just returned from the harrowing experience of witnessing people suffer a genocide while we talk here this evening, I feel passionately that it is high time that we broke the gridlock of genocide determination. Amendment 9 would enable us to do that and I wholeheartedly support it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is an honour to follow so many powerful speeches supporting this ground-breaking amendment, particularly that of my noble friend Lady Cox just now. We are 72 years on from the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, yet we still fail to prevent, suppress and punish this horrific crime. By ignoring it, we are complicit. Of the 17 genocide alerts around the globe, 14 have reached mass extermination. I want briefly to focus chillingly on an area that affects my own profession, with some forced to participate under extreme threats.
In China, surgeons are accused of forced sterilisations and, most horrifically, forced organ-harvesting on a mass scale. It was Nazi doctors like Mengele who perpetrated atrocities, experimenting on innocent people; the list of their actions is sickening. They hid their horrors behind the excuse of medical and scientific advancement. Now, we see the same things happening.
What can be done? Considering China and many other countries’ powerful positions, as has been said in this debate, engaging the UN will fail. We therefore must strengthen our domestic mechanisms to fill the void left by international bodies. We cannot say that now is not the time: now is never a comfortable time and we must have the courage to do what is right. Amendment 9 is a step toward strengthening our domestic response to genocide. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, hopes, it could start a global movement towards zero tolerance of these depravities. It is the time for action. This amendment must be supported.
Lord Polak (Con)
I pay tribute to the movers of this amendment, in particular my noble friend Lord Alton—for he is my friend—for his tenacity and passion. On 29 October 2018, following the horrific attack at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, when 11 people were gunned down, I spoke in this Chamber and posed the question:
“Have we learned nothing from history?”
I went on to say that
“it is nice to stand shoulder to shoulder and offer sympathy, but it is action that is now required.”—[Official Report, 29/10/18; col. 1122.]
Amendment 9 gives us a chance to take action. Wringing our hands and mouthing nice words will deter no one.
Just three weeks ago, I paid tribute to Lord Sacks in this Chamber and was struck by how many noble Lords, from all parties and none and from all traditions and none, spoke of him with such affection and admiration. In rereading some of his writings, I came across a lecture from 17 February 2004, entitled “Never Again”—But Will We Ever Learn the Lessons of History? The lecture by Rabbi Sacks was at a national service taking place to mark the 10th anniversary of the genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda, which he described as
“an almost unimaginable orgy of violence”
with people
“hacked to death by machetes … in a country where perpetrators and victims had previously lived together as neighbours”.
Rabbi Sacks continued by explaining that, the next day, 18 February 2004, was Yom HaShoah, the Holocaust memorial day in the Jewish calendar. He explained:
“Apart from attempted genocide, the Holocaust and Rwanda had two things in common. First, they were preceded by deliberate dehumanisation: the Jews were deemed ‘vermin’ or ‘lice’; the Tutsis were Inyenzi, ‘cockroaches’.”
As he put it:
“In this way mass murder could be justified as a kind of sterilisation, a necessary, if painful, operation to restore a nation to its health.”
The second similarity, he argued, was that
“both tragedies were known in advance. The international representatives who gathered at Evian … in 1938 knew that a terrible fate was about to overtake the Jews of Europe.”
Yet they each
“declared that they had no room for refugees… in Rwanda, in 1990 the main Hutu newspaper had issued its own equivalent”
of what he described as “the Nuremberg laws”. By 1992, over half a million machetes had been distributed. He went on:
“In 1993, an international commission gave warning”
that a potential genocide was imminent and the head of the UN peacekeeping force, in 1994,
“passed on a warning … that a mass extermination was being planned.”
As Rabbi Sacks sombrely acknowledged:
“Both times humanity hid its face.”
Amendment 9 is a straightforward, proportionate call to action. As my noble friend Lord Cormack said in his moving speech, it says that we simply cannot turn a blind eye, even in the interest of trade deals, when a state is guilty of genocide.
I know that it is late, but permit me to state very clearly my support for the campaign led by Andrew Mitchell MP. On 21 May 2020, he wrote an article, published in the Times, under the headline “Britain has a duty to bring genocide accused to justice”. He said:
“No fewer than five alleged Rwandan genocide perpetrators live in the UK”,
four of whom receive benefits. While the US, Canada, France, Belgium and Sweden, among others, have extradited those accused to face the Rwandan justice system, which abolished the death penalty more than 10 years ago, shockingly, we have not. Andrew Mitchell ended his words with the following:
“The souls of the slaughtered Tutsis cry out for justice but Britain has turned a deaf ear. We should all be ashamed.”
I call on the Government to deal swiftly with this matter, certainly before the next CHOGM, to be held in Kigali—the Rwandan capital—next summer.
Finally, on 23 September 2020, I said in this House that the treatment by the Chinese of Uighur Muslims was horrific, yet within days, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, said, China was elected to sit on the United Nations Human Rights Council. We all witnessed the footage of Uighur people being herded on to trains and transported to camps. It is footage that is all too familiar. Many of us who have heard first-hand accounts of the depredations of the Nazi camps know how major industrial companies ruthlessly used the slave labour in those camps to produce their goods and to make their fortunes. Will it be a case of business as usual as companies profit from the blood, sweat and tears of today’s slave labour or are we prepared to do something about it?
