House of Commons
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
We have committed more than £4 billion to deliver 18,000 additional prison places across the prison estate by the mid-2020s to support the Prime Minister’s commitment to crack down on crime. Those 18,000 prison places include the 10,000 places being made available through the construction of four new prisons, the expansion of a number of other prisons, refurbishment of the existing prison estate, and the completion of our ongoing prison builds at HMP Five Wells and Glen Parva.
Katherine Fletcher
Wymott bowling club has been based at HMP Wymott, near Ulnes Walton, for about 42 years. It is a fantastic part of the community, with a library in a portakabin because the old building associated with the prison estate had to be knocked down. It has some big ideas for a really good community resource, but it needs to know when the Ministry of Justice will finalise its plans. Can my hon. and learned Friend share when the community centre can have some certainty and get its exciting plans under way?
Lucy Frazer
I am happy to do that. I really understand the value of community centres, and I am aware of the brilliant plans that Ms Kitching, the chair of Wymott bowling club, has for a new community centre. Work is under way to determine appropriate sites for other prisons, and we need to ensure that we do not release land we own that we might use in the future. We expect to make a decision on this in spring 2021. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that my officials are planning to meet Ms Kitching in mid-December to discuss this matter in more detail, and I would be happy to keep my hon. Friend updated.
Ben Everitt [V]
Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm what types of offender will be prioritised for these new prison places and that the most dangerous criminals will be kept off our streets?
Lucy Frazer
We anticipate that the additional places will deliver a mix of places based on population type and category, which will enable us to ensure that prisoners are kept in the right security category according to their risk assessment. In September, the Lord Chancellor published “A Smarter Approach to Sentencing”, which sets out our plans for a system that protects the public. These reforms will ensure that serious sexual and violent offenders and those who are dangerous are kept in prison for longer.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
England and Wales already have the highest imprisonment rate in western Europe. Shocking figures released last week show that the prison population is going to explode from 79,000 to 100,000 by 2026. Overcrowded, understaffed and crumbling prisons can never be safe. In 2016, the Conservatives pledged 10,000 extra prison places by 2020, but they have only managed 200. They pledged another 10,000 last year, but the Ministry of Justice says that the business case has not yet been approved. Trust matters in politics. It is fatally damaged when pledges are missed and promises are broken. The Secretary of State said last week that he would provide 18,000 new prison places. Why should anyone believe him?
Lucy Frazer
The right hon. Member mentioned the fact that we had overcrowding. I would like to point out that overcrowded accommodation has gone down since the Labour Government in 2004. He also mentioned the increase in the prison population. That is not something that has just occurred under this Government. Labour failed to reduce the prison population, which increased by nearly 25,000 between 1997 and 2010. We have already made significant progress on the development of two prisons, and we have made a commitment to build others. Those plans are well under way, and we will be delivering them.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
As set out in our manifesto, we are looking at the broader aspects of our constitution, including the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts. Our independent courts and legal system are respected around the world, and I would like to protect our world-class judiciary from being drawn into political matters. I am interested in reviewing the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and I will update the House on arrangements in due course.
Michael Fabricant [V]
My right hon. and learned Friend will share with me—indeed, I suspect the whole House will share with me—the respect we have for our Supreme Court and its judgments. Nevertheless, it is called in from time to time to look at issues that are highly political and highly contentious. Does he not agree with me that we urgently need to establish some sort of framework so that we can decide precisely what the Supreme Court should be looking at and what issues are perhaps beyond or different from its remit?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I understand the concern that he outlines. Of course, the Supreme Court does not of its own volition investigate matters. It hears cases and answers the questions before it on arguable points of law of general public importance. However, as I have already said, I think it is important that we look again at the balance. As a full-throated supporter of an institution that brings together the three jurisdictions of our United Kingdom, I want to make sure that its future is indeed a secure and a bright one.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The terms of reference for the Government’s review of the Human Rights Act 1998, which were announced yesterday, include the relationship between domestic courts and the European convention on human rights. But of course human rights themselves, as opposed to the Act, are not a reserved matter, and Scotland’s courts play an important role in supervising human rights protections under the Scotland Act 1998. So can the Lord Chancellor give me a cast-iron guarantee that the British Government are not planning to interfere with the competence of the Scottish Parliament in respect of human rights and the jurisdiction of Scotland’s separate legal system in enforcing human rights protections?
Robert Buckland
I am happy to assure the hon. and learned Lady that the terms of reference have been carefully couched to make it clear that we have distinctive contexts and natures in each of the jurisdictions, and that they will be considered where that is necessary. I am also content that where there are particular questions on devolved matters or of a devolved nature, the independent review will be approaching or inviting engagement from all appropriate parties. Of course, it is only the first stage in making recommendations. I can assure her that any proposals that will come forward will of course involve the fullest consultation with the devolved Administrations and, indeed, of course the fullest respect for the devolved settlement.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Can I welcome the tone of my right hon. and learned Friend’s statement and his very clear commitment to supporting the independence of the judiciary? That is an absolute and fundamental principle of our constitution, and should never be undermined by anyone. Can I also welcome the terms of reference of the review, which are balanced and measured in relation to the Human Rights Act and, in particular, the quality of the panel that has been appointed? I happen to have known Sir Peter Gross throughout my professional career, and he is known as both a man and a judge of the highest independence and integrity, as are the other members of the panel. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend can reassure us that they will have a completely free hand to act as they think is appropriate within the terms of reference, without any pressure on their independence from any quarter.
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee is absolutely right to highlight the impeccable credentials of the chair, Sir Peter Gross, not only as a distinguished former Lord Justice of Appeal, but of course as the judge responsible for international relations: he understands very well the issue of judicial diplomacy, which is very much at the heart of this review. I am glad that the geographical representation also includes an academic from the Republic of Ireland, because it is my fundamental belief that we need to look at the position in all parts of our islands to respect not only the human rights settlement, but the Belfast agreement.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The independent review of the Human Rights Act will have an enormous impact on the basic rights and freedoms that British citizens enjoy. The Government caused outrage by failing to publish submissions to the independent review of administrative law. Transparency and accountability are fundamental parts of our democracy. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that both the submissions to the human rights review and the review itself will be published in full?
Robert Buckland
I think perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is to be forgiven for his descent into hyperbole when it comes to the ambit of this review. It is all about the mechanism, and comments about fundamental rights being affected are way wide of the mark. First, with regard to the process in the review, it is a matter for the review as to what precise submissions it publishes, but I can assure him that the outcome of the review and the Government’s position will of course be published in full, so that he will be able and others will be able to digest it and we will be able to debate the matter.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Justice systems around the world have been profoundly affected by the coronavirus pandemic, but I am pleased that the court system in England and Wales has been among the world’s leaders in recovering from that pandemic. Magistrates court disposals are now exceeding receipts, and 260 Crown Court jury rooms are operating—more than we had before the pandemic. Substantial additional resources, both people and money, have been put into the system, to ensure that our recovery continues to be world-leading.
Jeff Smith
The Lowry theatre in Salford is being used as a nightingale court, which I think is a good idea and model because it brings income to a venue that has been hit hard by the crisis. However, it is one of only 16 courts that were up and running by the end of November, and the chief executive of the Courts Service has said that we need 200 to clear the backlog. What number does the Minister think we now need to clear the backlog?
Chris Philp
As the hon. Gentleman says, 16 nightingale courts are up and running, and the Ministry of Justice has secured a total of just over £110 million in additional funding from the Treasury, to support not just those nightingale courts, but many others as well. We intend to open further nightingale courts in the future. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the use of the Lowry theatre—we all do—and as I said, up to 260 Crown Court jury rooms are now open and operational, which is more than we had before the pandemic.
Seema Malhotra
The backlog for individual cases in employment tribunals has already passed the post-2008 financial crisis record, with 37,000 workers in the queue. Analysis by Citizens Advice suggests that if that continues to grow at the current rate, the number of outstanding claims could pass 500,000 by spring. When will the Minister take action at the scale necessary, and stop the Chancellor’s jobs crisis becoming a justice crisis, by targeting much needed support to employment tribunals?
Chris Philp
As I said, we are putting a great deal of extra resources into the justice system, including employment tribunals, to ensure that we recover from coronavirus. There is £110 million in total extra this year, and a further 1,600 staff of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service across the entire system. The hon. Lady mentions employment tribunals, and I am pleased to report to the House that since the beginning of October, disposal rates in the employment tribunals have been running at 740 a week. That is higher than the level of disposals pre-pandemic, which was 718 a week. We hope and expect that that recovery will continue.
Laura Trott
There has been a welcome focus from the Department on domestic violence and sexual assault cases, including the landmark recent Domestic Abuse Bill. We know that a delay in bringing those types of cases to court can lead to a significant increase in attrition rates, and therefore convictions. Will Ministers focus particularly on bringing those types of cases to court quickly, and will they meet me and the Kent police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott, to discuss what more we can do?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that important area, and it is certainly a matter that Ministers are mindful of and focused on. The judiciary decided early on in the pandemic to prioritise domestic violence protection orders, so that even when much of the court system had stopped functioning in the immediate aftermath of the first lockdown, DVPOs continued. As judges consider which cases to list, they are mindful of my hon. Friend’s point about protecting vulnerable witnesses and victims. In addition, we have committed £28 million extra to support domestic abuse services, and we have provided £800,000 to the finding legal options for women survivors project, which provides free legal support to victims—my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) has been leading on that work. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the Kent police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott, who is doing a fantastic job for the people of Kent, and I look forward to that meeting happening in the near future.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor was keen to talk up his court successes in his statement on Thursday, yet the situation remains dire in many parts of his Department, according to answers to my written questions. The number of effective trials was down from 19,000 in 2010 to 12,000 last year, and that was before covid; expenditure on recorder sitting days has halved from £19 million to less than £10 million since 2018; and disposals in care proceedings within the legally required 26 weeks have collapsed to just 34%. This is about people’s lives, so will the Minister outline when victims, witnesses and families will get the court system they desperately need and justice will be properly served?
Chris Philp
The shadow Minister makes reference to a reduction of trial numbers last year. Of course, that is because crime is significantly down since 2010, when Labour left office. If there are fewer crimes being committed, there will be fewer trials in consequence; that is a symptom of success. The outstanding case load in 2019 was in fact at a 10-year low.
As I have said already, we are fully committed to making sure that the justice system recovers from the pandemic. That is why we have more Crown court jury trial rooms open now than we did before the pandemic, we are consulting on having extended operating hours to allow more cases to be heard, we have put £110 million of extra money in, we have recruited 1,600 extra staff—[Interruption.] It is working, as evidenced by the fact that there are more magistrates court trials now than there were before the pandemic and disposals are exceeding receipts. We will continue this work and make sure that the recovery in this jurisdiction continues to lead the world.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
All hate crimes, including where motivated by homophobia, are unacceptable. The courts already have powers to treat hostility based on sexual orientation as a factor that aggravates the seriousness of an offence. However, hate crime laws in England and Wales are complex and are spread across different statutes. That is why the Government gave a commitment to carry out a comprehensive review of hate crime legislation. That review is currently under way.
Damian Collins
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer and in particular for the review being done by the Law Commission at the moment, which is looking specifically at the incidence of homophobic abuse in sports grounds. As the Minister will know, the Football (Offences) Act 1991 defines “racialist” abuse—that is the word it uses, which shows how old the Act is—but not homophobic abuse. Clearly, there is no space for abuse of any kind in a sports environment. In particular, match day stewards and officials seem unclear of their powers in these situations.
Alex Chalk
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on this issue. It has been noted and appreciated. He is absolutely right; from memory, it is question 57 of the Law Commission’s review of this precise issue. I hope that that work progresses. The extraordinary thing about football is that so much of an advance has been seen in respect of racism, yet homophobia still seems to exist, although I have to say that there is much better work going on in the women’s game than the men’s. The men need to catch up.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
Throughout the pandemic, we have worked really closely with Public Health England to respond to any outbreaks in prison and to keep our staff and those in our custody safe. We are taking a number of measures, which include compartmentalisation—keeping separate the vulnerable, those who are symptomatic and those who are coming into prisons from outside—as well as increased testing and more use of personal protective equipment, including face masks, where it is appropriate.
Catherine West
During these tough times of covid, health and safety is more important than ever. Will the Minister consider introducing a hotline for staff so that they can report health and safety breaches, particularly around the covid question but in other regards as well, given that prisons are a difficult place to work?
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her suggestion. There are a number of hotlines available to staff. We work very closely with the unions on a local level, as well as a national level, but I am very happy to take away her suggestion to see whether it is necessary.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
We have taken important action across the review recommendations. For the three recommendations specific to youth, we have promoted parental and community involvement in referral order panels and evaluated an update of the Youth Justice Board’s ethnic disproportionality toolkit. Beyond that, we have now ended automatic disclosure of youth cautions on criminal records. We have put equalities plans in all young offenders institutions and are piloting the Chance to Change alternative to charge, which was one of the recommendations of the review. However, there is no quick fix and more work will continue to be done.
Stephen Morgan
With fewer than half of the Lammy review’s recommendations having been enacted and with many others from many other reviews into deaths in custody still outstanding, what can the Secretary of State do to assure black, Asian and minority ethnic communities that the Government are not just dragging their feet on racial disparity in the justice system?
Robert Buckland
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is far from the case. Indeed, 16 recommendations have been completed. There are two recommendations that we did not take up, but of the 17 that are still in progress, we aim to complete 11 within six to 12 months. I am being told that the further six will take slightly longer. That is not good enough for me and I will be going back to my officials to make sure we make earlier progress. I can assure him that, as overall numbers go down in the youth estate, what concerns me is that we are still seeing a disproportionate number of BAME children being held in custody, even though the overall numbers are now dramatically fewer. There is clearly more work to be done on that front.
Sarah Owen
The Lammy review was published in 2017 and it said that racial inequality and unfairness runs rife throughout our country’s justice system. At that time, zero Supreme Court judges were black. That number is still zero. In fact, not a single Supreme Court judge is from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background. Why does the Secretary of State think that is and what are his Government doing to change it?
Robert Buckland
Like the hon. Lady, I want to see far more people from a diverse and BAME background in the senior judiciary. The truth is that the senior judiciary is often a product of the supply into the legal professions some 20 or more years ago, when we know things were not as promising when it comes to diversity as they are now at the Bar, in solicitors’ practices, or for legal executives and Government lawyers, for example. However, we cannot use that as an excuse, which is why I am working hard with the senior judiciary and the chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission, as part of the Judicial Diversity Forum. We are meeting again this week and in my convening role I am pushing all sides, the Bar Council and the Law Society, to come up with more plans and more engagement, so we can help and support BAME candidates ahead of any application processes to level that playing field.
Wes Streeting
In a 2020 update on progress against the Lammy review, the Secretary of State said:
“It is crucial, if everyone is to have confidence in our system, that the people working in it reflect the diversity of Britain today.”
Yet in written answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), the Ministry of Justice confirms that there are zero BAME staff working for the Youth Justice Board outside London. What is the Secretary of State going to do to make sure the system reflects the communities those people are serving?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know the new chair of the Youth Justice Board, Keith Fraser, will be particularly concerned about that figure. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that in many other areas we are seeing BAME representation higher than the national average. For example, there is an extremely encouraging figure for the probation service. I will look at that particular issue and discuss it with the chair of the YJB, because clearly he feels strongly about BAME issues and he will want to take appropriate action to see what we can do to improve that.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
In 2016, 22% of kids sentenced were black and minority ethnic. Now, it is 27%. Some 41% of youth prisoners were black and minority ethnic. Now, it is over half. The proportion of black and minority ethnic young people subject to the use of force in youth prisons has gone up from 41% to 48% since the Lammy review. This Government have been in power for 10 years. It has been two years since the Lammy review. It is not that not enough progress has been made; things are going backwards. Why should anybody have faith that this lot can sort it out?
Robert Buckland
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he is just wrong about that—totally wrong. In the last 10 years, there has been a fall of 83% in the number of children receiving a caution or a sentence, and last year there was a fall of 19%. That means in actual numbers of lives and families, the number of children and BAME children affected is reducing. I accept the point about disproportionality—I acknowledged it earlier—but it is a calumny to say that the Government are inactive or uninterested in the issue. We have made incredible progress in 10 years. The child population in our young offender institutions or other institutions is now down to about 500. That is a generational low, and he should pay tribute to the Government for presiding over such dramatic change.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
As a young person turns 18, the contents of their child trust fund belong to them and them alone, whether or not they have a learning disability, which is an important point of principle, but for those loving parents who, for good reason, want legal authority to access those funds, we want to make the process more cost-effective and more straightforward. As a result, fees can now be waived in appropriate cases and we have set up a working group to work quickly alongside the judiciary to review the process, with a view to streamlining it while maintaining vital safeguards.
Stephen Crabb
I thank the Minister for that answer, the work that he is doing on this issue and the letter he wrote to me this week about my constituents who are affected. As he knows, around 200,000 disabled children could be affected by this in the coming eight years, unable to access their Government-backed child trust fund, so I urge him to continue the good work that he is doing and to really make sure that applications to the Court of Protection are the least onerous possible for the parents of these disabled children.
Alex Chalk
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that issue on behalf of his constituents. He makes an incredibly important point. We have a duty to make sure that the rights of those individuals are maintained, but it is also important that, when there are loving parents and all they want to achieve is the best for their children, they are able to access that money in the interests of their children with the minimum of fuss, the minimum of bother and, frankly, the minimum of expense.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
The female offender strategy launched an ambitious programme to improve outcomes for female offenders and make society safer by tackling the causes of offending. It will take several years to deliver, but, two years on, we are making good progress. We have invested over £5 million in 30 women’s services across England and Wales, and we are in the process of allocating a further £2.5 million to increase the financial stability of those providing these important services.
Debbie Abrahams [V]
Under the Bail Act 1976, the courts can remand an adult to prison for their own “protection” or a child for their own “welfare”. This even happens when the criminal charge cannot result in a conviction. We are restricting a person’s liberty—usually someone with complex mental health needs, and often women—because of the failure to provide the appropriate treatment, care or support in the community. Will the Minister support the repeal of this outdated, offensive and draconian power, which is contrary not only to human rights, but to human decency?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member will know that we are looking at the Mental Health Act 1983 provisions and reviewing them. We never think that it should be appropriate to use prison as a place of safety. Combined with that, we recognise the need to tackle mental health issues in all those who come through the justice system, particularly women, because women have a high incidence of mental health needs. We will be looking carefully at how we can commit further funds to ensure that women and men get the services they need to help to turn their lives around.
Tony Lloyd [V]
We know that the majority of women sentenced for non-violent crimes are given short prison sentences, which are totally ineffective in rehabilitation but can split up families, put children into care and lead to eviction from the home—all things that we should not want to happen. Women’s centres are successful, as we know in Greater Manchester. They are cost-effective, but also much better in human terms and better for society. Can the Minister guarantee that we will enhance the investment in those centres and get women who should not be in prison out of prison and into the kind of care that makes a difference to them and to society?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member makes a very important point: we need to ensure that we support women not only in custody, but outside it. He will have heard me mention that we are in the midst of a £2.5 million funding exercise, in which some of the money will go to community centres. However, we are doing other things as well, such as improving pre-sentence reports to ensure that women get the right order and go into the community, not into custody, where that is appropriate. He will also have heard me announce recently our first residential women’s centre, which will be in Wales and which we are progressing with. It is for those women who are on the cusp of custody, but whom we do not want to put in custody where we can avoid that, so that they can instead be ordered by the court to go into a residential women’s centre, which will better look after their needs.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
The female offenders strategy published in 2018 by the then Justice Secretary and Prime Minister got it right. One woman in every three in prison self-harms. They are twice as likely as men to have mental health needs and more likely to have drug problems. According to those Ministers, short-term prison sentences
“do more harm than good”,
but last year, half of all women’s sentences were of less than three months, and the plan is to increase the women’s population by 40%. Why have these Ministers so quickly abandoned the promises made by their predecessors?
Lucy Frazer
I refute the claim that we are changing our policy in any way. As the police are funded to search out and investigate further crime with our 20,000 additional officers on the beat, it is inevitable that some further women will go to prison as a result, and it is our obligation to ensure that there is a safe place for them to go. We, too, are concerned about women coming through short sentences, but the judiciary makes those independent decisions on short sentences, and we are ensuring that when people do come through on short sentences, they will have specific probation officers looking after them in the new, reformed probation system to ensure that those women, and men, get the support that they need.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
The bodies of those who have died should be treated with dignity and respect. Where that does not happen, the criminal law can intervene and there are a number of offences that may apply: preventing the lawful burial of a body, outraging public decency, perverting the course of justice, removing human tissue without consent and so on. We will of course keep the law under review.
Dr Mullan
I thank the Minister for that reply. I am supporting the campaign of the mother of Helen McCourt, whom we know in this place for successfully campaigning on Helen’s law, but who is equally determined, while understanding the points the Minister has made, to see further reform so that the criminal justice system adequately reflects how we would feel if one of our loved ones was desecrated after death. Will he agree to meet me and discuss with Helen McCourt’s mother further steps we might be able to take?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that excellent point and for paying tribute to Mrs McCourt, whose brave campaign has led to Helen’s law, as he rightly indicates, getting on to the statute book, having recently received Royal Assent, in large part because of her campaigning activity. We keep the matter under review, and I would be delighted to meet him, as he suggests.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
Justice colleagues work closely with our Health partners, and since April 2018 a national partnership agreement on prison healthcare in England has been in place. Tackling drugs is a priority within that agreement. In April last year, we published the national prison drug strategy, which focuses on three strands: tackling drugs in prison by restricting supply, reducing demand and helping to ensure that we turn people’s lives around by building recovery from drugs and substance misuse.
David Simmonds
I know that the Lord Chancellor and his Department have previously made known their support for the Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). Given that the Bill would make such a difference in this area, will my hon. and learned Friend reaffirm that support today and give an indication of the timescale according to which we might expect the legislation to appear?
Lucy Frazer
I am so glad that my hon. Friend has raised this question, because we wholly support the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). It is going to help us to tackle illicit substance misuse and help people to get their lives back on track by identifying who is taking drugs and how we can better support them. I am pleased to note that the Bill is scheduled for consideration on Report and Third Reading on 22 January, and, should it receive Royal Assent, we will be implementing the provisions at the earliest opportunity.
Dr Poulter [V]
As the Minister will be aware, it is equally as important to ensure that there is proper rehabilitation and support on substance dependency when people are released from prison. That is equally important in ensuring that we break the cycle of reoffending, but, far too often, arrangements are not in place adequately to support people once they are released. What can she do to reassure me that the Government are taking this issue seriously and will put in place better arrangements to support substance misusers with dependency issues once they are released from prison?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend raises a really important question. We are doing a number of things, and I shall highlight two of them. First, as I mentioned, in relation to our probation services, we are getting that help to people earlier, so that a probation officer will be working with a prisoner on his or her release at an earlier stage, so as to help them to get that support organised in the community. The second thing that we are doing, working closely with NHS England, is rolling out our Reconnect service. That service links up the healthcare in the prison with the healthcare in the community, which are not always aligned. The Reconnect service is being rolled out across the country.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I thank my hon. Friend for his correspondence regarding the reforms in the sentencing White Paper. All offenders, including 17-year-olds, who commit the most serious offences and who pose a risk to the public should serve time in custody that reflects the seriousness of their offending. To reduce the gap between the sentencing of older children and younger adults for murder, we plan to replace the blanket starting point of 12 years for murder committed by a child with a sliding scale to reflect age and the severity of the offence.
James Gray
Young Ellie Gould was brutally murdered in her own home in Calne in my constituency last year. Her assailant, Thomas Griffiths, was given a sentence of 12 and a half years because he was 17. The sentence was further ameliorated by the fact that he did not bring the weapon to the murder scene, but picked up a kitchen knife at the scene. He was 18 when he was convicted and given 12 and a half years. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister is considering this matter. Does she not agree that 12 and a half years for a crime of that sort committed by a boy aged 17 years and eight months is woefully inadequate? He should have got the 15 to 25 years he would have got had he been an adult.
Lucy Frazer
I cannot begin to imagine what Ellie Gould’s parents must have been through. In addition to the point that I made about introducing a sliding scale to reflect age and severity, I want to make it clear that we are considering a particular minimum threshold for those who are 17. My hon. Friend mentioned the knife already being present at the scene of crime, in the home. He will know that the Sentencing Council has produced guidelines for judges on domestic abuse, which outline that the domestic setting of the offending behaviour makes it more serious. As he knows, these are matters that we are looking at in our sentencing White Paper.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
My hon. Friend is right to raise community sentence treatment requirements as an important area to push, expand and develop. The Government firmly believe that, where someone has mental health problems, or drug or alcohol addiction causing the offending behaviour, treating the causes of the offending is very often a much better sentence than a short custodial term in terms of rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. So we certainly intend to expand the roll-out of these. They operate already in 14 areas and we intend to make sure that half the country is covered for mental health treatment through CSTRs by 2023-24. We are looking at other ways in which we can speed up the roll-out even further.
Sally-Ann Hart
The new probation system is set to be in place in the next few months, with unpaid work and key programmes to stop criminals reoffending to be delivered by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service from next June. Seetec has recently been awarded a Ministry of Justice contract for a co-financing organisation activity hub in the south-east region, to deliver support to help offenders reintegrate back into society. The hub will be based in Chatham, with a satellite provision in my constituency at St Leonards-on-Sea. Can my hon. Friend confirm that there is still a role for the private sector in offender rehabilitation, even if not by community rehabilitation companies?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend asks a good question. CRCs are being transitioned out and the probation service will take over organising this activity, but within that there will be opportunities for private sector, or indeed charitable sector, organisations to bid to provide certain kinds of activity and certain kinds of rehabilitation work via the dynamic framework. We envisage eventually spending about £100 million a year on procuring these services via the dynamic framework. Any organisation, such as the one she mentions, that has something to offer and can help with rehabilitation is, of course, strongly encouraged to bid for those services to make sure we are drawing on the full range of available services as we try to rehabilitate offenders and build a better life for their future and protect our constituents as well.
Mr Speaker
We are not going to Greater Manchester, as we have him here—welcome, Andrew Gwynne.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Justice is a vital public service and a cornerstone of our success as a society, which is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced huge investment in the system as part of his recent spending review. Part of that money will go towards the recovery and restoration of justice from the effects of covid-19, notably in the Crown courts, and to support victims as they make their difficult journeys through the system, including the family courts and tribunals. The spending review announced £105 million for the maintenance of courts and tribunals, and there was also £4 billion to build back better in the prison estate, with 18,000 additional places in the pipeline plan for the mid-2020s, helping us to deliver modern, green prisons that can be launching pads for rehabilitation. We are moving at pace with the first of our new prisons, HMP Five Wells, which is opening in 2022, while continuously increasing resources for the maintenance of our existing prison estate. This investment continues to deliver on the Government’s crime agenda, keeping the public safe, delivering a green revolution and bringing our prisons into the 21st century.
Andrew Gwynne
I thank the Justice Secretary for that, but judicial review is the only way in which the public can challenge the Government when they believe the Government have acted unlawfully. It is important that we keep that protection in place for the public to hold the Government to account, so will he commit today to fully publishing the independent review of administrative law?
Robert Buckland
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the central importance of judicial review, and he will remember that that is set out in the terms of reference. The review will report shortly, the Government will respond and the whole documentation will be published. The question of submissions to the review is a matter for the review, but I assure him that the outcome will, of course, be published as part of the Government’s policy position in due course.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he met my colleague the Minister of State for Prisons and Probation at the end of November to discuss the issue of the consultation. I know the site well, having visited both Grendon and Spring Hill, and I pay tribute to the staff and, indeed, to the community for supporting the prisons that exist in that part of his constituency. We are considering all comments and suggestions sent to us through the consultation before we submit any outline planning application. I can assure him that the local community will also have an opportunity to provide further feedback once a planning application is submitted. I am happy to extend the public consultation and my officials are in communication with the local council regarding that.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Back to the independent review of the Human Rights Act. The Lord Chancellor has said that, after 20 years, it is time to see whether the Act is working effectively, but the terms of reference do not actually contain any reference to an analysis of whether it is working effectively. Recently the Joint Committee on Human Rights found that most black people living in the United Kingdom believe that their human rights are not equally protected compared with those of white people. That is a shocking finding. Does not that finding alone justify a proper examination of whether the Act is working effectively and, if so, why is that not in the terms of reference?
Robert Buckland
The hon. and learned Lady knows that I gave evidence to the Committee of which she is a member about a week or so ago and acknowledged the important point made by the Committee. I think it was important for us to set up a very focused review as to the machinery of the Human Rights Act. It is not about the rights themselves; it is about the way in which they interact with our domestic law and the interplay, therefore looking in particular at sections 2, 3 and 4, for example, of the Human Rights Act. However, I am sure that these wider issues will become part of the debate as we see the recommendations come forward and as this place has an opportunity to play its part in those deliberations.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend can be reassured that the Courts and Tribunals Service is working daily to review its plans. I am sure that he will be glad to note that, in the magistrates courts, we are now exceeding receipts and we expect the position to return to pre-covid levels by about Easter time or the early summer. The position of the Crown court is more challenging, but the funding that we have obtained through the spending review will allow us to start dealing with the backlog. We also constantly review the social distancing measures. The current assumptions are that social distancing will apply until the end of June. If there is any progress on that front, clearly we will recalibrate, which will give us even more capacity.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
The hon. Gentleman will be glad to note that, throughout this pandemic, the Ministry of Justice has funded accommodation support for people who otherwise would be released into rough sleeping and homelessness. Indeed, we are working on plans as result of the spending review to scale up and improve approved premises and the other type of accommodation that can house in an appropriate way people who are released from custody. I shall furnish the House with an update as soon as it is received, but he can be assured that we are working on this issue because we recognise the scale of the problem.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. Unfortunately, questions are meant to be short and punchy. We cannot have a statement beforehand. Minister, can you deal with that, please?
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. I understand his consternation on behalf of his constituent and his wish that that case in particular be dealt with speedily. No doubt the commission will have paid attention to his concern. We have recently invested significantly in the commission, with hundreds of thousands of pounds in capital funding to ensure that its IT is up to scratch. It is within a whisker of reaching its target of 36 weeks as the average time taken to deal with a case, and of 85% of cases being dealt with in under 12 months. It is very important for the integrity of the judicial system not only that we convict the guilty, but that we make sure that innocent people who are erroneously convicted have their sentences corrected.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her consistent and passionate campaigning on this important issue, which is an addiction for far too many people. As she knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will make a statement on gambling later, which I know she will broadly welcome. Of course, I will be happy to meet her and members of the APPG. Primarily, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport holds the brief on this issue, but no doubt there are wider criminal law ramifications on which I am happy to engage with her.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to raise an important issue that we undertook to get ready by the end of the year. I am confident that it will be ready by the end of the transition period to provide EU, EEA and European Free Trade Association citizens here in the UK with an additional layer of assurance that their rights will be safeguarded. We have had a dedicated project team in the Ministry working on that, and the IMA has taken up residence at headquarters in Swansea, my old stamping ground—with tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris).