Towards the end of his presentation, Rabbi Sacks said that people often asked: where was God in the Holocaust? He maintained that that was the wrong question; the real question was: where was man? He suggested that it sometimes appears that we have learned nothing, which is why memorials are necessary. Tonight, in this House we are confronted once again with the same question: where were we when we had the chance to act against those who are responsible for today’s most grievous crimes against humanity? For those who have said and will say that the Trade Bill is not the place for such an amendment, I say that I will not join with the hand-wringing and the mouthing of nice words brigade. I will join with those who vote for action by supporting this amendment and I urge all noble Lords to do likewise.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this has been a powerful debate and rightly so, given the seriousness of the issue. This Wednesday, 9 December, is the day that the United Nations will mark the adoption of the genocide convention. It is also the International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this Crime. I wish to declare an interest in that I chair the UK board of Search for Common Ground, an international peacebuilding charity. Just before the lockdown I was in northern Iraq, where I have been more than 20 times, and Sudan, to which I have gone on many occasions. I have met the victims of the egregious crimes that have taken place in those two countries. Just last night, I was on an online video call with people in Baghdad who are still living with the situation from the north of Iraq which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, introduced. I commend his work in this House and the way that he introduced this group of amendments.
My noble friends Lady Northover and Lady Smith have indicated our support from these Benches and I need not repeat any of their arguments. We will work with the noble Lord and others, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in the previous group, to address some of the areas that have been referred to in the debate. For example, if it is a matter of the courts, which courts, and how do they interact with our treaties and agreements, both domestic and international? Would there have to be clauses and agreements, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, or is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, correct in saying that mechanisms are already in place? This can be discussed and identified.
Also, is this to be linked purely with preferential terms, which the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, indicated, or is it for all trade, as has also been indicated? There are consequences for both of those issues, and yes, they have to be agreed—as well as the interaction between our domestic courts and the mechanisms, which has not been raised so much. Genocide is of course one of the crimes under the International Criminal Court, which is different from those which can be triggered by the genocide convention. How do they interact with each other? These are all issues that I agree can and should be resolved through discussions.
Finally, I want to repeat to the Government from these Benches a clear call for a trade and human rights policy statement where a UK framework of atrocity analysis which can be integrated into our trade policy is agreed. It should be something where officials in the DIT, the Foreign and Commonwealth and Development Office and BEIS should be able to see proper links between judicial measures, human rights measures, trade agreements and our trading relationships. In the absence of a proper framework with atrocity analysis, we will not be doing what I believe that all in this House want the UK to be, which is a leader in the world, not for deciding on the hierarchy of suffering but on preventing the worst excesses of human rights abuses. We need the structures and the frameworks in our legal and trading methods to allow us to do that and I hope that the Government will finally respond positively to this debate.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for too long because I made my comments in the previous debate about my support and that of the Opposition for this amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and particularly my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws for their interventions.
I will single out two contributions. One is that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who has presented us with very clear arguments about why this argument should go to the Commons and why the Commons should consider it. The other is that of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because he is right: we have to respond to the government mantra that we have heard so many times: “It has to go to a competent court”. If that is the response, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, let the Commons decide. That is what this House can do tonight.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we have had a very long debate, and it is now my job to address the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
I have listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, and noted that he has raised the subject of genocide—a heinous crime—more than 300 times, which is remarkable. I applaud his persistence and I wish that I could be the Minister to provide an answer—perhaps the 301st—that gives the necessary satisfaction to him, and to other distinguished noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate. There have been some very moving and passionate speeches and we have had quotes from around the houses, ranging from Robbie Burns to—I should mention this—the very great, late Lord Sacks.
I do not advocate repeating the points made so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Grimstone in a previous group, so my remarks—I hope that the House will forgive me—are necessarily short. I will, however, quickly re-emphasise that the Government share wholeheartedly the concerns underpinning this amendment. My noble friend Lord Cormack referred to global Britain, as did a number of other Peers. The UK has also long supported the promotion of our values globally, and remains committed to its international obligations. We are clear that more trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights. This includes clauses in our trade agreements with many developing and emerging markets: suspensive powers in our trade preferences regime and recourse to trade levers through our sanctions policy.
The UK has played a leading international role in holding China to account for abuses, in particular those reported as taking place against the Uighur Muslims—which, again, was a theme during the debate this evening. We have led joint statements at the UN’s human rights bodies and underlined our concern directly to the Chinese authorities at senior levels. We have also repeatedly urged businesses that are involved in investing in Xinjiang or which have parts of their supply chain in the region, to conduct appropriate due diligence to satisfy themselves that their activities do not support any human rights violations or abuses. We have reinforced this message through engagement with businesses, industry groups and other stakeholders. Under the Modern Slavery Act the UK became the first country in the world to require businesses to report on how they are tackling modern slavery in their operations and supply chains.
This amendment seeks to give the High Court of England and Wales powers to revoke trade agreements where the court holds that another signatory to the relevant agreement has committed genocide. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley, who not only alluded to this in the last group but—as I know, though I came in slightly late—in this group too. He made some very helpful and interesting points. I listened carefully to all the speeches but, despite the very strong arguments that were presented by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Smith, and a few other noble Lords, the Government have serious concerns about this approach, some of which were touched on in the previous groups, as my noble friend Lord Grimstone iterated most strongly in his remarks.
The key point is that this would strike at the heart of the separation of powers in Britain’s constitutional system, allowing the High Court to frustrate trade agreements entered into by the Government and ratified after parliamentary scrutiny. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised a point about the separation of powers and the role of the courts. The Government’s position has consistently been that only a competent court should make determinations of genocide, and this does not entail the courts having the power to revoke trade agreements. State genocide is very difficult to prove in the judicial context—the evidential threshold is very high, and proceedings tend to be long and costly but the amendment would make it simple to bring vexatious allegations of genocide to the court as a means of putting political and international pressure on the Government.
Perhaps I may take up a point raised, in part, by my noble friend Lord Cormack. I remind the House, a bit like a long-playing record, that the Bill focuses on continuity agreements, but I would like to say a word about our approach to free trade agreements. We do not see a choice between securing growth and investment for the UK and supporting human rights. Our experience is that political freedom and the rule of law are vital underpinnings for both prosperity and stability, and that by having a strong economic relationship with partners, we are able to have open discussions on a range of very difficult issues, including human rights. Despite our varying approach to agreements with partners, we will always have open discussions on a range of issues, including human rights.
As my noble friend Lord Grimstone said earlier, we have provided extensive information to Parliament on our negotiations, including publishing our objectives and economic scoping assessments prior to negotiations beginning. We continue to engage closely with the relevant scrutiny committees—namely, the International Trade Committee in the House of Commons and the International Agreements Sub-Committee in the House of Lords.
Just before I conclude, I want to say something about China, because many references were made to that country. I say at the outset—as noble Lords would expect me to say—that China is an important economic partner for the UK. UK/China trade is currently worth approximately £76 billion. China is our fourth-largest trading partner, the sixth-largest export market and the third-largest import market. Currently, we have no plans to commence free trade agreement negotiations with China. Having recently concluded an agreement with Japan, our current priorities, as my noble friend Lord Grimstone has said on many occasions, are the US, Australia and New Zealand, as economies more similar to our own. Looking ahead—again, as my noble friend has said—we are committed to seeking accession to the CPTPP.
I do not want to delay the House any longer and the hour is late. In the light of the legal difficulties and unintended consequences, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his response to the debate. He would not expect me, though, to accept the tenor of his arguments, nor would the House expect me to speak at any length at the conclusion of this debate, because I know, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, was right to remind us, that we would like to move to a vote.
Let me make just two points. Anyone who doubts the point of the House of Lords should read the speeches tomorrow in Hansard, because it has been a remarkable debate on all sides. Good, constructive points have been made, and people have quite rightly said no amendment is going to be perfect and any amendment can be refined and improved. That is the purpose of this place—it is the point of our existence. If we send this amendment to the House of Commons, it can continue to be worked on and those issues can easily be addressed.
During the debate, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Polak, mentioned Rwanda. I visited the genocide sites in Rwanda; I went to a place called Murambi, where 56,000 people had been killed. I saw the skeletons of pregnant women with their children in what had been a college but had been turned into a memorial for victims of that violence. The noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond, as William Hague, our Foreign Secretary, spoke at the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, and he said:
“It is not enough to remember; we have a responsibility to act.”
It is not enough to remember. We have a responsibility to act.
During the Second World War, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a renowned theologian, defied Hitler and the Reich. He was sentenced to death and executed. He famously said:
“Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
Now is the time to act. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 11. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear during the course of the debate.