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Robert Buckland
It is important to note that, as a result of increased diagnosis and testing, we have been able to establish with greater certainty the number of prisoners who are symptomatic or asymptomatic. We were not able to do that in the first wave, so the true numbers of covid sufferers were probably not clear to us; they are much clearer now. With regard to vaccination, it is important that we prioritise those who are the most vulnerable and at risk of death or serious illness. That is why, as with the rest of the population, we will be inoculating the older part of the population and those who are vulnerable. That will inevitably include staff, on whom I place a very high premium, and some prisoners. We will continue to work with Public Health England and Public Health Wales to ensure that we bear down on covid in our prisons.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. Friend raises a critical issue for us in the prevention of crime, behind which so much substance abuse lies. While she is right that the charitable sector has a huge role to play, so do we. She will be pleased to know that earlier this week I had an interview with one of the first recipients of our alcohol sobriety bracelets, who has, for the first time in his memory, been alcohol-free for the last two months. He said to me—it was very moving—that it had literally saved his life. As well as doing good to his society, we have done good for him.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
Robert Buckland
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he perhaps misses the whole point of the judicial review—independent review—which is all about making sure that the current ambit of administrative law is in the right place, in the sense that we want to make sure that our judiciary are not brought in to a merit space or a political arena. As for individual cases, it is clearly stated in the terms of reference—and I will say it again—that the Government utterly support the right of citizens to challenge their actions or omissions by way of judicial review.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. When I was on the other side of the table as an eager recipient of Whitehall largesse, it long frustrated me that I had to spend six months spending the money and then six months planning to bid for the next round of money. She will know that in particular in this area, where we want to build resilience, out of the hidden harms summit earlier this year came a commitment to create a victims funding strategy, which is currently under way, but she will also know that we have awarded three-year funding through to 2022 via the rape support fund, to give sexual violence services greater stability in the future. I hope that will progress into all the areas that are concerned with this particular offence.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that both the Law Society and the Bar Council agree that this year’s settlement was encouraging. Of course, it is not the end of the story, and I have talked about us beginning to turn a corner. The good news in the magistrates courts is that receipts are now behind disposals, so we are dealing with the overall number of cases in the magistrates system. In the Crown court, we continue to scale up the number of trials being heard. In fact, in the past week or so, I have been looking at figures of effective trials, crack trials and trials that have been dealt with by way of a guilty plea: the numbers are now in the high 300s. We need to get that up, and I am confident that we can do that in the new year to return us to the pre-covid levels, and then work even harder.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Kit Malthouse
I am a great admirer of my hon. Friend and his persistent and effective campaigning on issues that are dear to him, but also to many people across the country. I understand his impatience on this issue and I know he has been given assurances previously in the House about it, but he will understand that the effect of the pandemic, which has ruined so much, has also delayed our consideration of the consultation on this matter. We will be publishing as soon as we possibly can, recognising the enormous impact that this has on particular families across the country.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
Robert Buckland
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is wholly misinformed. That certainly is not my understanding of the negotiations, and he will forgive me if I say I am a little closer to them than he is. The review that we announced yesterday was about looking at the mechanism 20 years on—nothing to do with undermining or changing fundamental human rights. We believe in them. It was British Conservatives who wrote the convention, and I will always stand for and uphold the importance of the European convention on human rights.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Kit Malthouse
I understand that my hon. Friend is concerned about the perception of his constituents, but I hope he will explain to them that we have quite interesting and clever plans to deal with offenders, not only in prison but after prison. For example, from early next year, we will GPS tag every single burglar who leaves prison on licence so that we are able to locate them, particularly when a burglary takes place in their community, so that we can at least rule out those prolific offenders in the future. There is lots that we can do in the criminal justice system that is much more smart than severe.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
A third of prisoners transferring from HMP Altcourse to HMP Berwyn last month tested positive for covid. I understand that Berwyn has requested a stop to transfers. Will the Secretary of State agree to that request, considering the extreme concerns about community infection?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady knows that, since the beginning of this pandemic, we have taken unprecedented steps. All new arrivals in prison receptions are quarantined as part of our strategy of compartment- alisation. We are also now testing new arrivals at HMP Berwyn. That is an additional measure that allows us to identify positive cases early and put the right precautions around those individuals. It is with testing that we can improve the way in which we administer the prison system through this crisis.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Ministers will be aware that the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service was already experiencing a workload crisis pre pandemic, which has only worsened through the lockdown. Although the Ministry of Justice has provided additional welcome short-term funding, do the Government have a longer-term strategy to ensure that CAFCASS can better retain staff and deliver a service that truly meets the needs of children and families?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady will be glad to know that an extra £3.4 million has been allocated to CAFCASS to help it through the crisis. Indeed, I take the point about long-term planning. In fact, we are looking wholesale at the way in which family cases are dealt with. The family harms report published this year was a no-holds barred analysis of what is wrong with the system, and both I and senior judiciary within the family division will do something about it.
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.
Waste Incinerator on Portland
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I hand in a petition with nearly 7,000 signatures from those who wish to stop an incinerator plant being built on the beautiful island of Portland in my constituency. Those who want to build it call it an energy recovery facility. Thousands of people disagree with that interpretation and say that it is a waste incinerator, and they do not want it on their island.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of South Dorset,
Declares that the proposal to build a waste incinerator on Portland should not go ahead and that the Government should review its support for incinerators more generally; notes that almost 7,000 people have signed a corresponding online petition to stop the waste incinerator; further declares that South Dorset is a beautiful part of the world and that it should remain a healthy place for our children, grandchildren and ourselves; further that research has shown that a waste incinerator will cause the release of tiny dangerous particles into the air; further that a waste incinerator will cause a small increase in health risks for children; further that it will bring more lorries thundering along already busy roads; further that there is a possible need for the incinerator to be “fed” in the future by waste imported from outside the UK; further that it will create a big, unsightly blot on our beautiful landscape and coast; further that it will discourage recycling; and further that it will not create many jobs for local residents.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to rethink its support for incinerators and look towards a greener, circular economy.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002634]
Drainage Works in Shiplake
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I present a petition from residents of my constituency that has now been supported by over 1,000 signatories.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Henley,
Declares that there is considerable concern about the increased impact of flooding in the village of Shiplake as a result of the actions being taken by Taylor Wimpey in relation to a development at Thames Farm; further declares that the developers are increasing the flood risk by filling in sink holes and injecting these areas with a grout-like substance to reinforce them which makes the chalk less porous; further that the developers are diverting floodwater to a brook in Flood Zone 3 in the village via a new pumping station at the north-eastern corner of the site; and notes that this petition is presented on behalf of two individuals of the village of Shiplake whose corresponding online petition has been signed by some 999 signatories.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government, in particular the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to request South Oxfordshire District Council to ask Taylor Wimpey to submit a Material Variation Application because the change in the drainage solution is such a major departure from the original approved scheme, and to encourage public consultation as part of the approval of the drainage works, and to look at the change as a material variation in application.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002636]
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During my exchange with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) across the Dispatch Box during Justice questions this morning, the Minister claimed that the reason for the huge reduction in the number of trials in England and Wales between 2010 and 2019 was
“because crime is significantly down since 2010”.
Recorded crime, which of course drives the amount of court activity and therefore trials, has, according to the Government’s own figures, increased considerably from 4.3 million in 2010 to about 6 million this year.
The Minister should not try to hide behind the Office for National Statistics crime survey statistics, when the public at large know full well both the reality and consequences of the increased crime in our country today. Given that reality, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister has clearly—inadvertently, I am sure—misled the House and I would be obliged if you would summon him to apologise for his mistake and to set the record straight.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but he knows very well indeed that the Chair is not responsible for what Members or indeed Ministers say in this Chamber. I suspect that the point that he has just made is not so much a point of order as a continuation of the debate and a matter of the interpretation of statistics. I am also quite sure that he has, in raising a point of order, drawn the matter to the attention of the Treasury Bench and to the Minister, whom I hope he has given notice that he was planning to mention—
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has not given notice to the Minister that he intended to mention him.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I note the hon. Gentleman’s apology for not having done so, and I accept his apology. I can see by his demeanour that his apology is meant in good faith and that if he had remembered to inform the Minister, I am sure he would have done. I am also quite sure that the Minister’s colleague on the Front Bench, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), will let him know the point that has been raised. This is not a matter for the Chair and it is not a matter on which I or Mr Speaker can summon the Minister to answer, but I am quite certain that there will be other opportunities in future debates and question sessions when the hon. Gentleman can raise this very matter with the Minister again.
Covid-19 Vaccine Roll-out
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will make a statement on the covid-19 vaccine roll-out.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
At 6.31 this morning, 90 year-old Margaret Keenan from Enniskillen, who lives in Coventry, became the first person in the world to receive a clinically authorised vaccine for covid-19. This marks the start of the NHS’s Herculean task to deploy vaccine right across the UK, in line with its founding mission to support people according to clinical need, not ability to pay. This simple act of vaccination is a tribute to scientific endeavour, human ingenuity and the hard work of so many people. Today marks the start of the fight back against our common enemy, coronavirus.
While today is a day to celebrate, there is much work to be done. We must all play our part in suppressing the virus until the vaccine can make us safe and we can all play our part supporting the NHS to deliver the vaccine across the country. This is a task with huge logistical challenges, including the need to store the vaccine at ultra-low temperatures and the clinical need for each person to receive two doses 21 days apart. I know that the NHS will be equal to the task. I am sure we will do everything we can—everything that is humanly possible—to make sure that the NHS has whatever help it needs.
The first 800,000 doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine are already here in locations around the UK and the next consignment is scheduled to arrive next week. This week, we will vaccinate from hospitals across the UK. From next week, we will expand deployment to start vaccinations by GPs and we will vaccinate in care homes by Christmas. As more vaccines come on stream in the new year, we will open vaccination centres in larger venues, such as sports stadiums and conference halls.
People do not need to apply. The NHS will get in touch at the appropriate time and, when that time comes, we have one clear request: please step forward for your country.
I want to thank all those involved—the international team of scientists; the globally respected regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency; Public Health England; the vaccines taskforce; all the volunteers who took part in the trial; all those who have come forward for vaccination so far; and all those who will do so in future. Months of trials involving thousands of people have shown that this vaccine works and is safe. By coming forward, you are taking the best possible step to protect yourself and your loved ones, and to protect the NHS.
Help is on its way and the end is in sight—not just of this terrible pandemic but of the onerous restrictions that have made this year so hard for so many—but even while we can now see the route out, there is still a long march ahead. Let us not blow it now. There are worrying signs of the virus growing in some parts of the country, including parts of Essex, London and Kent. Over the coming weeks and months, we must all keep following the rules to keep people safe and make sure we can get through this safely together.
Jonathan Ashworth
The pictures today of 90-year-old Margaret Keenan receiving her vaccine, given by May Parsons, a nurse originally from the Philippines, is a wonderful moment bringing home to all of us that there is now light at the end of this very long tunnel. We are all beaming with pride for our NHS today. Let me put on record my thanks to all our NHS staff working so hard today, tomorrow and in the coming weeks months in administering these jabs. I again pay tribute to all our medical scientists, clinical researchers, regulators and trial participants who have made today happen. We should applaud them on our doorsteps.
I want to put a number of specific questions to the Secretary of State. May I ask him about those areas that do not yet have a designated hospital hub? My city, Leicester, has effectively never really left lockdown, impacting hugely on the wellbeing of our people and the economic prospects of our city. We are a diverse city with a high proportion of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, who we know are more at risk from the virus. My constituents, Leicester University and the Leicester leadership are all deeply disappointed not to see Leicester on the hospital hub list. I have been lobbying the NHS about this in the past 48 hours, and people in Leicester will get vaccinated, but can he say when areas like Leicester and other areas currently without a hospital hub will get one? When will local primary care network hubs be announced, and when will the mass vaccination centres’ locations be announced? Can he assure us that all vaccination centres and communications will be accessible for those with disabilities and that staff will be appropriately trained?
On care homes, I am grateful for the update the Secretary of State gave us when he mentioned Christmas. Does he anticipate that all care homes will have access to the vaccine by Christmas?
Of course we have to vaccinate NHS staff—that is really important. Can he confirm that that includes student nurses, medical students, physiotherapy students and so on? What plans are in place to ensure that harder to reach groups—such as the homeless, for example—have access to the vaccine?
The Secretary of State has presumably seen the reports today in the Health Service Journal that £567 million of requested funding for covid projects was turned down. Can he guarantee that the NHS will get all the resources it requests to ensure the smooth and rapid roll-out of the vaccine?
The Secretary of State indicated in the newspapers at the weekend that the tiers could be loosened by March if uptake is successful. In the same way that we receive daily published figures on case numbers and tests processed, could we receive daily updates on vaccination doses administered, and could it be by priority cohort?
Finally, what are the plans to tackle anti-vax harm online? I have literally just been sent a WhatsApp video claiming that this is all a global plot to change our DNA. We know that harmful content circulates on Facebook and other platforms. This is garbage: how can we deal with it?
This is indeed a momentous day, and we can all look forward to a much better 2021.
Matt Hancock
That is right—we can all look forward to a much brighter 2021. We must stick with it for now, but we can see the way through this.
The hon. Gentleman asked several very reasonable questions. We start today vaccinating in 70 locations across the UK, and we will expand these locations over the coming days. Today we will set out the next tranche of hospital hubs, including Leicester, and vaccinations in Leicester will start in the coming days.
On access to the vaccine, of course we need to make sure that it is available to all, and that includes all with disabilities and all our most vulnerable people, like those who are sleeping rough. This will be best accomplished when we get the primary care community vaccination model rolled out, which will be in the coming weeks. We need to make sure that how we get the vaccine physically out into the primary care networks can be assured as safe, because obviously that is one step more difficult than vaccinating from a hospital, hence we have started in hospitals and then we will get out into primary care and community delivery, and then into the vaccination centres after the new year.
The hon. Gentleman asked about NHS students. The definition of NHS and social care staff set out by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is those who are patient-facing, for obvious reasons. We will set out more details in due course.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the publication of data on the number of vaccines that have been administered, and according to which priority groups. We will set out those details when the vaccinations have taken place, so that people can see how the programme has been assessed. Overall, may I join him in saying how wonderful it was to see the pictures on the TV this morning—emotional for many of us—and that I am delighted that we have been able to make this progress?
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
Like many, I would like to congratulate our scientists; I would like to congratulate the Health and Social Care Secretary himself, the vaccines taskforce and NHS frontline staff, all of whom have made this extraordinary day for our country possible. It is very, very cold outside, and the question on many people’s minds is: are they now able to book a summer holiday? What is my right hon. Friend’s answer to that question, and is there anywhere in particular that he would recommend if the answer is yes?
Matt Hancock
It makes me very proud that we have managed to start this vaccination programme sooner than many people anticipated. People told me that it was not going to be possible and that it was all very difficult. It has been difficult, but we have got there, and we did so because of international science, working with German scientists and American pharmaceutical companies, and people right around the world working on this project. I have high confidence that the summer of 2021 will be a bright one, without the sorts of restrictions that made the summer of 2020 more restricted. I have booked my holiday—I am going to Cornwall.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
The commencement of a safe and effective vaccination programme is extremely welcome, but recent studies have shown that as little as 54% of the UK population are certain to have the vaccination. There is a clear need to counter misinformation, whether online scare stories or jingoistic nonsense, so what extra steps will the Minister take to ensure public trust in the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness and to encourage take-up? What assurance can he give that there will be fairness in access to the vaccine until it is widely available, and when does he think it will be available to anyone who wants it? During that period, will the UK Government commit to a similar strategy to that of the Scottish Government of pursuing the eventual elimination of the virus? With a vaccine now available, that is more possible than ever before.
Matt Hancock
It is only with a vaccine that we can finally defeat this virus and get life back to normal. This UK project has made huge strides forward, and I am very, very grateful to NHS Scotland for the work that it is doing right now in making sure that the vaccine can reach people across Scotland, as the NHS is doing in Wales, Northern Ireland and England. It is a big team effort, and it is because the UK vaccines taskforce was the first out of the blocks on buying the vaccine, along with the smart approach taken by the MHRA, that we have been able to get to this point before any other country.
The hon. Gentleman asked about fairness in access. Absolutely—fairness is critical, hence we will follow the clinical advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation on priority, again, right across the UK. Finally, I agree strongly with him—the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) also raised this, and I did not respond to it, so I shall now—that countering disinformation is incredibly important. That is best done with positive information and explaining objectively why and how the vaccine is safe. Something that we can all do in the House is talk positively about the benefits of the vaccine for keeping people safe and keeping their community safe. I pay tribute to all those who have been willing to come forward and talk in public, and I thank those who have already had the vaccine—since 6.30 this morning—and have been willing to tell their story publicly to help others have the confidence to do the right thing. Finally, surveys of the UK population show that we have one of the highest acceptances of taking the vaccine in the world. The numbers who are enthusiastic about it are rising at the moment, and we need to keep that going.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I echo the Secretary of State’s thanks to the MHRA for its tremendous work in ensuring that this vaccine is safe. I look forward to having my jab as soon as it is my turn, and I will encourage everybody I love to do the same. Earlier this week, we learned that Scunthorpe General Hospital was not among the first group of vaccination hubs. Can my right hon. Friend provide further clarity on how those hubs are allocated, and can he reassure me and my constituents in Scunthorpe, who are currently in tier 3, that we will receive the vaccine in the very near future?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. We have started at 70 hospitals across the UK. Those are the ones that are best able to deal with the difficult logistics of a vaccine that has to be stored at minus 70° C. I understand the desire for every hospital to get on that list, and we will publish a further list later today. My local hospital, the West Suffolk, is also not yet administering vaccines. The other critical part of this is the primary care networks—the community roll-out—which will get us to many, many more sites where people are able to access the vaccine, so that in Scunthorpe and across the whole of the UK, everybody is able to access this vaccine as fairly and safely as possible.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
It is brilliant that the vaccine programme is beginning, but unfortunately, there are real question marks over who is benefiting from some of the covid-19 contracts. How will the Secretary of State ensure that cronyism and profiteering do not become features of this stage of the covid-19 response?