Amendment 11
Baroness Thornton
“International trade agreements: health, care or publicly funded data processing services and IT systems in connection with the provision of health and care
(1) Regulations under section 2(1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the conditions in subsections (2), (3) and (4) are met in relation to the application of that agreement in any part of the United Kingdom.(2) The condition in this subsection is that no provision of that international trade agreement in any way undermines or restricts the ability of an appropriate authority—(a) to provide a comprehensive publicly funded health service free at the point of delivery,(b) to protect the employment rights or terms and conditions of employment for public sector employees and those working in publicly funded health or care sectors,(c) to regulate and maintain the quality and safety of health or care services,(d) to regulate and maintain the quality and safety of medicines and medical devices,(e) to regulate and control the pricing and reimbursement systems for the purchase of medicines or medical devices,(f) to provide health data processing services and IT systems for commissioners, analysts and clinicians in relation to patient data, public health data and publicly provided social care data relating to UK citizens, or(g) to regulate and maintain the level of protection afforded in relation to patient data, public health data and publicly provided social care data relating to UK citizens.(3) The condition in this subsection is that the agreement—(a) explicitly excludes application of any provision within that agreement to publicly funded health or care services,(b) explicitly excludes provision for any Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clause that provides, or is related to, the delivery of public services, health care, care or public health,(c) explicitly excludes provision for any ISDS clause regarding data access and processing in relation to patient and public health data for the purposes of research, planning and innovation,(d) explicitly excludes the use of any negative listing, standstill or ratchet clause that provides, or is related to, the delivery of public services, health care, care or public health,(e) contains explicit recognition that an appropriate authority (within the meaning of section 4) has the right to enact policies, legislation and regulation which protect and promote health, public health, social care and public safety in health or care services, and (f) prohibits the sale of patient data, public health data and publicly provided social care data, except where all proceeds are explicitly ring-fenced for reinvestment in the UK’s health and care system.(4) The condition in this subsection is that the agreement explicitly allows, in the case of any traded algorithm or data-driven technology which could be deployed as a medical device, for the methodology for processing sensitive data to be independently audited or scrutinised for potential harm by an appropriate regulatory body in the United Kingdom where it relates to trade in medical algorithms, technology or devices.(5) For the purposes of this section—“negative listing” means a listing only of exceptions, exclusions or limits to commitments made by parties to the agreement;“ratchet” in relation to any provision in an agreement means any provision whereby a party, if (after the agreement has been ratified) it has unilaterally removed a barrier in an area where it had made a commitment before the agreement was ratified, may not reintroduce that barrier; and“standstill” in relation to any provision in an agreement means any provision by which parties list barriers which are in force at the time that they sign the agreement and undertake not to introduce any new barriers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would aim to protect the NHS, health, care or publicly funded data processing services and IT systems in connection with the provision of health and care in other parts of the UK from any form of control from outside the UK through trade agreements.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this proposed new clause aims to protect the NHS health, care or publicly funded data processing services and IT systems in connection with the provision of health and care in parts of the UK from any form of control from outside the UK through trade agreements. We know that Parliament does not yet have adequate powers to guide and scrutinise trade negotiations, and the current process provides no legal mechanism to directly influence or permanently block trade agreements—hence the amendments which we have discussed in Committee and earlier today. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Fox, for adding their names to this amendment, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for merging his important amendment about NHS data with the one about the NHS and public health. These are national assets which must not be put in jeopardy or squandered in whatever the future holds for UK trade with the world.
I will be very brief, because it is late—it is shocking that we are having to discuss something so important so late. We know that this Bill could mean that the UK enters into trade agreements that have a significant impact on public health and the domestic healthcare sector without Parliament having any meaningful role in their scrutiny. In this time of great uncertainty—do we have a deal or not?—the Trade Bill is currently the only legislative vehicle for Parliament’s oversight of trade negotiations. As a result, additional scrutiny mechanisms are vital to protect the NHS and public health as the UK begins to negotiate independent free trade agreements in earnest. These trade agreements could enhance health, if controls are put in place to ensure economic gain is not given priority over health, but they also have the potential to negatively impact upon health services. While the Government have repeatedly pledged that the NHS is not on the table in trade negotiations, we know that there have been detailed conversations between UK and US negotiators, revealing that health services have been discussed and that the US is probing the UK’s health insurance system and has made clear its desire for the UK to change its drug pricing mechanism.
I invite the Minister to accept this amendment so that the Government can proceed with their trade negotiations confident that Parliament has expressed its clear intention. I will not go through the detailed parts of this clause, because they are rather well drafted and completely clear in what they aim to do. There must be clear provisions on digital trade, where this affects health services. There must be clear exemptions for all health-related technology, as well as more transparency about digital provisions in trade deals. The noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Clement-Jones, will more than adequately explain those data issues, but we must remind ourselves that the NHS has longitudinal data the like of which exists in no other health system in the world. It is a huge asset from which the NHS and the British taxpayer should benefit. Does the Minister agree? I beg to move.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and congratulate her on her excellent and persuasive speech. I am pleased to contribute to consideration on Report of the Trade Bill and to speak to the new Amendment 11.
There is some question as to the status of new and enhanced digital trade provisions in replacement deals, such as the CEPA signed by the UK and Japan in September, and those promised next year in relation to the UK’s CETA with Canada, which are said to expand pre-existing agreements. These provisions have implications for health and care in the UK and warrant further discussion, despite the advice note issued by the Minister’s department on Friday—hence my decision to press the issues which I raised in Committee.
Amendment 11 would safeguard state control of policy-making and the use of publicly funded health and care data. This capability is of vital importance in the context of the pandemic, but it should be guaranteed in perpetuity, since it underpins the efficient and effective operation of publicly funded health and care services in the UK, as well as those data-driven health services managed at present by, for example, Public Health England and the Joint Biosecurity Centre. It also amounts to a significant national asset or resource with the potential to function as a dynamo in relation to research, innovation and continued growth of the UK’s life sciences, health and care tech sectors. The Trade Bill should recognise this and incorporate explicit provisions preventing the outsourcing of digital infrastructure that is critical to the nation’s health and wealth and, by implication, the loss of skilled personnel working in data analytics to support core health and care functions alongside research and development activity.
Agreement to Amendment 11 would also safeguard the state’s ability to regulate and maintain the level of protection afforded to health and care data relating to UK citizens. The Government seek to champion the free flow of data; this is writ large in the CEPA as well as in their recently issued advice notes on the subject. I am also mindful that the CEPA does not in itself change UK data protection laws. However, the Government should consider how the Trade Bill and enhanced provisions in rollover trade agreements could contribute to, or detract from, the public’s perception of their trustworthiness and accountability in relation to health and care data usage by third parties. After all, informed consent is the foundation on which UK GDPR is based.
The Government have stated that the CEPA deal
“removes unjustified barriers to data flows to ensure UK companies can access the Japanese market and provide digital services. It does this by limiting the ability for governments to put in place unjustified rules that prevent data from flowing and create barriers to trade.”
Does the Minister consider restrictions on the free flow of, for example, genomic and biometric data about citizens justifiable or not? Would he not, for example, consider it helpful to commit to data localisation or minimum cybersecurity standards to safeguard certain types of sensitive personal data? Having entered into the CEPA with Japan, are the Government now unable to insist on such rules? In putting my name to this amendment, I am concerned to ensure that the Government have not already tied the hands of policymakers and regulators, including the Information Commissioner.
Agreement to subsection (3)(c) in the proposed new clause inserted by Amendment 11 would prevent the introduction of any ISDS clause regarding data access and processing in relation to health data to a rollover or enhanced trade agreement. The Government continue to invest significant funds in research and development and are committed to leveraging private investment to propel the UK’s R&D effort. I feel sure—in fact, I will wager—that securing foreign direct investment in health and care data will be a feature of their trade negotiation strategy. However, in the interests of guaranteeing value for taxpayers’ money, the Government should not find themselves in a position where they are at risk of legal action from their trading partners or multinationals if, for example, they want to offer discounted access to health and care data assets for UK SMEs to stimulate homegrown economic development or invest to create employment opportunities in deprived communities in relation to the clean-up or curation of health and care data.
The Minister remarked in an earlier reply to me that ISDS provisions do not feature in the rollover trade agreements with which this Bill is primarily concerned. I also think I am right in saying that, rather than opting for ISDS in negotiating the CEPA, the Government agreed with Japan that the agreement would be subject to the World Trade Organization’s Dispute Settlement Body. That is not to say that other rollover agreements still to be finalised will not incorporate reference to ISDS, and nor do I profess a preference for reliance on the WTO’s dispute settlement body vis-à-vis claims that might arise in relation to government decisions on health and care data, since the UK will pose a less significant risk to those claimants who may be backed by big tech once separated from the European Union in earnest. I therefore stand by the amendment, which would prevent such claims arising in the first place.
Agreement to subsection (3)(f) of Amendment 11 reads across to a topic that I have spoken about on many occasions in this place: namely, the value of healthcare data. There is widespread recognition that the NHS uniquely controls nationwide longitudinal healthcare data, which has the potential to generate clinical, social and economic development as well as commercial value. The Government should take steps to protect and harness the value of that data and, in the context of the Trade Bill, ensure that the public can be satisfied that that value will be safeguarded and, where appropriate, ring-fenced and reinvested in the UK’s health and care system. The Government have stated that the UK-Japan deal includes agreement to encourage
“the release of anonymised government datasets where appropriate”
because public access to government datasets creates opportunities for innovative British businesses. Once again, the trade deal cuts both ways; I do not believe that the general public support a “great health data giveaway” of benefit to companies headquartered and paying taxes overseas.
Finally, conscious of time, I encourage the Minister to reflect upon my contribution to the discussion of the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill in Committee, and the helpful response of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which confirmed that the Government mean to undertake a review of pertinent regulations over the coming year, including the definition of a medical device and the regulation of algorithms and artificial intelligence in pertinent tools and innovations. I am concerned that the effect of provisions in some trade agreements could be to reduce access to the algorithms that underpin them.
None can doubt the need to prioritise the safety of the public as new treatments and technologies are developed in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic and traded under both existing and new agreements that the Government might enter into with other countries. Yet, according to the Government’s advice note published on 4 November, the CEPA entered into by the UK and Japan will prevent the forced transfer of algorithms. The Trade Bill should contain up-to-date provisions to guarantee patient safety against this backdrop because it is unclear whether Article 8.3 of the CEPA—which provides a general exemption for measures deemed necessary to protect human health—would override provisions concerning the forced transfer of algorithms. Agreement to subsection (4) of Amendment 11 would have that effect.
I am passionate about harnessing the value of health and care data that is generated by, with and about UK citizens. The Government should, however, take note of those protections to which I have put my name in supporting Amendment 11; these are designed to maintain public confidence in our brave, new, data-driven world.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 43 in my name provides for safeguards to trade agreements to ensure affordable access to medicines for all. I thank my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for adding their names. I express my support for Amendment 11 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lord Fox. It dovetails nicely with my Amendment 43 in seeking to protect the NHS and connected services from control through free trade agreements; Amendment 43 seeks to affirm fair access to affordable medicines for international agreements to which the UK is already a party.