Matt Hancock
Thankfully, as the National Audit Office set out, they have not been a feature of any of the response to coronavirus, so that is good.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Those on the frontline normally face bullets, so my right hon. Friend and his entire team deserve the bouquets that they are receiving today. I am delighted that the William Harvey Hospital in Ashford is already dispensing the vaccine. Does he agree that one of the groups in greatest need who deserve it first are residents of care homes, who have faced such a miserable 2020?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I do, and I hope that we can get the vaccine out to residents of care homes as soon as is feasibly possible. They are in the top priority group clinically, and it is simply a question of how quickly we can operationalise getting the vaccine out to care homes. I hope that that can start before Christmas. I pay tribute to everybody working at the William Harvey Hospital in Ashford this morning, administering vaccines already and helping to protect the lives of my right hon. Friend’s constituents.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
May I start by saying what a joyful moment it was this morning to see those first vaccinations and thank everybody who has been involved in making this happen? I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s optimism about our summer holidays next year. However, I gently point out that we have seen setbacks from some of the manufacturers in terms of when the doses of vaccine will be delivered. With both Pfizer and AstraZeneca, it will apparently be 3 million doses arriving by the end of the year, rather than the 30 million that were originally forecast. Does he still think it is feasible that the most vulnerable will be vaccinated by the spring, and how many of those of us who are healthy under-50-year-olds might be vaccinated by the school summer holidays?
Matt Hancock
I understand why the hon. Lady and many others want to know what the speed of the roll-out will be. Because we are reliant on the manufacturing process, which is itself a difficult challenge, we cannot put figures on when the roll-out will be. We hope that we will be able to lift the measures by the spring, and we hope that we will all have a much more normal summer next year, but I do not want to put too much more detail on it than that, and I cannot put more in terms of the numbers, because there are so many contingencies. What we can be sure of, and what we can work and plan for, is the NHS being able to deliver the roll-out at the speed at which the manufacturers can manufacture.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
May I thank my right hon. Friend for all he has done in his fight against the coronavirus, and may I thank the Department for this roll-out of the vaccine? It is actually a monumental step in our fight against the coronavirus—just in time for Christmas. It is the Christmas present we all wanted. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, because the UK was one of the first countries to secure the vaccine, we should be able to move more quickly out of local restrictions in the new year, as the vaccine is rolled out?
Matt Hancock
Well, I very much hope so, but there is some time between now and then, so we have got to temper our joy and enthusiasm at today’s announcement with the need to keep on keeping each other safe between now and then. Let us not blow it, since we can see that the answer is on the horizon.
I reiterate the point that my hon. Friend made about the team in the Department, because my civil servants and special advisers have been amazing during this year. They have worked so hard—seven days a week, often 18 hours a day—and they deserve enormous praise, because this is a team effort and nobody can do this sort of thing on their own.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, could I say what a positive news story it was this morning when Margaret Keegan got her jab, followed by a fellow called William Shakespeare, which I thought was quite interesting? I thank the Secretary of State and all those who have made this happen, because it is really good news. Will the Secretary of State outline whether he has liaised with the Treasury to secure the funding needed to roll out this vaccine in the devolved nations, bearing in mind that we are behind on our flu vaccine roll-out and both cannot be carried out at the same time? Further, what discussions have taken place with the Secretary of State for Defence to provide trained military assistance in the devolved regions to make it happen?
Matt Hancock
This year, I have sometimes turned for inspiration to the bard:
“If you prick us, do we not bleed?”
So it was a delight and a coincidence to find that Mr William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon, a constituent of the vaccine roll-out Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi)—by coincidence; Members should not get any ideas—was called forward to be the second person to be vaccinated by the NHS. It is absolutely terrific to see that people right across this United Kingdom are being vaccinated right now according to need, and I hope it can bring us all together.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Can I start by joining my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the scientists, clinicians, trial volunteers and many others who have made it all possible? They have given us the light at the end of the tunnel. We have to remember that there were no guarantees that we would get any vaccine; to have at least one is fantastic. I am glad to see a number of sites in the north-west have been allocated for the roll-out, but my constituents will probably be asking for and expecting somewhere closer to home—for example, at Leighton Hospital near Crewe and Nantwich. What are the plans for expanding the sites available for vaccination?
Matt Hancock
Yes, we will keep expanding the sites available. Of course, I understand why people want their local hospital to be dispensing the jab. Alongside hospitals and those vaccination centres, we will make sure that we have sites in the community, and we will get them going just as soon as it is safely possible.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
This brilliant news, on which I also congratulate everyone, contrasts with the rather alarming revelations last night that we may be veering towards a no-deal Brexit. If that does occur, could the Secretary of State guarantee that there will be no disruption to the supply chains for all these different vaccines—AstraZeneca, Moderna, Pfizer—and will he also rectify the rather Ealing-shaped hole in hospital provision in north-west London? We have 360,000 people, and we were No. 1 in London for cases recently, so that does need fixing.
Matt Hancock
There is very significant provision for vaccination in London. I will take up the specific point about Ealing, but London, thankfully, is a very well connected and interconnected city. To assure the hon. Member on the point about logistical disruption, we have five contingency plans in total to ensure that we can continue with the vaccination supply no matter the differing types of disruption.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) [V]
I am delighted that Stepping Hill Hospital in my constituency will be part of this historic day as the coronavirus vaccine programme begins. Along with rapid testing, tracking and isolating, we aim to bring our covid rates down further, prior to the tier review next week. In welcoming this fantastic news, does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not lose sight of the importance of “Hands, face, space” as a key way to keep us virus-free while the vaccine is rolled out to the rest of the population?
Matt Hancock
Yes, my hon. Friend is completely right. We must all keep doing the basics—“Hands, face and space”, respecting the rules, and living carefully with personal responsibility, so as to minimise the chance of passing on the disease asymptomatically. We must keep doing that even while we have this great news of the vaccine which, as many have put it, is the light at the end of the tunnel.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
This is a momentous day, and I look forward to receiving my vaccine when it is my turn. I thank those who are being vaccinated, those who took part in the trials, and all those who worked to make this happen. I understand that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has set a priority list for vaccines based on clinical vulnerability, but that has made people who were on the frontline of the crisis, including unpaid family carers, feel as if they are being ignored. Our immediate priority during this phase of vaccinations has to be reducing deaths, but once the most vulnerable have been vaccinated, will the Secretary of State say whether unpaid carers will become a priority for vaccination?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady and I agree that clinical need must be the priority, and once we have reached all those with a significant clinical need, as set out by the JCVI, we will set the next stage of priorities in due course.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
I, too, commend the titanic effort of all those involved in the creation, manufacturing and distribution of the covid-19 vaccine. As more and more of us are vaccinated against covid-19, will my right hon. Friend outline what plans there are to ease the most draconian measures across the tier system, so that people and businesses can sensibly return to normal?
Matt Hancock
While the vaccine rolls out, the best way to get any area down through the tiers is to continue to follow the restrictions that are, unfortunately, still absolutely necessary to keep people safe. Having said that, because we have a vaccine, the faster we can roll it out, the sooner we can get to the point where we get rid of the system altogether.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
If I had not been on the call list for this urgent question, I would have been joining friends and colleagues of Leslie, to pay our final respects to a warm-hearted man who sadly lost his life to the virus. Thinking of his family, and what happened to him, brings home to all of us how urgent it is to get a vaccination programme up to speed as quickly as possible. That can happen only if a significant proportion of the population accept the vaccine. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) has highlighted the dangers if too many people are taken in by the scare stories circulating on social media, and people can also be put off if they see politicians responding with too much bombast or jingoism to the start of the vaccination programme. May I commend the Secretary of State sincerely for the measured tone that he has adopted today? Will he encourage his ministerial colleagues to be similarly measured in any future pronouncements that they make about this important day in the battle against covid?
Matt Hancock
All of us in Government feel encouraged by today’s progress, but we are also determined and resolute to get through this in the safest way possible, and out into the brighter seas beyond, when we can get rid of the restrictions altogether. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about how important it is that we all keep that resolve, not least because of the example that he set out, and I send my commiserations and those of the Government to his constituent. Many of us have suffered loss during this pandemic, and we want it to be over as soon as we can. We must keep going until it is safe to do so.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and the many people who got us to the heart-warming images that we saw this morning? A lot of the highest priority groups in my constituency live in more remote villages rather than in towns, and there are issues from transport connections to a fear of going out. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that those factors that affect more remote locations are being included in the planning for the roll-out?
Matt Hancock
One hundred per cent. That is a very important point, and it is important right across the country, especially, if I may say so, in Scotland and Wales. We have the primary care network community roll-out, which aims to get the vaccine out into the community as close to where people live as possible.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The start of vaccinations is excellent news, and it is excellent news for my constituents that Aintree Hospital is one of the first in the country for the roll-out. The Health Secretary rightly said, “Let’s not blow it.” We still need to fix the gaps in contact tracing and in financial support for those who need to self-isolate. Only 11% of people are being contacted, according to the figures that I am getting, and we still need to learn from contact tracing in east Asia. Will he put resources into local public health teams, which are much better placed to fill those gaps, so that contact tracing plays its part while we wait for the roll-out of the vaccine across the country?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is right in principle that contact tracing and the testing roll-out are still critical while the vaccine roll-out happens. I am glad to say that his reports of only 11% being contacted are not right; the figure is much higher than that. I am also really pleased that in the Liverpool city region, which includes his Sefton constituency, we are now rolling out community testing much more widely, with the support of local teams. I hope that he will help us all in putting a shoulder to the wheel in that effort.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I do not actually think it has happened by accident that we are the first country in the world to have approved this vaccine. We saw very emotive images today, and I make no apology for being proud of that. This is a proud day to be British. I would like to thank the NHS and all our wonderful scientists for being part of that, and the regulatory authority.
I was glad last year to hear—last year? A couple of days ago. [Laughter.] I was glad to hear that East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust is going to be one of the first to get the vaccine. Unfortunately, Ipswich currently does not have the facilities to store it. I am obviously keen for my vulnerable constituents to get access to that vaccine ASAP, so I just want to know what the plans are in the very short term, before any community roll-out, to make sure that Ipswich constituents can get access in Colchester, and for storage facilities in Ipswich Hospital to make sure that we can move forward.
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend’s constituents will be able to access the vaccine in Colchester from now, and some will be being called forward. Like many others, he rightly asks for the vaccination roll-out to reach Ipswich itself, and it will reach Ipswich itself just as soon as we can get that sorted. I have a lot of sympathy with what he said about two days feeling like a year!
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great day for medicine, science and the population, but in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), the Secretary of State was somewhat dismissive of an important National Audit Office report that raised serious concerns about the letting of contracts in Government—contracts being published late; missing paperwork; the establishment of a high-priority lane, with one in 10 of those applying via that route awarded contracts; and an overall lack of transparency. As the NAO says, the lack of documentation of key decisions, including
“why particular suppliers were chosen”,
is important. It is taxpayers’ money that is being spent. In relation to the vaccine roll-out, are private companies involved, and will the Secretary of State commit to being open and transparent and publishing the contracts and all the paperwork that goes with them?
Matt Hancock
Of course I will defend to the end the work that we did to get the PPE roll-out to which the hon. Lady refers. Of course we had priority contracts, because we wanted, when somebody had a good lead, to be able to see if we could make an arrangement as fast as possible, but that was all done through the proper processes, as the NAO report sets out. She asks—I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, but really—whether private companies will be involved in the vaccine roll-out. Try Pfizer or BioNTech, the people who came up with and are manufacturing this vaccine. Without them, we would not have a vaccine at all, and a bit of a thank you would do well from the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I join the Secretary of State in thanking the NHS staff in my Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust who are in the first 50 hospitals to be rolling out the vaccine. That is very welcome, including to my constituents. Given that he was right to be a little cautious about the speed at which we will be able to get this vaccine rolled out, it seems to me not right that we should keep every single restriction in place until we have rolled out the vaccine to the entire population. The onus still remains on the Government to justify every restriction and the balance between the benefits of reducing covid, the economic impact and the non-covid health harm. May I ask the Government to set out that detail before the House is asked to take another decision on these restrictions in January?
Matt Hancock
The House might be relieved to know that my right hon. Friend and I agree with each other on the need to ensure that, as the vaccine is rolled out to vulnerable groups, we monitor the impact of the vaccine on reducing cases, reducing hospitalisations and reducing the number of people who sadly die from this disease, and take that basis for the judgment of how soon we can lift the restrictions. He and I want to lift the restrictions as soon as is safely possible, and the question of the judgment on how safely is one that we will have to monitor and debate in this House over the coming weeks and months.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
When we speak about vulnerable groups, will the Secretary of State assure me that we will not forget those who are homeless? We know that people who are homeless, especially those who are sleeping rough, suffer many disadvantages and barriers to accessing healthcare at the best of times, quite apart from any pre-existing mental or physical health conditions that they have. What steps is his Department taking to ensure that we reach all vulnerable people, whether they are homeless or not?
Matt Hancock
That is an incredibly important consideration, both on the grounds of social justice and because all of us can pass on the disease to others, so it is right, fair and practical that we must ensure that everybody has access to the vaccine. The community roll-out will be the primary means by which we can reach some of the most vulnerable, including the homeless, whom the right hon. Gentleman mentions. That will be an important consideration in the roll-out.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend outline how his Department is working with local authorities, such as Darlington Borough Council, which is keen to move out of tier 3, to inform our constituents about how, when and where they can access the vaccine?
Matt Hancock
I am delighted that the James Cook University Hospital in Teesside is one of the first and is vaccinating today. There is a lot of work to be done to make sure that we roll out the vaccine across Teesside, but in the meantime I pay tribute to everybody in the Tees Valley, including in Darlington, who has followed the rules. The numbers are coming down quite sharply, but we have to keep at it, because until this vaccine is rolled out to protect the most vulnerable, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) put it—until that day—we have to make sure that we keep the virus suppressed until the vaccine can make us safe.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Today is a great day for Britain and the world, and I thank all those involved on a global level to ensure that we have light at the end of the tunnel, and hope and optimism. People in Cheshire West and Chester and Halton who have loved ones in care homes are desperate to visit them. When can those who are resident, the carers and the family members expect to get the vaccine?
Matt Hancock
I understand how important this is. The roll-out of testing to allow for visiting by Christmas is under way. In terms of the vaccine, care workers, because they can travel, are already—today—being vaccinated, and I hope that we can start the roll-out of vaccines to those who live in care homes, where the vaccine needs to be taken to them, before Christmas.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
I welcome the fact that hospitals in Derbyshire are in the first wave of the vaccine roll-out as well. Will my right hon. Friend assure those who are living at and not able to leave home that the roll-out plan will include home visits for those who really need them?
Matt Hancock
Yes. That is the hardest part of the vaccine roll-out to deliver by its nature, because of the minus 70°C requirements of the vaccine, but it is absolutely a part of the plan.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
We already know that poorer areas have fewer GPs, so it is crucial that they receive extra resources to ensure that they are not left behind in the roll-out of the vaccine, on which I congratulate everyone involved. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the vaccine will be fairly distributed across the UK and that working-class communities such as mine in the north-east will not be put at the back of the queue again, as they have been so many other times during this pandemic?
Matt Hancock
I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that the fundamental principle of the roll-out is that it must be done according to clinical need and fairly right across every part of the UK, and that is what we are delivering to.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Having been under a variety of restrictions since August, and being now in tier 3, my Colne Valley constituents are incredibly welcoming of the roll-out of the vaccine. We are looking forward to reopening hospitality businesses and starting to get back to normal in the new year. The chief medical officer for Leeds Teaching Hospitals has confirmed that his team are ready for the roll-out of the vaccine across West Yorkshire as soon as it arrives, so can the Secretary of State please confirm that this week we will start to see the roll-out of the vaccine across West Yorkshire?
Matt Hancock
Today we are seeing the very start of that roll-out, and I absolutely hope that that will expand across West Yorkshire over this week.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I, too, pay tribute to everybody in the NHS who will be administering the vaccine. One of the concerns I had at the beginning of lockdown was that many of my asylum-seeking constituents who have no recourse to public funds were very much left behind in the original lockdown. What work will the Government and the Red Cross in the United Kingdom be doing to liaise with the Home Office to ensure that no one is left behind? After all, covid does not adhere to people’s nationality.
Matt Hancock
We have a programme under way to ensure that those without an NHS number can get vaccinated; the NHS number is the basis of the calling system to invite people to be vaccinated, but of course not everybody has an NHS number, and we must ensure that those without one get called forward too.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I pay tribute to everyone involved in administering the vaccine from The James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough today. Looking ahead to the next stage of the roll-out, I have been contacted by a GP surgery in Berwick Hills in my constituency that is concerned about the resource implications of delivering the vaccine, since it is severely under strength and serves one of the most deprived communities in England. Will my right hon. Friend agree to look at their case and discuss what extra support might be made available to surgeries that find themselves in that position?