The monopoly system created by the pharmaceutical business model is entrenched globally through the WTO’s 1995 TRIPS agreement—the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights. Included within it are provisions to safeguard public health. However, concerns about affordable medicines in developing countries, particularly access to antiretroviral drugs in the face of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, led to the Doha declaration in 2001. These identified options open for Governments to address public health needs, which are known as flexibilities. The importance of such flexibilities was highlighted by their inclusion in the UN’s sustainable development goals.
However, despite these safeguards, the misuse and abuse of these monopoly rights continue and are taking precedence over human rights in all countries of the world, not just developing ones. The NHS’s spiralling drugs bill led even the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, to protest that pharmaceutical companies are “ripping off taxpayers”. I have no objection to profit-making by companies, but I object vehemently to people suffering and dying needlessly under the NHS because of quite obscene profit-taking by pharmaceutical companies, as happened with Vertex’s cystic fibrosis drug Orkambi. In South Africa, private health companies are charging $39,000—an obscene amount—for Trastuzumab, a WHO essential drug to treat breast cancer. This is a human rights issue.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. I support her Amendment 43 and share her concerns about big pharma, although I would go further and suggest that the profit motive should have no place in healthcare. Chiefly, I will offer three brief paragraphs in support of the cross-party Amendment 11, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
Looking at the excellent UNISON briefing on this amendment, I was taken back, as was the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to the Committee debate on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, in which we were discussing the place of artificial intelligence and big data in care and, of course, the dreaded algorithms. Clearly, this will be a fast-growing area of care, needing careful monitoring and democratic oversight, which is what this amendment seeks to achieve. What is decided by Parliament must not be undermined or overturned by free trade agreements. As the medicines Bill debate highlighted, these are big issues and there are huge issues around discrimination and potential misuse—accidental or otherwise—of the data, the algorithms and the whole approach.
I wish briefly to point noble Lords to the case of Henrietta Lacks in the US, including the treatment of her cells, the treatment of her data and the destruction of her privacy. It is an experience that surely should be studied as we face the loss of the protection of GDPR, as there remains uncertainty about the plans for WTO e-commerce rules and as there is grave concern about the way in which the UK-Japan agreement undermines UK domestic digital and AI regulation in healthcare services.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the health data aspects of Amendment 11, which has been mentioned and was so well introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I would add to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton: I join her in deploring the fact that we are debating this group of amendments, which are so important in this area, impacting on the NHS, at this late hour.
NHS data is a precious commodity, especially given the many transactions between technology, telecoms and pharma companies concerned with NHS data. In a recent report, EY estimated that the value of NHS data could be around £10 billion a year in the benefit delivered. The Department of Health and Social Care is preparing to publish its national health and care data strategy in the new year, in which it is expected to prioritise the
“safe, effective and ethical use of data-driven technologies, such as artificial intelligence, to deliver fairer health outcomes.”
Health professionals have strongly argued that free trade deals risk compromising the safe storage and processing of NHS data.
Through this amendment, the objective is to ensure that the NHS—not US big tech companies and drug giants—reaps the benefit of all this data. This is especially important given what the Ada Lovelace Institute called in its report—The Data Will See You Now—the “datafication” of health, which, it says, has profound consequences for who can access data about health, on how we practically and legally define health data and on our relationship with our own well-being and the healthcare system. Health information can now be inferred from non-health data, and data about health can be used for purposes beyond healthcare. So harnessing the value of healthcare data must be allied with ensuring that adequate protections are put in place in trade agreements if that value is not to be given or traded away.
There is also the need for data adequacy to ensure that personal data transfers to third countries outside the EU are protected in line with the principles of the GDPR. Watering down the UK’s data protection legislation will only reduce the chances of receiving an adequacy decision. There is also a concern that the proposed National Data Strategy will lead to the weakening of data protection legislation, just as it becomes ever more necessary for securing citizens’ rights. There should, however, be no conflict between good data governance, economic growth and better government through the effective use of data.
The section of the final impact assessment of the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement—CEPA—between the UK and Japan on digital trade provisions says that the agreement contains:
“Commitments to uphold world-leading standards of protection for individuals’ personal data, in line with the UK’s Data Protection Act 2018, when data is being transferred across borders. This ensures that both consumer and business data can flow across borders in a safe and secure manner.”
The Department for International Trade, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, issued a document headed “UK-JP CEPA—a good deal for data protection”. However, the agreement has Article 8.3, which appears to provide a general exception for data flows, where this is
“necessary to protect public security or public morals or to maintain public order”
or
“to protect human, animal or plant life or health”.
The question has been raised of whether this will override data protections and what its impact will be on access to source codes and algorithms. There is also the question of the combined effect of Article 8.84, on the free flow of data, which provides that:
“A Party shall not prohibit or restrict the cross-border transfer of information by electronic means, including personal information, when this activity is for the conduct of the business of a covered person.”
Article 8.80, on personal information protection, says:
“Recognising that the Parties may take different legal approaches to protecting personal information, each Party should encourage the development of mechanisms to promote compatibility between these different regimes.”