Matt Hancock
The way we have organised the primary care roll-out is through networks of GP practices—primary care networks, as they are called—so that if one GP practice is under particular pressure, for instance because it may be carrying vacancies, the effort can be put together over a wider network of GP practices. The funding support for GPs to deliver this vaccine, as with the flu vaccine, is negotiated and agreed with the British Medical Association and is part of the operational roll-out of the vaccine in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere across the country.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
First, may I add my thanks to everybody who has put in the effort to ensure that we get the vaccine? That is lovely news, but unfortunately once again this Government are failing to plan. My clinical commissioning group was given 24 hours to get together the GP practices to roll out the vaccines, and the criterion was 1,500 over-80s. The fact that places such as Bradford West and inner cities have nine years’ less life expectancy and 16 years’ more ill-health means that the three centres that have been set up are in affluent areas. Not a single one is in inner-city Bradford, yet the Government’s own review accepts that covid disproportionately affects black and minority ethnic communities. When will the Government stop discriminating against those who live in inner-city areas, and prioritise them because of their health risks?
Matt Hancock
The roll-out of the vaccine is being managed by the NHS, and it is entirely unfair of the hon. Lady to describe the NHS in that way.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
It was a delight to turn on the radio this morning and hear some good news for once, but my right hon. Friend is right to describe the roll-out of this vaccine as a Herculean task. In the light of that, what measures is he putting in place to accelerate the development of capacity to make more vaccine, and also covid therapeutic antibodies?
Matt Hancock
Yes, today has been a celebration of progress we have been able to make, but there is a huge amount more to do, not just in the roll-out but in making sure we have the future vaccines that may be necessary, and the capacity in this country to manufacture and deliver the next generation of vaccine technologies. The advance in vaccine technology over the past 11 months globally has been extraordinary and it is critical that we in the UK have that future capability. That is something the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), the Minister with responsibility for vaccine roll-out, is concentrating on very clearly.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Thank goodness for science, thank goodness for international co-operation and thank goodness for our NHS. As a Member of Parliament representing the capital city of Wales, obviously I am very interested in how the different parts of the United Kingdom are going to get the vaccine. Can the Secretary of State tell us a bit more about the work his Department is doing with the devolved Administrations to make sure the vaccine is distributed quickly and fairly to all four nations of our UK?
Matt Hancock
Yes, this is a UK project that is being done through the NHS in the four nations. The Welsh Government are playing their part. I spoke to Vaughan Gething, my Welsh opposite number, last night to ensure the roll-out was co-ordinated and the final details put in place. There are seven hospitals in Wales that are injecting the vaccine today. I want to thank everybody across Wales for their forbearance. This has been a tough time in Wales. There are still sacrifices to be made while we keep the virus under control until the vaccine can get rolled out through enough of the vulnerable population and we can return life more to normal.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
With the vaccine now being rolled out, I was thrilled to see this historic moment—in the world, no less—being administered in the west midlands. I urge my constituents of Stourbridge, when the call to arms comes, to please do take up the vaccine. This question has been asked already, but I do not think there is any harm in my right hon. Friend reiterating his answer. Does he agree with me that we must keep adhering to social distancing, and face, space and hands, and that never more so than now is that a moral imperative, so we can all get back together sooner as a non-socially distanced community, with covid-19 confined to a memory only?
Matt Hancock
Yes, my hon. Friend puts it very well for the people of Stourbridge and right across the west midlands. We must keep our resolve and stick to the rules. She is right that we have a call to arms, in more sense than one, because we are injecting hope into the arms of people from today. If people are asked to come forward by the NHS then, like her, I urge them to do so.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will not be surprised, bearing in mind his track record in rolling out testing and tracing, that the hope offered today comes with some serious concerns about the delivery and administration of the vaccine. He has said repeatedly this morning that there are five contingency plans for delivery in the event of failed Brexit talks. What are they?
Matt Hancock
As I said, we have those five contingency plans. The hon. Lady will understand that ensuring we have high security around those plans is also very important. I want to put on the record my thanks to the people of the north-east, who have done so well over the past few weeks in bringing the number of cases under control, in part thanks to the huge injection of testing we have been able to put in because we have built up testing capacity. I look forward to the day, Mr Speaker, when she and I can work together in the public interest, as we do everything we can to keep people in the north-east safe.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
May I join in paying tribute to the NHS, the scientists and indeed my right hon. Friend for today’s amazing news? Carshalton and Wallington residents were touched to hear the words of George Dyer this morning, who, in next door Croydon University Hospital, was the first Londoner to be vaccinated. He said that he was looking forward to going to the shops at Christmas and seeing his family once again. Can my right hon. Friend tell me a bit more about how the vaccine roll-out will roll over into next door Carshalton and Wallington, so that people can share in George’s joy?
Matt Hancock
Some of the stories we have heard this morning have been really heart-warming, of people being able to have the confidence to do the things that in normal life we take for granted. I heard the story that my hon. Friend refers to and it was truly charming. I look forward to seeing the roll-out in Carshalton and Wallington, and then I look forward to building a new hospital in Sutton for his constituents.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Huge demands are being placed on our NHS staff and they are being asked to step up yet again today, so we thank them for all their efforts. Let me ask about one thing the Secretary of State could help with: instead of every vaccine being individually prescribed, he could issue a patient group directive. Is that in his plan? Will he be doing it?
Matt Hancock
We are working on doing that as soon as it can safely be achieved.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I join colleagues in thanking the Secretary of State and his team for their incredible hard work, which has brought us to this place. Today is indeed a really good, positive day for the whole United Kingdom. Although the past nine months of pandemic may at times have shone a spotlight on some of the division and tension inherent in our system of devolved government, does he agree that what today fundamentally demonstrates is that when we work together—when we collaborate as a strong family of nations—what we can achieve as a United Kingdom is truly remarkable?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I could not put it better than my right hon. Friend, who speaks with such power on this subject. I truly believe that it is only because we, as a United Kingdom, went in so early to be buying and developing these vaccines, using all the strength of our United Kingdom, that we have been able to get to this point before any other country in the world.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Like many others, I welcome today’s developments and agree with the Secretary of State that we can look forward to the new year, when, we hope, further vaccines will come online. He will be aware that there has been some discussion of the relative effectiveness of different vaccines, so will that influence the Government’s distribution strategy in any way? Specifically, will certain vaccines be prioritised for certain groups?
Matt Hancock
The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, should it be approved, does have easier logistical and distributional qualities—it does not have to be stored at minus 70°—so that helps. Of course, the JCVI will consider the clinical properties of any vaccine that comes forward when deciding who it can be distributed to, so that is taken into account. Finally, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that this has been an international as well as a UK success. I had a text exchange with my German opposite number this morning to thank, through him, the German scientists who have done so much to make this possible.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a practising NHS psychiatrist who has been working on the frontline throughout this pandemic. The Secretary of State will be aware that mental health patients are often an afterthought of policymakers, although I am sure that is not the case for him, and that many of them have multiple medical comorbidities, which make them more vulnerable to covid-19. Will he reassure me that patients in mental health services, particularly in-patients, and NHS staff who work in in-patient mental health services will be prioritised for this vaccine and will not be an afterthought?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. NHS staff are in the second priority cohort set out by the JCVI, and that includes all patient-facing staff in the NHS and social care. Patients who are clinically vulnerable to covid absolutely have their rightful place in the prioritisation, according to clinical need.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The roll-out of the covid-19 vaccine today is welcome news, especially for the exciting sporting calendar for 2021, with events such as the Olympics and Paralympics in Japan, the Euros, the Lions tour to South Africa and the women’s rugby world cup in New Zealand, which I must not forget. Concerns have been raised with me about whether sporting competitions will be subject to compulsory vaccination, so what assessment has the Secretary of State made of that—not only for elite sport, but for all competitive sport in 2021?
Matt Hancock
We have not made such an assessment; we are still in the early days.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I think I have sat through every single urgent question and statement that the Secretary of State has done, but the fact that it says “Covid-19 Vaccine Roll-out” on the annunciator screen is still hard to believe. The Secretary of State said earlier that we had got there because of international science. We will deliver global health security only through an international effort—put another way, no one is safe until everyone is safe—so I wonder whether he can update us on how we will work with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance to help the poorest countries in the world, and of course, those nearest to us who are not the poorest countries, but with which we have a lot of inbound and outbound travel? How can we get them on the same page as us quickly?
Matt Hancock
The UK has put more money into the international search for a vaccine, and the distribution of a vaccine to the countries that otherwise would not be able to afford it, than any other state of any size, and we should be very proud of that. The way that we have managed the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is to ensure that it is available on a not-for-profit basis, essentially, worldwide. We have taken this approach because, to put it exactly as my hon. Friend did, nobody is safe until everybody is safe. This is a global pandemic and we need to address it globally. That is the only fundamental way to solve this for the long term. In the short term, what we all need to do is keep following the rules.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The vaccine is indeed welcome news, but until it is fully rolled out, the north-east will continue to be harmed by the lack of economic support that accompanies tier 3 restrictions. The Health Secretary stated that the restrictions were based on
“cases among the over-60s; the rate at which cases are rising or falling; the positivity rate; and the pressures on the local NHS.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 1000.]
Can he therefore tell me precisely what level these figures will have to be at for the north-east to be moved into tier 2?
Matt Hancock
We consider all those figures, and because we consider them alongside special factors such as whether there is an outbreak, we do not put a specific figure on that, as the hon. Lady well knows. But what we have done is put in more economic support than almost any other country in the world, as the International Monetary Fund has recognised. We have tried as best we possibly can to support people through what has been an incredibly difficult year. We have not been able to save every job, but with the economic measures of support for business and the furlough scheme in place, we have put in very significant support. But the best support that people in the north-east, and elsewhere in the country, can have until this vaccine is rolled out is to continue to follow the restrictions that are necessary and then, if they get the call from the NHS, take that vaccine.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
A charming lady of 92 has contacted me. She lives on her own, and she cannot get out of the house. I have assured her that the Secretary of State for Health will make especial efforts to ensure that she is looked after and gets her vaccination as soon as possible. Is that correct?
Matt Hancock
Yes, if she can travel. When the NHS calls, my advice to my hon. Friend’s constituent is to get that card with that invitation and to phone up my hon. Friend, and he will give her a lift.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
This is incredibly welcome news today. Looking ahead to Christmas, I have been approached by a number of emergency service workers in the NHS, policing and other sectors who will miss out on the opportunity to see loved ones because of the window for household mixing—they will still be working on the frontline in the fight against the coronavirus crisis during that period. I appreciate that this is a difficult one to crack, but has the Secretary of State given any consideration to flexibility to ensure that those who really deserve a Christmas with their loved ones can still get it?
Matt Hancock
I have a huge amount of sympathy with what the hon. Lady says, and we have looked into this. We are not proposing to extend the Christmas bubbles, but we hope that NHS trusts and employers across the NHS can look compassionately at exactly this situation for all those brilliant colleagues who are working so hard and have had such a tough year.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I always enjoy my exchanges with my right hon. Friend, and this time I mean that when I say it, because this is incredibly welcome news, particularly given Stepping Hill Hospital’s role in the administration of the vaccine. I will certainly encourage all my constituents, when they receive the invitation, to have the vaccine, take it and dispel some of the more eccentric views that are circulating on the internet. Can my right hon. Friend tell me specifically when those with particular vulnerabilities, such as cancer patients, can expect the call for vaccination?
Matt Hancock
The plan is, according to clinical priority, to vaccinate those in care homes and their carers; NHS and social care staff, and the over-80s; then the over-75s; and then, at that point, we will turn to ensuring that all those who are on the clinically extremely vulnerable list get vaccinated along with the over-70-year-olds. That is the assessment of the JCVI, which looked into the relative risk that people face and found that age is the No. 1 risk factor.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I am sure the Secretary of State was far from the only one to be emotional today watching the first vaccinations taking place. This is truly a proud day for our country. Although it is right that NHS and social care staff will be among the first to receive the vaccine, what consideration has the Department of Health given to prioritising access for other groups of key workers, including school support staff and workers in transport and essential retail, not only in recognition of the enormous sacrifices that they have made for our nation during the pandemic, but to minimise disruption as we return to normality?
Matt Hancock
We looked at that very closely, as did the JCVI, and because of the risk of dying of covid, it is absolutely right that age takes priority. The prioritisation of health and social care staff is also high because they look after those who are most at risk of dying. Once we are through those clinical priorities, then of course, we will be looking to prioritise other workers, including those the hon. Lady mentions.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend, his Department, the NHS, the scientists, the clinicians and everyone involved in the development and roll-out of this covid vaccine technology. Will he provide assurance that logistics are in place to ensure that those in remote rural areas, such as those in Cumbria, will be able to access the vaccination programme without any delay, given that they are some distance from major hospitals?
Matt Hancock
Yes, my hon. Friend rightly raises an important point. Vaccination is happening in Cumbria today, which I am really pleased about. Cumbria is, of course, one of the most rural parts of the UK, so when we get to the primary care and the community roll-out, we will make sure that we can get the delivery as close to communities as possible. That is much harder with the Pfizer vaccine because of the minus 70° requirements. The AstraZeneca vaccine is much easier from that point of view, but of course, we do not have that clinically signed off yet.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
This morning, at Southmead hospital, 98-year-old Jack Vokes became the first person in Bristol to be vaccinated, which is obviously great news, and I join my colleagues in congratulating NHS staff on all their work at this time. May I press the Secretary of State on the point about transport workers, particularly taxi drivers, who we know are vulnerable not just because of their contact with the public, but because they are overwhelmingly drawn from the black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, which puts them more at risk? Under the headings of prioritising occupations and minimising the inequalities in the second tranche, are they likely to be considered for vaccination early?
Matt Hancock
We absolutely will consider that factor when we come to the groups after the clinical prioritised groups. I join the hon. Lady in thanking Jack and all those who have put themselves forward today to be vaccinated, including sometimes in the public eye, as part of this programme to help build confidence in vaccination overall and, of course, to help protect themselves and their loved ones.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his whole team on their Herculean effort to get us to the point where, today, Basildon University Hospital has started delivering the vaccine. Now, as we scale up the roll-out programme, will he join me in reassuring people that, despite the speed of development, not a single stage was missed and that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has done its usual due diligence in approving this vaccine?
Matt Hancock
That is right. The MHRA has gone through the same safety processes as normal, but it has done them in parallel at the same time, rather than in a series, one after another. It is that sort of smart and thoughtful approach, alongside the work of the Vaccine Taskforce in buying the vaccine in the first place, that has allowed us to get to this point of having confidence in the safety and efficacy of this vaccine before anybody else in the world. Everybody in Basildon who gets the call can have confidence that they should come forward, get the jab, protect themselves, protect those around them and, therefore, help us all get through this terrible thing.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I echo the sentiment that it is such a pleasure to be able to stand here today and talk about covid-19 with a smile on our faces, and to look forward to 2021 after such a horrific year. That is particularly true for people who are vulnerable and have been shielding, and they will now need reassurance that the vaccine will get to them. Does the Secretary of State agree that, as we go into next year, we should take with us and bear in mind the fact that we have done this across the UK, as a United Kingdom?
Matt Hancock
There is more in common than divides us, and we are stronger as a country when we all work together; those two things I have long believed. I have always thought that a vaccine would come through. Lots of people told me that it was not certain and that it could not happen, but I have always driven it forward for the whole UK, because it is the clear route out.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is obviously excellent news that the vaccine has been rolled out today. I was delighted to see that my constituent, Kenneth Lamb from New Romney, was the first patient to receive the vaccine at the William Harvey Hospital in Ashford. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is really important that people take the vaccine when they are offered it, and that we do all we can to combat harmful disinformation about it? The next time that he speaks to Mark Zuckerberg, will he remind him that we expect his companies to act against harmful anti-vaccine disinformation?
Matt Hancock
Thrice yes, indeed; I thank my hon. Friend, who is Stratford’s representative in this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) is right about disinformation. I have been doing a lot of work with Nick Clegg, who is Mark Zuckerberg’s representative on earth. Facebook and Instagram have taken significant strides forward in terms of removing anti-vax content, and I am very grateful to them for the work that they have done. I have no doubt that there is more work that we can all do together, but they have played their part.
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.
Gambling and Lotteries
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Minister to make a statement, I am tempted to say that it is pleasing that he has found time in his busy schedule of media appointments to update the House. It really is for the benefit of the Minister himself, as well as Members, for the House to be informed first of policy changes. I hope that he and those within the Department who feel that this House should not hear it first will bear that in mind in the future. I have the greatest respect for the Minister, and I am sure he would agree that this is not the way that we want it to happen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
Mr Speaker, I hope you will accept my apologies for any offence caused by some of the information already being out there. I can assure you that the full details and the call for evidence document are only just now being released and made available on the gov.uk website, precisely to coincide with this statement, but I understand and accept what you said.
The Gambling Act has been the basis of virtually all gambling regulation in the UK since 2005, but a huge amount has changed since then. The internet and the prevalence of smartphones have transformed the way we work, play, shop and gamble. We can now gamble anywhere at any time. It is time to take stock of the significant changes of the last 15 years and to pull our legal and regulatory framework into the digital age, so today, we are launching the first part of our comprehensive review of the Gambling Act. It will be a wide-ranging and evidence-led look at the industry, and it will consider the many issues that have been raised by parliamentarians and many other stakeholders. We want to listen, gather the evidence and think deeply about what we need for the next decade and beyond.
Nearly half the adult population gambles each month and, for the majority of people, gambling is a fun and carefree leisure activity. It is also a sector that supports 100,000 jobs and pays nearly £3 billion a year in taxes. However, we know that, in some cases, gambling can cause significant damage to people’s lives, including mental health problems, relationship breakdown, debt and, in extreme cases, suicide. We must ensure that our regulatory and legislative framework delivers on a core aim of the 2005 Act: the protection of children and vulnerable people in a fair, open and crime-free gambling economy.
This review will seek to strike a careful balance between giving individuals the freedom to choose how they spend their own money, while protecting vulnerable people and their families from gambling-related harm. We will look at whether we should introduce new protections on online products and consumer accounts, including stake and prize limits, and how we can ensure that children and young people are protected. We will also consider gambling advertising, including sports sponsorship, while taking into account the extremely difficult financial situation that many sports organisations and broadcasters find themselves in as a result of covid. We will look at redress arrangements for consumers where, for example, an operator has failed to step in to help a problem gambler. We will consider barriers to effective research on the causes and impact of problem gambling, and we will consider whether the Gambling Commission is keeping pace with the licensed sector and can effectively deal with unlicensed operators. We will also ensure that we have a fair playing field for online and offline gambling.
Many of those areas were highlighted in a thought-provoking report by the House of Lords Select Committee. That report and others have helped to inform our thinking and our desire to ensure that the review is wide in scope, and we are publishing our response to the Lords report alongside the review. I also know that Members across the House have seen evidence from their constituents about the harm that gambling can do to individuals and their families. We want to hear from the people whose lives have been affected by gambling, as well as from academics and the gambling industry, so that we have the evidence to deliver real and lasting change. We are therefore starting the review with a call for evidence, which will run for 16 weeks and is now available on the gov.uk website.
While this review is an opportunity to consider changes for the future, we are also taking action now to protect people from gambling harm. The Gambling Commission will continue to build on recent progress to strengthen protections as the industry regulator. Our ban on gambling with credit cards came into force in April, and new tighter rules on VIP schemes were implemented at the end of October. Further work is also in progress on the design of online slot games, as well as on how operators identify and intervene to protect customers who may be at risk, including through affordability checks. We have also just closed a call for evidence on loot boxes, and the Department of Health and Social Care will keep working to improve and expand treatment for problem gambling.
A key priority is ensuring that we have the right protections for children and young people and, again, that cannot wait. To that end, we are also today publishing a response to the consultation on the minimum age to play national lottery games. Since its launch in 1994, the national lottery has been a tremendous success, raising more than £42 billion for good causes. Since 1994, its games portfolio has evolved significantly, while consumers have shifted towards online play and instant win games such as scratchcards. While evidence shows that most 16 and 17-year-olds do not experience gambling-related harm from playing the national lottery, some recent studies point to a possible correlation between national lottery play at 16 and 17 and problem gambling in later life. Moreover, few other countries allow 16 and 17-year-olds to purchase their national lottery products.
Protecting young people from the risk of gambling-related harm is of paramount importance. We have therefore decided to increase the minimum age of the sale of all national lottery games to the age of 18. We are keen to make this change at pace while being acutely aware of the need to give retailers and the operator time to ensure a smooth transition. The legislative change will therefore come into force in October 2021, but we have asked that, where it can be done sooner, it is—for example, online. So under current plans, national lottery sales to 16 and 17-year-olds will stop online in April 2021.
The review we are starting today will be an opportunity to look at the wider rules on children and gambling, and to make sure they are suitably protected across all forms of gambling. I know many colleagues will welcome the launch of this review today and will be pleased to see us living up to our commitments in the 2019 manifesto. We intend to be broad, thorough and evidence led, so that we can ensure our gambling laws are fit for purpose in the 2020s and beyond. I commend this statement to the House.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for early sight of his statement. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the main measures that the Government have announced today, and I certainly welcome the beginning of this process of review and reform. Many Members across the House and in the other place have worked very hard indeed to get us to this place. I will not mention individuals specifically, not least because I am sure they will speak for themselves shortly, but we owe them a debt for bringing this issue to the fore. I thank all of them, because when people work across the House and across party political barriers in pursuit of the public interest, it is Parliament at its best.
This is only the beginning of the process to get the reforms that we need on gambling, so it is disappointing that the Government have taken more than a year to launch this review, during which time we know there are still people who may be suffering. Gambling addiction is highly serious, and we know that we have not got the right support in place. So the delay has a cost, which is why we need to move forward together and swiftly now. What we need is fit-for-purpose regulation which can keep up with the changing nature of gambling online, both on the smartphones that we all carry and in the environment around us all the time. We believe that the law in this area should be approached from a public health perspective to protect the vulnerable and particularly children and young people—I think the Minister would accept that—but to allow others who choose to do so to gamble safely. The Minister mentioned that UK gambling legislation is some 15 years old and it is hard to quantify the technological change that we have all experienced during that time. If somebody had told me in 2005 precisely what the phone in my pocket would have the capacity to do by this point, even I would have been shocked. We need to bring the legislation up to date. There is not a moment to lose.
Millions of people enjoy gambling in a safe way, but, as I have said, given the speed of change, vulnerable people should be protected. Age verification must be taken seriously.
The pace of technological change has wider ramifications. Apps, games and online advertising within apps have shown the dangers when we are not able to future-proof legislation. Will the Minister confirm that the review will address not just problems that we know of now, but that we will use the opportunity to try to anticipate future changes? That will not always be possible, but we should at least attempt to do so.
In the review, we would like the Government to adopt the following approach, particularly in considering the legislation that we need. We know from the pandemic that public health must come first, and that is my first question to the Minister. Will he confirm that we will be taking a public health approach in the review?
Secondly, of course people are free to choose what they wish to do in a free country, but will the Minister confirm that the Government take their responsibility to protect people from harm seriously and that the review will attempt to quantify that harm so that we can target the right measures effectively to reduce it over time?
Thirdly, the legislation must be evidence-based. I do not think anyone in this House is any longer a sceptic of experts, but just to make sure, could the Minister confirm that public health experts will be able to contribute fully and transparently, so that people will be able to understand the evidence that the Government rest on?
Fourthly, all towns across the country should be able to enjoy the benefit of having a sports club at the heart of their community. Many rugby league clubs, football clubs and other sports have long-standing relationships with gambling companies. Will the Minister take those relationships into consideration? We are expecting another review—a fan-led review of football—and I do not think it makes a lot of sense to commence the gambling review without that football review alongside it. Where the issues interconnect, we can handle them both together. Will the Minister bring forward the fan-led review of football to start without further delay?
Finally, on consumer protection, companies operating for financial gain should not be able to exploit anybody, particularly the young and vulnerable, so will he make sure that consumers have better rights in this area? Will people have access to their own data—I am thinking of where people are targeted online with adverts and so on? Will the review also look at the unlicensed operators, who are one of the most worrying aspects in this area?
We welcome the review. We want to see it happen in a way that is collaborative across both sides of the House and among all stakeholders in the country, because that is the best way to make sure that it is a success. Many people in this country enjoy gambling. Everybody has the right to spend their own money enjoying themselves. However, where a harm is clear, the Government have a duty and responsibility to tackle it.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Lady for the tone of her response and for welcoming the review. She is absolutely right that the measures in the review and the scope of the review have been supported by hon. Members on both sides of this Chamber and many individuals have campaigned on these issues for a long period of time.
On timing, it is important to recognise that we do not wait for the periodic reviews. We are not waiting for necessary future legislation. We have acted and will continue to act as and when necessary. Just this year, for example, we banned the use of gambling with credit cards. We have made further restrictions on VIP schemes. There is the mandatory participation in GamStop, for example, and the announcement today about the changes with national lottery is testament to the fact that the Government are willing and able to take action. There was also action just last year on fixed-odds betting terminals.
In terms of future-proofing, no Government can guarantee to future proof, but certainly the intent is for the scope to be broad and wide, recognising, for example, changes in technology and what that could mean for using information intelligently to identify potential problem gamblers, as well as looking at the scope of the Gambling Commission itself.
In terms of evidence, we are looking for evidence from all sources, including all those that the hon. Lady suggested—from health and from academics. We welcome the participation of anybody willing and able to participate in this review with evidence.
The hon. Lady made an important point on sport. As sports Minister—we both cover sport—I know the challenges that the sporting sector faces, so we need to make sure that any changes are proportionate. Indeed, as she knows, we intend formally to kick off the football governance review as soon as possible. Informally, it has already begun. Other areas such as redress and the black market will absolutely form part of the review.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
No longer is gambling a case of just nipping down the bookies. We now live in a world dominated online with sophisticated algorithms and increasing artificial intelligence. Will the Minister assure the House and me that the review will place at its centre the oversight of algorithms in push marketing and fairness in bet exchanges, and that that will dovetail with robust age verification on social media platforms? In addition, when will we see the legislation to curb the menace of loot boxes? As a side point, on the banning of national lottery sales online, why do we have to wait until April next year? Surely, that is something that could be actioned relatively quickly.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for, as always, valuable comments. On using technology intelligently, I absolutely agree with him—it is vital that we do so to identify problem gambling and issues of affordability, and that that forms part of the future-proofing of the sector.
The loot-box issue is being addressed. We have issued a call for evidence, which concluded on 22 November, and we will introduce recommendations shortly. On the lottery changes, as I say, we have had conversations with key stakeholders. We want to move as soon as possible. The target date of 1 October is the latest date for changes. We want to bring the online changes forward as soon as possible, but there are notifications, technology changes and logistical considerations, as well as training considerations. It is not the kind of thing that can occur overnight, but we have had productive conversations with the operators to make sure that we can implement the measures as soon as possible.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Minister for prior sight of the statement. I welcome the overall messages in it, as they touch on many of the issues that have blighted the industry and caused great harm to many people for far too long. There is a great deal to discuss, and I shall keep a beady eye on the process and progress of the review.
In the time allotted to me, may I thank the Minister for making it clear that the evidence-led inquiry will include those who have been harmed and the families of those who have lost someone to suicide as a result of gambling addiction? Lived experience is crucial to inform the review. However, I am concerned that the Minister has caveated his concerns about advertising with the financial difficulties faced by sports organisations and broadcasters. The reduction of harm must be front and centre in the review, and must not be undermined by the eye-watering financial demands of premier-league football teams.
On the national lottery, there is no excuse for delaying the enforcement of the increased age limitation offline for 10 months. May I ask that the timescale is revisited or at least justified? I did not read anything in the statement about the voluntary levy. We need a statutory levy that funds research, education and support. That money should be paid to the UK and devolved Parliaments before being channelled to the appropriate service providers. Research into gambling harm must not be funded by voluntary contributions from the industry that causes the harm.
Finally, many people, including members of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling-related harm, will scrutinise the outcome of the review. May I offer a friendly warning to the Minister? We will not be fobbed off with a partial review, and we will not accept second-best.
Nigel Huddleston
I can confirm that the experience of those with lived experience will form part of the review. In fact, the Secretary of State and I have met many victims and their families, and we will continue to do so. On sport, if there is evidence of harm from sponsorship and advertising, we will act. On the other considerations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I can assure him that if people have evidence, for example, that a levy is an alternative model, we would welcome those submissions in the review. I welcome the scrutiny that he and others will give to the review as it progresses.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, which marks the beginning of a real sea change in our attitude towards the gambling abuses that have taken place. On that point, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), whose chairing of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm has been phenomenal, and to the vice chair, the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan). We have worked very hard together to try to drive this moment. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we want all the evidence we have taken over the last couple of years to be part of the inquiry. I would also like the all-party parliamentary group to appear in front of it.
May I press my hon. Friend on one particular point? He knows about the abuse of VIP schemes and about the behaviour of the gambling companies, which have been appalling in the way they have used people. Is it not now time, instead of looking only at the powers of the Gambling Commission, to get rid of the Gambling Commission altogether and institute a body as powerful as, say, Ofcom or all the other bodies that monitor and regulate these industries? Now is the time to make bold moves, to make sure we get proper control and that the abuses and the addiction end.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my right hon. Friend for all his work in this important area, and the people he mentioned who have also campaigned for such a long time. We know that there have been problems with VIP schemes. We have acted on them already, but that does not mean that further action is not necessary. I am confident that the evidence-led review may reveal further options and avenues. I welcome his input into all areas under consideration. As I said, the Gambling Commission’s scope and resources are part of that review. I welcome his further comments.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
The architects of the Gambling Act 2005 could never have anticipated that by 2020 technology would allow phones, tablets and computers to become 24/7 limitless gambling hubs. For far too many, this has led to devastation, demoralisation and, at worst, death. Can the Government assure the House that the voices of bereaved families, those with lived experience, campaign groups and colleagues and friends from right across the House will be given the same consideration when feeding into this review as the well-resourced, confrontational and relentless gambling lobby, whose sole motivation is profit, not people?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Lady for her ongoing campaign in this important area. We have had many conversations on this, and I know her passion for change. I can confirm that those with lived experience and the families of those impacted will absolutely play a key role in the review. We welcome their evidence. As has already been suggested, some evidence has been brought forward in various other reviews and reports that we have seen in the House, and we welcome re-submissions of some of that data. The role of those people is vital. We all know, through experiences and interactions with our constituents, how devastating problem gambling can be. I think the whole House recognises the need for further action.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friends from the all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm. I also thank the Minister for his statement. I know that he has done a lot of work in this area. It is good to hear that the review will be broad and wide. However, can he clarify that, when he mentioned parity between high street and online, he is not saying that high-street casino gambling will be the same as online casinos? Quite frankly, there should be one place where the highest-stakes gambling can take place, and that is not in people’s homes and bedrooms.
I also urge my hon. Friend to reflect on the Public Accounts Committee’s report around an ombudsman service. Some points that we raised were recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee, particularly around redress for people who have suffered real harm, and are really worth noting. I hope he will take note of those considerations.
Nigel Huddleston
As I said, the role and scope of the Gambling Commission and other areas will be under consideration. The point about the land-based system versus the online world is that, as many have mentioned, the world has changed considerably, and we want to ensure that there is an even playing field in gambling. We need to make sure that all forms of gambling are as safe as they possibly can be. The goal of this review is to tackle harms as much as possible, but also to make sure that the legitimate gambling industry is on a safe footing for a sustainable future.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I welcome the statement, but the Minister will understand that the online harms Bill, when we get it, will have a crucial role to play in this area. Big tech firms are allowing unregulated black market gambling companies to promote on their websites, and they are advertising to the under-18s. What does he think about that, and what is he going to do about it?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman raises legitimate concerns about the black market—the unlicensed industry, which does exist. This will form part of the review. Part of it will include the scope, responsibilities, powers and resources of the Gambling Commission and regulatory bodies to deal with the black market. It is a very important issue.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]
As with all Government reviews, sectors and people fear that Government do not take into account their concerns and often adopt a “do to” rather than a “do with” attitude. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with sporting bodies, particularly in horse-racing and football, on the financial implications that the review could have for their members?