It is all very well making reassuring noises, but what public legal analysis of the language in the relevant articles—and how advocacy will be permitted despite this—are the Government going to provide? Why, for instance, are these articles included, which the EU for its part will not sign up to? Unless the Government do this, there will be zero trust in future trade deals, especially regarding the US.
To date, there have been shortcomings in the sharing of data between various parts of the health service, care sector and Civil Service. The development of the Covid-19 app and the way the Government have procured contracts with the private sector for data management have not improved public trust in their approach to data use. There is also the danger that the UK will fall behind Europe and the rest of the world unless it takes back control of its data and begins to invest in its own cloud capabilities. Specifically, we need to ensure genuine sovereignty of NHS data and that it is monetised in a safe way, focused on benefiting the NHS and our citizens.
With a new national data strategy in the offing, the Government can maximise the opportunities afforded by the collection of data and position the UK as a leader in data capability and protection. As Future Care Capital says in its briefing on the Bill:
“Any proceeds from data collaborations that the Government agrees to, integral to any ‘replacement’ or ‘new’ trade deals, should be ring-fenced for reinvestment in the health and care system, pursuant with FCC’s long-standing call to establish a Sovereign Health Fund.”
This is an extremely attractive concept. Retaining control over our publicly generated data, particularly health data, for planning, research and innovation is vital if the UK is to maintain its position as a leading life science economy and innovator. That is why, as part of the new trade legislation being put in place, clear safeguards are needed to ensure that in trade deals, our publicly held data is safe from exploitation, except as determined by our own Government’s democratically taken decisions.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register. This is a particularly important group of amendments, on health and the protection of data. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for introducing them.
I will limit my remarks to the specific issue of data, which will be relevant to the recently reached super-agreement with Japan. It was discussed as recently as last week, when my noble friend Lord Grimstone spoke about the importance—I agree with him—of a greater exchange of data flows, particularly from that agreement. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, it is extremely important, as set out in Amendment 11, to protect this data. I will give one example. The Government have been heavily dependent on vaccine trials for the three vaccines that are coming out. Would people readily submit to such trials and completing confidential surveys if there was any doubt that the data they submit would be treated confidentially?
If my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie is not minded to support this amendment, will the Government table their own amendment to ensure the greater protection of data processing services?
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak strongly in support of Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. The hour is late, and we spent a long time discussing the matter in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and others have dealt with the subject in detail and eloquently. Hence, I will be brief, as the last speaker before the Front-Bench speakers.
No matter what the Government say about the NHS not being on the table for any trade negotiations with the USA, it is naive to think that that will be so. Members of the US Congress and big pharma have made it clear that they expect the NHS to be part of any negotiation of a United States trade deal. In fact, the chair of the Senate finance committee—a committee that will have a final say in any trade deal that will be made—said that it is clear that all goods and services are part of the negotiation and, furthermore, that the NHS would benefit from competition from US companies. US big pharma has always complained that the UK, with its regulatory and medicines pricing regime, does not pay full price for medicines. It has even suggested that, as a result, US patients end up paying a higher price.
The US data and tech firms see an opportunity in our NHS patients’ records to develop patient management platforms and an opportunity to conduct clinical trials on cohorts of stratified patient and much more. I can quote an example: the company Palantir that has been involved in data mining and in security and intelligence. It was given a contract for the price of £1, at the beginning of the pandemic in March, to develop a platform for Covid-19 data. The contract was to be re-examined three months later. It was extended briefly and now I gather that, without any public debate, it has been granted a contract for five more years. Why would a data mining company be interested in having data related to health and health management? The answer is quite obvious: data is gold. In the absence of any government policy in relation to security and governance of health and patient data, it is an open goal for tech companies.
As I mentioned in Committee, several US firms are already involved in managing services worth billions of pounds. The prize for running services and exploiting patient and service-based data will be worth tens of billions of pounds. In market-driven self-service, the losers will be the patients and taxpayers.
Recently, it was reported that there was a meeting, organised by the Office for Life Sciences, between NHS England and big pharma and big tech with the intention to digitise and use the data of tens of millions of patients. Such an exercise would cost billions of pounds, which might be funded by the tech firms, but there was discussion about who would hold the IP. The risk we run, not only concerning data but also about how the services are managed in the NHS, is that they will be given to overseas companies, particularly American companies, that will benefit and profit from it. The NHS will be the loser, and therefore I strongly support this amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been necessarily a short debate, but it has been an incredibly high quality debate. We have heard, from all the speakers, a high level of understanding of the issue and the dangers that Amendment 11 is seeking to address. I speak as one of those who signed Amendment 11. I support Amendment 43 and congratulate my noble friend Lady Sheehan on her eloquent presentation, but I am going to focus on Amendment 11 because it is a really important issue. We heard a lot about data from people who know a lot about data.