Nigel Huddleston
We have had very few discussions so far about the specifics of this review because we are only announcing its scope and the call for evidence today. We certainly intend to have conversations about the possible impact of some of the potential options on the sports sector. I encourage all stakeholders, including all sports bodies, to contribute to the review in the call for evidence that we are announcing. We will be happy to have further discussions about this with my hon. Friend and others.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I welcome this review, and there is clearly a need for robust action. The Minister will be aware that there have been claims from the online gambling industry that regulation should be moderated or it risks driving gamblers to the black market. Does the Minister agree with the Gambling Commission that there is absolutely no evidence for this? Does he also agree that if we want to prevent the growth of the black market, regulation to prevent harm is the solution, not the cause?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman expresses some legitimate concerns. One of the great problems, of course, is that, by definition, it is almost impossible to assess the size, scope and scale of the black market, but where evidence does exist we will welcome it as part of this review. We do recognise the problem, and that is why we explicitly include the unlicensed market—the black market—in the review. We need more work and more information, and we need to decide what action needs to be taken to tackle it. It is a very serious issue.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I welcome this review and the opportunity it presents to update our regulations in the gambling and gaming sector. I know from my time in the industry that some firms have gone above and beyond in developing tools to help to prevent and identify problem gambling. I hope that this review will be an opportunity to formalise and spread best practice. As the Minister said, over 100,000 people are employed in the sector, including nearly 4,000 in north Staffordshire, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent at my former employer, Bet365. Can my hon. Friend assure me, and them, that the review will look to strike a balance, acknowledging the enjoyment that millions of people from gambling in a responsible manner and how important it is that people are not driven to unlicensed operators where they would have neither basic consumer protection nor the regulatory supervision that we all want to see?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend is right to point out the dangers of the unlicensed market and to point out that gambling is a legitimate business in the UK, paying £3 billion in taxes and employing about 100,000 people. However, the industry itself acknowledges that harms can happen. It has played, and I expect it to continue to play, an important role in identifying harms and what we can do to minimise them. Its voice will be heard in this review, but we all have a shared goal of making sure that we do everything we can to minimise gambling harms.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I understand that today there is perhaps a focus on some of the online gambling, but can I ask the Minister not to forget those communities, such as in Glasgow East, where digital exclusion is still a massive issue? In that vein, when are we going to confront the fact that many of these working-class communities where lottery ticket sales are higher do not actually see a lot of the funding follow through? In my experience, it tends to go to more middle class areas with professional fundraisers.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Again, the review is very broad in scope for exactly this purpose. Comments, information, data and evidence can be brought in to raise all these issues, and they will be looked at carefully.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I welcome this review and also the Minister’s determination that it should be evidence-based, consistent and balanced, but can I join my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) in reminding him of the enormous contribution that betting companies make to horse-racing? It is to the tune of about £350 million a year, which is a very large amount to that sport, even in ordinary times. At the moment, like other sports, it is going through very difficult times, and without that contribution horse-racing would not survive.
Nigel Huddleston
Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Horse-racing is of course a vital industry in the UK. I can confirm that the levy on horse-racing is not actually due for review till 2021; it is not explicitly part of this review. However, on the role that gambling has and the link with sport, we recognise that there are some challenges, but also many upsides, and we will consider those as part of this review.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Following my question in April, I welcome today’s news that the Government will extend the ban on under-18s gambling to the national lottery, but the Minister will be aware that the recent online ban on gambling with a credit card does not apply to the lottery. If a betting shop in Barnsley rightly does not accept gambling on a credit card, then why should it be allowed on the national lottery?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Lady. I am well aware of her campaigning on this issue over a long period of time, and I thank her for that input. There is a difference between lottery-based games and other forms of gambling. There is evidence to suggest, for example, that the gambling harm is lower in the lottery than in other forms of gambling, and therefore there is a difference between the types. As I say, however, this move is an important one today, and I appreciate that she welcomes it.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Given that the recent Public Accounts Committee report on gambling regulation declared that the Gambling Commission
“do not know what impact they are having on problem gambling, or what measures would demonstrate whether regulation is working”,
will the Minister use the opportunity of the review to assess whether the Gambling Commission itself is fit for purpose, or needs to be replaced by a new body to provide the real leadership needed on the issue of gambling regulation?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I am aware of the comments made in the Public Accounts Committee report. I appreciate the work that it and, indeed, many others have done in providing input on this issue for a long period. As I have said, I do not wish to pre-empt any of the conclusions of the review. This is a call for evidence at this stage, and therefore recommendations and suggestions for future regulation will be welcome.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware of some the work I do on social media, and I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on social media. One of the key areas where we are seeing huge increases in people taking up and partaking of gambling is through influencers. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) asked a question about the online harms Bill, so I would like to understand from the Minister what work he is doing now on tackling influencers who are able to target particularly children and young people and try to encourage them to gamble. That really does need to be addressed long before this review is concluded.
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are considering action on the broader issue of online harms and the role that social media companies play in that. That work will be undertaken alongside this review, as well, and we will certainly work together. I will work with colleagues in the rest of the Department to make sure that we are very much aligned.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) [V]
Some 200,000 customers used an unlicensed gambling operator last year, resulting in an estimated £1.4 billion in turnover. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with online platforms to tackle this black market in gambling?
Nigel Huddleston
Like several other Members, my hon. Friend raises the important issue of the black market. As I have said, that will be considered as part of the review. We welcome evidence and suggestions from all stakeholders, in helping to scope not only the size and scale of the black market, but what further actions could be taken to tackle it.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
We know that too many people have a problematic relationship with gambling, which has a really bad effect on their wellbeing and mental health, even leading to suicidal thoughts and feelings. I welcome the recognition of that in the Minister’s statement. How will the review consider that issue in the next period?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady will be aware that we work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, which is working on clinics particularly relating to the treatment of gambling. Three are already up and running, and we have an ambition to open far more. The industry is contributing towards the financial costs of some of this treatment, as well as to research and education overall; we have a commitment over the next four years of £100 million. Of course, this review will be an opportunity to assess whether that model is appropriate or whether other alternatives should perhaps be considered.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
It is estimated that 37 million people in the UK enjoy playing video games on a daily basis—this includes random content through loot boxes, which they use to enjoy their gameplay. Done right, free-to-play games with additional purchase elements can be a good model. So does the Minister agree with the Gambling Commission that where in-game items obtained via loot boxes are confined to those games and cannot be cashed out, they fall outside the Gambling Act 2005?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes the important point that, without wishing to be pedantic, there is often a debate about whether loot boxes and games of chance, or those where there is not a financial benefit at the end, are actually “gambling” or “gambling-like behaviours”. However we wish to define them, we are taking action. That is why it was important that we had the call for evidence on loot boxes, which was completed recently, and further action will be taken, on recommendations, by the Government.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
Every year, the gambling industry spends £1.5 billion on advertising to encourage us all to gamble more, which is 25 times more than we spend giving help to people with a problem with their gambling and 80 times more than it is required to give to the Gambling Commission, which is supposed to regulate it. The commission will never be able to regulate the industry properly when it relies for its funding on these tiny scraps that fall from the industry’s table. Will the Minister therefore agree to look seriously at having the Gambling Commission adequately and directly funded from the public purse, so that it is independent and, more importantly, can be seen to be independent of the industry it is attempting to regulate?
Nigel Huddleston
The Gambling Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority both currently have a role in reviewing advertising relating to gambling, and they have significant powers. However, many legitimate concerns have been raised on this issue, so both the advertising and the scope and resources of the Gambling Commission will be part of this review.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I am pleased to hear the Minister say that loot boxes fall within his remit of work at the moment, because they encourage people to spend more on in-game purchases than they otherwise would do if this were turned into a game of chance where there were no published odds. Will he also say something about social media targeted advertising by gambling companies? I am aware that social media companies are allowing online betting companies to target known problem gamblers with incentives to bet, which is completely unethical. It should be outside the rules and it should be part of the review.
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about this area as well, and I thank him for his comments. Let me be clear: the call for evidence relating to loot boxes is separate from this review; it is a separate activity being undertaken by the Department. I should also be clear that any advertising that is deliberately targeting children or vulnerable groups should not be happening, and therefore it is a major concern. The questions raised in this review and the call for evidence seek to ask how effective the current rules are, and those will be major considerations as part of the call for evidence.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Liberal Democrats welcome this review very much, as issues such as online gambling have needed to be addressed for some time. Given the impact of gambling and the damage it causes, and given that the work that needs to be done to rectify it stretches across a number of Departments, what consultations has the Minister had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Department of Health and Social Care and other Ministries about the review?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady will not be surprised to learn that DCMS constantly engages with the Treasury on a range of issues, and certainly the Department for Health and Social Care has a very strong interest. The Health Secretary—a former DCMS Secretary of State—is very knowledgeable about the gambling sector and the harms, and we are working closely on treatment. The Department of Health and Social Care is looking to expand the number of treatment centres, and we will continue that dialogue and work across the Departments.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I have several leading casinos in my constituency, and they have worked hard to deal with problem gambling. Does my hon. Friend agree that casinos are important for our international tourist economy?
Nigel Huddleston
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Casinos form an important part of the attractions. They are why many people come into the country, and they are important for in-bound tourism. I understand exactly what she is saying. Casinos play an important part, and the whole point of the review is to ensure a legitimate gambling industry that is on a sound footing for future growth. I look forward to working with the casino sector to ensure that that happens.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement about the review of the gambling industry, and I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for her leadership on the all-party group. Time is of the essence, so will the Minister assure the House that reform will happen quickly? Will reform happen outside the formal review, for example on loot boxes and the video games that others have referred to? Could such reforms be implemented with a faster time frame?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Northern Ireland regulation on gambling is separate from that of Great Britain. He raises an important point, and we will work with the devolved Administrations. Loot boxes fall under a separate review. The call for evidence has just ended, and we wish to consider the feedback from that as soon as possible. The other aspects that he raised will form part of that review. We completely understand the need for action, and as I said in my statement, we have taken action where necessary, with legislative and non-legislative measures from loot boxes to changing the rules on credit card use, as well as today’s announcement on the national lottery. We are willing and able to move quickly.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I fully welcome this review, which will surely protect my constituents in Redcar and Cleveland from gambling harm in the long term. However, the Minister will know—we have had a number of conversations about this—about the issues regarding the horse-race betting levy, and the urgent need for reform to support racecourses such as the one in Redcar. Will he update the House on any steps he has taken to fix that situation, so that Redcar can keep on racing?
Nigel Huddleston
I know what a horse-racing fan my hon. Friend is, and we have had many conversations about that issue. The horserace betting levy is not part of this review, but we are having ongoing conversations with the horse-racing industry. I look forward to further conversations with my hon. Friend.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
I broadly welcome today’s announcement, but given this Government’s unforgivable delay to the online harms Bill, many questions are left unanswered. It is vital that young people are protected in their online space, so what considerations have the Government made to include age verification requirements for gambling providers as part of the online harms agenda? When will the Bill finally be brought to Parliament?
Nigel Huddleston
The issues of age verification, product, and the way such things are marketed will be part of this review, and they are also ongoing considerations of the Gambling Commission. This will be a 16-week review. We recognise that in these challenging times of covid, responders may need a little more time to respond to the call for evidence, and therefore the review is slightly longer than normal. We will then produce a White Paper with Government recommendations. As I said, the review is deliberately broad, and the issues raised by the hon. Lady will be part of it.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I am clear that online harms are increasing risks to our children, and I note that families have spent much of the past nine months in lockdown. As a parent, I am worried by addiction to games such as Fortnite, when our children could be outside playing. Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department will consider an outright ban on gambling incentives such as loot boxes, as well as better educating parents, carers and teachers about the dangers of online gaming?
Nigel Huddleston
The issues around loot boxes that my hon. Friend articulates are legitimate; hence the call for evidence on loot boxes. That call for evidence ended on 22 November. The Government are currently considering the evidence that has been brought forward, and we will respond in due course. My hon. Friend raises legitimate concerns that have been raised by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and many others over many years.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The bookies form a key part of our high streets and provide a supervised environment for responsible gambling. In contrast, the online gambling space is like the wild west. We have heard so much about black market operators that have caused extraordinary levels of harm, so it is right the Government are looking at this issue. However, that will only be effective alongside good online harms legislation, which we have been promised for three years now. When will we see it?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the online harms legislation was a commitment. It is absolutely a commitment. I know that it gets support on both sides of the Chamber, and we will be hearing more in due course.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement as a vital step in bringing up to date the provisions of the Gambling Act 2005, but may I ask him for some reassurance about how any test of balance will be weighted so that prevention of harm can rightly take centre stage, while we ensure at the same time that the millions of people who gamble responsibly are not in some way stigmatised, and, as others have said, that activities are not driven underground?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the absolute necessity in this review for a balanced, evidence-led approach. I assure him that we will strike the right balance between giving individuals the freedom to choose how they spend their own money, and protecting vulnerable people and their families from gambling-related harm. It is a balancing act, and we take that responsibility very seriously.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Last year, the vice president of EA described loot boxes as “ethical”, “fun” and akin to buying “Kinder eggs”. However, research has linked some loot boxes with problem gambling in older adolescents, so we clearly need to take action. I hear what the Minister is saying about the call for evidence just finishing and that that is part of a separate review, but how will that review feed into this wider review of the Gambling Act overall?
Nigel Huddleston
Yes, I can confirm that the call for evidence has concluded, and we will be responding to that soon. Legal definitions were one of the reasons that it was a separate review from the one on gambling, but that should aid the process, rather than hinder it.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I warmly welcome this review and today’s announcement. As the Minister has said, the way that people gamble in 2020 is completely different from how the majority of gambling took place when the Gambling Act was passed in 2005. Does the Minister agree that, in line with these changes, the Government should be considering boosting the powers and resources of the Gambling Commission to ensure that it can keep pace with the licence sector and tackle the black market?
Nigel Huddleston
Indeed; the scope, roles, responsibilities and resources of the Gambling Commission will form part of the review. It is right that we consider the structure of governance and regulation for the industry, and any recommendations and suggestions that my hon. Friend has would be welcome as part of the call for evidence.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the review. However, it is believed that, in the UK alone, members of the armed forces are eight times more likely to develop gambling addictions, especially if they have experienced past traumatic events. Given this distressing statistic, will the Minister confirm whether he has had any discussions with Defence Ministers about measures to prevent the spread of problem gambling among our armed forces personnel?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady is right to point out that certain demographics and roles are more susceptible to problem gambling than others. I have not had specific conversations with the Ministry of Defence yet, but we would welcome input on this issue as part of the evidence process. She raises the important point that different segments of the population are impacted and targeted differently, and the scope of this review includes looking at targeting and the prevalence of gambling among different demographics.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I fully appreciate that the focus of this review will be on the technological advances in recent years, but I still have major concerns about the number of gaming centres and venues for gambling in Peterborough, particularly in the Millfield area of my city, and the subsequent risk of gambling-related harm to some of the most vulnerable local people. I welcome this review, but will my hon. Friend consider giving local councils such as Peterborough City Council further powers to close problem high street gambling venues and restrict the number of venues in any one particular area?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. There are already regulations and rules if there are problems, and social and behavioural challenges, in terms of the powers that local government has. He raises important points, though; as I said, in terms of responsible gambling across the board, we intend to ensure that this review is evidence-led and looks at a whole variety of issues, including the ones he raises.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I very much welcome this review. As the statement has exposed, a huge breadth of issues need to be considered. Will the Minister say something about the extent to which the amount of gambling that now takes place online creates opportunities to gain much better information about who is gambling and for ensuring that issues that are raised by the review are targeted at those who are problem gamblers? Will he ensure that that information is more widely available?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Just last year, for the first time, gross gambling yield was greater online than offline, so we have now reached that cusp where more gambling in the UK is online. We should therefore be able to use technology, and emerging technology, in a far more sophisticated way, as he suggests, to make sure that we identify problem gambling and potential problem gambling. I would expect information on that to be part of this review.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]
In my experience, in the past the gambling industry has been able to exert a great deal of influence over the Minister’s Department. I welcome his commitment to an evidence-based review, but if the review is to be effective, it will need access to data from the industry and to up-to-date research. Will he commit to ensuring that this wealthy industry pays for fully independent research to be carried out, which we are all going to need if we are going to carry out this review effectively?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the historically poor level of information, data and research in this sector. It is improving, and we hope that this evidence-led review will add to the base of information. His characterisation of the Department, though, is wrong, as evidenced by the obvious and significant changes we have made to gambling over the last few years, with FOBTs last year, the changes to credit cards, VIP schemes, mandatory participation in GAMSTOP and the changes that we are announcing to the national lottery today, as well as a whole host of other issues. This Government have shown that we are willing to act when necessary.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. Clearly, having consumer protection at the heart of any new regulation is key, so will he describe what sort of action my constituents in Dudley North can take if they believe that an operator is in breach of social responsibility requirements?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. He is absolutely right that legitimate concerns have been raised by many, including in this place, about redress in the gambling sector. That is why the call for evidence will specifically ask for information and evidence on potential future redress procedures, and all options are open at the moment.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to take my first opportunity in the Chamber to pay tribute to one of my predecessors, Maria Fyfe, who served in this place as Member for Glasgow Maryhill between 1987 and 2001 and who sadly passed away on Friday. She was hugely respected during her time in this House and in the constituency, and our condolences, thoughts and prayers are with her family, friends and comrades at this time.
One of Maria Fyfe’s enduring legacies is the Community Central Hall on Maryhill Road, which is an incredibly important focal point, providing a wide range of services for local residents. Over the years—many years—it has benefited from lottery funding. What steps will the Minister take to ensure, especially in these difficult times and in the context of the announcement that he has made today, that such organisations are able to continue to get the funding they need, whether through the lottery or perhaps other, more sustainable sources?
Nigel Huddleston
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Maria Fyfe on behalf of the whole House; I know I can do so because the shadow Minister and I had a conversation about Maria before we came into the Chamber. She is a great loss. I know she was an incredible champion for women’s rights in particular and made a great impact on the British political landscape.