Sitting above this is the fact that the Government have no published cross-border data transfer policy. Without that, it seems as though each trade deal will be a series of negotiations without a framework. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones set out the benefits of having constraints and frameworks for this. It is clear from the Japan trade deal that the Government have indicated a level of flexibility around data. Once that has been delivered for one trade deal, it becomes a necessity for the next—and a bit more and a bit more. Even if that is not what will happen, I am sure the Minister understands that this fuels the fires of people’s suspicion and concern about the way in which data is being treated in this country.
From his position of great knowledge, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, set out some specific examples—not of a trade deal but of trade in this country—where data is already being parlayed. One things that has not been said is that, for patients to consent to their data being used, they have to believe that there will be a benefit. They do not want that benefit to flow across these borders through trade; they want it to accrue to the NHS. That is why Amendment 11 is important, and why I hope that it goes to a vote shortly and gets the support of Members from these Benches and beyond.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, spoke very clearly in moving this amendment. Like me, she recognises the benefits of trade, but only when health takes the central place in our trade policy. That is what Amendment 11 seeks to achieve.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will now address Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Patel and Lord Fox, alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. This amendment would place a range of restrictions on the regulations that we can make to implement continuity agreements. I will be relatively brief and will write to all noble Lords who asked questions to be sure that they are answered.
New subsection (2), proposed by this amendment, stipulates that regulations can be made only using Clause 2 of the Trade Bill if the agreement does not undermine the way in which the NHS is delivered, operated or regulated, but we believe that the conditions set out in subsection (2) are unnecessary. We have demonstrated time and again that we are not selling off the NHS, and this will not change.
I listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. In response, the Government are clear that health and care data should only ever be used or shared where it is used lawfully, treated with respect and is held securely, with the right safeguards in place.
The conditions set out in proposed new subsection (3) would defeat the purpose of having a Clause 2 power. It stipulates that no agreement can be implemented through Clause 2 regulations, unless it contains a range of explicit exclusions and inclusions in the text of the agreement. Importantly, this would effectively prohibit the implementation via Clause 2 of any continuity trade agreement that the Government have signed, which does not explicitly meet these requirements, even though this amendment did not exist at the time of their negotiation. Every single continuity agreement that we have negotiated over the past three years would be left null and void, without an implementing power. We would be forced to reopen negotiations with every single continuity partner, which would no doubt be used to extract costly concessions.
Rigorous protections for public services can be achieved in both positive and negative lists in services and investment schedules for FTAs. The sectoral commitments outlined in a schedule are only one part of a tapestry of protections for public services, which can also include scope exclusions and exceptions set out elsewhere in the FTA. The UK is party to agreements that use both positive and negative lists, and neither outcome has interfered with the Government’s right to regulate and ability to protect public services.
This amendment would also place a new requirement for exclusions on the sale of patient data—another condition that was not in place at the time of negotiation. There are already strict legal, privacy and security controls on how companies can use patient data, including principles set out by the National Data Guardian and the common law of confidentiality. We have clearly set out our principles governing data-sharing agreements entered into by NHS organisations, published in July 2019.
Finally, subsection (4) of this amendment stipulates that regulations can be made using Clause 2 of the Trade Bill only if they allow for the scrutiny of
“medical algorithms, technology or devices”
with respect to their
“methodology for processing sensitive data”.
I reassure your Lordships that before any medical device can be placed on the UK market it must be compliant with the Medical Devices Regulations 2002, which cannot be superseded by a trade negotiation without further legislation.
I now turn, quickly, to Amendment 43, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Alton of Liverpool. It would mean that the commencement power in Clause 32 could be used only to commence the substantive provisions of the Trade Bill if they do not restrict UK citizens’ access to medicines, if they do not curtail the Government’s power to use the safeguard provisions of the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, if they do not delay the market entry of lower-priced generic health technologies and if they do not lower the bar for patentability. Similar to Amendment 11, it also seeks to exclude health-related matters from the scope of ISDS provisions.
I also note that the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access—the so-called VPAS—which is the latest voluntary pricing scheme negotiated with industry, will continue to control the prices of branded medicines and their cost to the NHS. The VPAS runs in conjunction with the statutory pricing scheme, NHS England and NHS Improvement commercial arrangements, and the process for NICE appraisals. The 2019 VPAS will run until 2023 and, through a series of measures, supports patient access to innovative new medicines.
Furthermore, the UK remains committed to the Doha declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health, which recognises the right to public health and the importance of intellectual property protection, while noting that the flexibilities contained in the IP system can be enacted to address public health needs. In addition to our commitment to our international obligations, we will also be bound by IP provisions designed to facilitate public health that are enshrined in domestic law. For example, the Patents Act 1977 provides for compulsory licensing in the unlikely circumstances that this is required. With that, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for the support that the amendment has received from across the House. I listened carefully to the Minister but was not at all convinced by what he had to say. It seemed to boil down to two things. The first was that nothing should change because you might have to change other agreements—which is clearly nonsense in this day of technology. Secondly, if the Minister really cared about the NHS and data protection, the Government should write their own amendments to the Bill, instead of having the rest of the House do it for them. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I shall now put the Question. We have heard from a Member speaking remotely that they wish to divide the House in support of the amendment and I will take that into account. The Question is that Amendment 11 be agreed to.