In terms of the lottery and the changes we are announcing today, the estimate is that the impact of 16 and 17-year-olds’ not being able to play the lottery will likely be something in the region of a £6 million potential loss to good causes. That is out of a total distribution of around £1.8 billion, so it is a relatively small amount.
I would like to say thank you to all those who have played the lottery and continued to play the lottery this year. Lottery revenue, and therefore distributions to good causes, has stayed up remarkably well, partly because it has been made very clear that much of the money has gone to institutions, bodies and groups in desperate need during coronavirus. I encourage people to continue to play the lottery safely, in the full knowledge that the money is well spent and well targeted.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
May I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and the Minister, Nigel Huddleston, for their kind words about the late Maria Fyfe? She was a popular Member, who was well respected in all parts of the House and remained active in her local party after leaving this place. She will be missed by her family and all who knew her in Parliament and beyond. One of the best features of this place is how hon. Members appreciate and acknowledge the qualities and achievements of their predecessors, irrespective and regardless of party.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
I hope the review will recognise the important role that high street gambling venues play in employing local people, and the Minister will recognise that it would be rather strange if the review had the damaging impact of moving gamblers from the relatively safe, supervised gambling premises on the high streets into the unregulated, unsupervised online world. I hope the review will look to bolster gambling on the high street, rather than on the internet.
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that many gambling entities take their responsibilities for safe gambling incredibly seriously and do a very good job. It is important, therefore, that we strike the right balance between enabling people to gamble safely and protecting those who are at risk. There is nothing wrong with legitimate gambling that is well regulated and enacted in accordance with minimising harm.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
We all know that the gambling industry got it very wrong on the campaign on fixed-odds betting terminals. Does the Minister agree that this review is an opportunity for the British gambling industry to get it right and produce an outcome that maximises the fun for people who want to gamble, but minimises the harm? We all know that prohibition does not work; what we need is effective reform.
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman, who I know is well versed in the industry and is very knowledgeable, is absolutely right. We must get the right balance here, and we expect the stakeholders, the key gambling operators, to play a role in providing evidence in this review. They have contributed already and made some voluntary changes, but I think we would all like to see further changes. They can make those voluntarily; there is always the option of legal regulation at the end of this review, but we do not necessarily need to wait for legislation for the gambling industry to do the right thing. We have seen some positive moves in the right direction and I welcome that constructive contribution. If we need to regulate and implement laws we will, but I would also like to see further changes voluntarily conducted by the industry, as I am sure he would too.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Thank you for battling to the end of the call list, Mr Deputy Speaker; I appreciate it. I warmly welcome this statement. A few months ago, I met Furness Gamblers Anonymous, which does incredible work to support those who suffer most from addiction. I welcome the fact that such organisations will be able to feed into this review—that is right and proper—but what consideration has my hon. Friend given to the fact that many of those who have the most powerful stories might want to feed in anonymously?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I have a great deal of confidence that many of the charities and third-party organisations working in this sector—many of the key stakeholders—are very articulate and knowledgeable, and they have done a very good job of feeding in information already. We encourage them to do so, and I hope they will be able to provide further information, while recognising that some of this is extremely sensitive and therefore may need to be confidential. We recognise that information from all sources is valid, and I encourage all stakeholders to do what they can to get involved in the review.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to 39 questions for exactly one hour. We will now suspend for a few minutes.
BBC (Transparency)
Tuesday 8th December 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate BBC (Transparency) Bill 2019-21 View all BBC (Transparency) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the BBC to publish specified information including all invoices over £500, expenditure by region, details of staff remuneration and exit payments, payments to personal service companies and other contractors, and the outside earnings of staff; and for connected purposes.
The BBC (Transparency) Bill is a positive move to support the BBC, to help it adapt and modernise its standards of governance, transparency and the need to meet the public’s expectations of value for money. The Bill will require the BBC to publish every invoice in excess of £500 and to take other steps to support greater transparency of its budget approaching £5 billion. It demands that the corporation take positive steps to support scrutiny across this important British flagship organisation. The Bill is aimed at helping to bring about a cultural change in the BBC, making it more open and transparent in support of everything it does.
I raise these issues as one who values what the BBC can achieve. As the Government consider the future of the licence fee, this debate and proposal are timely. They help the BBC meet the Secretary of State’s call as to how it intends to make savings and the fact that the organisation needs to reflect the entire nation. The context is that the licence fee is the most regressive form of taxation. That was the primary complaint against the poll tax, but of course this is a television tax, at a time when there is ever-increasing choice in the marketplace, with paid-for and free output. In considering the impact on households, particularly the poorest households at this time, it is vital that we scrutinise spend to secure the very best value for the licence fee for the public. Increased transparency will help the BBC respond to ever-increasing demands from the public.
Since 2010, all Government Departments and local authorities in England have been required to publish invoices in excess of £500. This key step helped to change spending patterns and the culture of how public bodies work. The move towards transparency facilitated competition, encouraged new approaches to spending, and attracted more organisations, particularly small businesses, to bid for contracts. Ultimately, it helped to drive better value for money and enhanced diversity in the supply chain.
Many Members will recall the BBC’s resistance to publish salaries of its star performers. Some called it a “poacher’s charter” at the time. As a strong supporter of publication of the data, I can remember even some senior Government colleagues resisting the call, for fear that it would lead to a levelling up of salaries. However, there was a determination among enough of us to ensure that it formed part of the agreement around the last charter renewal. Although the salary levels shocked many, equally importantly they disclosed the disparity between the pay of male and female presenters. As a result, we have seen salaries of some male presenters fall—some would argue by not enough—and the salaries of some female presenters increase. Now, whatever one’s view of the salary levels—yes, there remains much concern around the £1.75 million for one and £1.4 million for another—at least we can have an honest debate about the value of the contribution they make. Public scrutiny also exposed wrongdoing that led to some staff pursuing cases for equal pay. This would not have happened without demands for greater transparency from the public.
Loopholes still exist, but the Bill’s influence extends well beyond the corporation’s current approach. We cannot ignore the fact that some of the BBC’s highest-profile shows and performers are contracted to BBC Studios. Expenditure data of BBC Studios is not shared in the same way, yet they still operate with the benefit of the licence fee. While that is the case, it is not like any other commercial organisation, and its expenditure should be scrutinised equally. Current standards of transparency only give us a fraction of the picture and lead to suspicion among the public. We should not have to go through the same debate again about an organisation that capitalises on the benefit that the licence fee brings. After all, it is public money, not the BBC’s money.
Elsewhere, concerns have been expressed over other payments the BBC has made, such as golden goodbyes, the payment of tax bills of some of its personalities, and a huge increase—£38 million—in the budget to collect the licence fee, which, if it is not paid of course, could result in a criminal record and even imprisonment. Some people believe that this policy is discriminatory. Many more women than men are charged, purely through their circumstance, so it seems that while some people benefit significantly from the licence fee, others are criminalised as part of the process.
The Government’s central mission since the election has been the levelling-up agenda, and I believe that the licence fee expenditure can play a part. Statistics show that half the BBC’s network programming budget is spent in London at a remarkably consistent level year in, year out. Although the north of England saw a boost in network programme spend to almost 20% in 2016, by last year that level had fallen to 14%. I also recognise that this is not the whole picture, because network programming is only part of the £5 billion budget.
Publication of all invoices over £500 would enable spending patterns to be analysed and all budgets to be considered. If we included contractors, commissions and post-production work, I expect that the London bias would be much greater than 50%. We should also question central administrative services, HR accounting, commissioning and other forms of spend. Those could easily be located across the country to follow the excellent, positive moves that the BBC has made towards the location of its production hubs.
This BBC transparency Bill would allow colleagues and members of the public to see where all the licence fee was being spent across the country and to form a view. Salford has seen significant growth over recent years, but it would be interesting to see whether that had been achieved to the cost of other blue wall areas in the north-west or the north-east. As an example, Cardiff has seen a welcome increase in commitment, but that centralisation in a city has come at cost to other parts of Wales. I would hate to see the growth in Manchester coming at cost to other parts of the region, unless, of course, there was a good reason and a value-for-money case behind the decision. The public could make a judgment.
These issues come into particular focus as the BBC responds to public concerns over a diverse range of challenges: Ofcom’s worrying report on impartiality, the removal of free licences from the over-75s and the tactics used to secure the “Panorama” interview with the Princess of Wales 25 years ago, which, if true, will cause shockwaves across communities.
I pay tribute to Tim Davie for the changes that he is making, including stronger guidance on social media activity and on outside interests, as well as establishing a judge-led inquiry on the “Panorama” interview. All these are welcome, but we still need to revolutionise the BBC’s transparency culture. This Bill is intended to support Tim Davie to bring about change, and to help the BBC to regain the confidence of the public and to secure the very best value for money across all its activities.
We are approaching the BBC charter mid-term review. This would be the perfect time to see the changes that this Bill and the public call for.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alun Cairns, Julian Knight, Mr William Wragg, Mrs Heather Wheeler, Sir Bernard Jenkin, Dame Cheryl Gillan, Mel Stride, Jeremy Wright, Karen Bradley, Jackie Doyle-Price, Robert Halfon and Andrew Bowie present the Bill.
Alun Cairns accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January, and to be printed (Bill 226).
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at today’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to bring to a conclusion proceedings on the first Ways and Means resolution relating to Taxation (Post-transition Period) at 7.00 pm, if not previously concluded.—(David Rutley.)
Taxation (Post-transition Period) (Ways and Means)
Tuesday 8th December 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Taxation (Post-transition Period) Act 2020 View all Taxation (Post-transition Period) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 264 / Noes: 360 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to the first motion.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That provision (including provision imposing and regulating new duties of customs) may be made in connection with goods in Northern Ireland and their movement into and out of Northern Ireland (whether the movement begins or ends in Great Britain or elsewhere).
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.
In less than a month’s time, the UK will reach the end of the transition period and resume its place as a fully sovereign trading nation. As colleagues across the House will be aware, our negotiations with our counterparts in the EU continue. The Government remain cautiously optimistic about the conclusion of those talks. However, there is no doubt that we have a responsibility to the people of the United Kingdom to be ready for every outcome. The measures contained in the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, which will be introduced and published following this debate, will play an important part in those preparations. The Bill will help to give confidence and certainty to the owners of businesses small and large throughout the United Kingdom after the end of the transition period.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend explain exactly how this matter we are dealing with now will be affected by the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about an hour ago, which also deals with the question of goods to be considered not at risk, and with questions relating to customs and tariffs, and the decision that appears to have been taken that the Government have agreed in the Joint Committee with Mr Šefčovič on a number of matters of which at the moment we only have an outline? I know the Chancellor will make a statement tomorrow, but perhaps my right hon. Friend could assist us in this matter, because it quite clearly has relevance to what he is saying now.
Jesse Norman
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the question, and I will touch on it in my remarks in my opening speech, but I should say to him that I am not better sighted on the breaking news than he is. He will have ample opportunity to address this matter tomorrow with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he comes to the House. As my hon. Friend will be aware, this matter was a product of a joint negotiation with the Commission, and the UK Government do not control the timing of that, and therefore the Chancellor will come at the earliest opportunity to the House to discuss the matter with colleagues from all political parties.
Today’s debate is on the important but technical ways and means motions that we need to pass before the Bill is debated tomorrow. If I may, I will talk a little about the Bill’s key elements in greater depth in order to foreshadow what we are going to see over the next day or so. The Bill will take forward important changes to our tax system to support the smooth continuation of business across the UK. In particular, it will ensure that we meet our commitments to the people and businesses of Northern Ireland in relation to the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. It will help to uphold our pledge to protect the UK’s internal market by ensuring that Northern Ireland goods have unfettered access to Great Britain. To that end, the Bill will set out a new framework for the UK’s customs, VAT and excise systems following the end of the transition period, so that there are clear rules in place for goods movements.
If I may, I will start with the areas of the Bill that relate to customs. The motion before us relates to legislation that will be required for customs duties and processes to support the practical implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. I want to underline to right hon. and hon. Members that the legislation follows directly from the commitments made in the Government’s Command Paper on the implementation of the protocol, which was published in May of this year. The House will recall that the Northern Ireland protocol guaranteed no checks or controls at the Northern Ireland-Ireland land border and maintained the UK as a single customs territory.
The legislation will achieve its aims through a series of targeted changes to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, focusing on five specific areas. First, the changes will ensure that EU goods imported to Northern Ireland from the European Union—for example, goods moved across the Ireland-Northern Ireland border—are not subject to customs duties or processes.
Secondly, the changes will introduce a framework for charges on goods arriving in Northern Ireland, both from Great Britain and from the rest of the world, that are considered at risk of moving into the EU, subject to conditions agreed under article 5 of the Northern Ireland protocol.
Thirdly, these alterations to the TCTA will establish the framework for the UK Government to offer waiver and reimbursements for tariffs that are still incurred when that is needed.
Fourthly, the customs aspect of the legislation will ensure that the UK’s customs regime applies to goods moved from Northern Ireland to Great Britain if they do not qualify for unfettered access. Anti-avoidance rules will prevent goods from being re-routed through Northern Ireland in order to enter Great Britain without undergoing UK import processes.
Finally, the rules will ensure that customs enforcements, penalty, review and appeal provisions in relation to duty can continue to work alongside EU legislation in Northern Ireland and can apply where required in relation to movements of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
I will, if I may, respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who raised the point earlier. He was right to point to the EU-UK joint statement that has just been made. This sets out the agreement in principle regarding the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. The Government are therefore not introducing the so-called notwithstanding provisions to the taxation Bill. In the light of that, the Opposition’s proposed amendment to the first motion is unnecessary.
This Bill will also allow us to amend and modify certain provisions in relation to VAT and excise, including mechanisms to ensure that, in so far as is possible, VAT will be accounted for in exactly the same way as it is today. In addition, the Bill will make provision for amending current legislation for excise duty to be charged when excise goods, such as alcohol, tobacco and certain fuels, are removed to Northern Ireland from Great Britain.
Sir William Cash
As my right hon. Friend knows extremely well, all these matters relating to the Northern Ireland protocol and the withdrawal agreement have direct relevance to the question of sovereignty. A statement was made by the Paymaster General yesterday relating to the question of negotiations, but the matters that have just been raised by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his statement to the press and to the public, but not to this House so far, have not been dealt with properly, because that statement has not yet been made to the House of Commons, although it has been published in general.
The point that I wish to make is simple and I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend addressed it. In withdrawing the “notwithstanding” provisions—clauses 45, 46 and 47 of the internal market Bill—which have a direct relevance to the question of sovereignty, does he have any comment to make and could he please help the House to understand, if these provisions are being withdrawn from the internal market Bill and will not be introduced in the taxation Bill, for which he does have responsibility, what are the implications for sovereignty with respect to what has been announced? I understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will make further comment tomorrow.
Jesse Norman
I thank my hon. Friend for having another go at this issue. Let me address the questions that he raises. I do not accept the point that he tries to make about whether this is, in some sense, an inappropriate procedure. As I have indicated, this is a product of a joint negotiation. The UK did not control the timing. It is as agreed with the other party to the debate and the discussion.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be coming to this House at the earliest opportunity once he returns from Brussels, in order to make a statement to discuss this and to receive scrutiny from my hon. Friend and from other Members of the House. That seems to me entirely appropriate. I cannot, of course, comment on matters relating to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, but what I will say is that, in withdrawing these “notwithstanding” provisions, we do not regard that UK sovereignty is being in any way impeded or undermined—on the contrary. Therefore, I think his concern can be and should be allayed, but I leave it to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to address those points tomorrow.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee heard evidence this morning that the IT systems and processing procedures to allow the Northern Ireland protocol to be implemented on 1 January are not in place. Will the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to rectify that situation to meet the technical provisions that he is bringing forward?
Jesse Norman
I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the work that we are doing in terms of legislation very much has as its counterpart a great effort to put in place all the procedures that may be required. Significant work has been done. He will be aware that there is a trader support service that works directly with people who will be importing into Northern Ireland to make it as close to a one-stop-shop arrangement as possible. What we are discussing today is the framework for the law under which those movements will operate.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The Minister has not yet reassured me about the sovereignty issue. Is it not the case that when any good in commercial quantity comes into the UK across any border—Northern Ireland or one of our marine borders—there are usually VAT and excise adjustments to be made and those take place by computer, not actually at the port of entry? Why do we need special arrangements here?
Jesse Norman
My right hon. Friend will be aware that under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, we have agreed arrangements for Northern Ireland with the European Union. The goal of the legislation is to make sure that, as far as possible, it is a completely seamless and straightforward process for those who are trading and that it is unfettered in regards to trade from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. That seems to me to be a very important technical fact.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
On the VAT issue, which comes to the sovereignty issue once again, under article 8 of the Northern Ireland protocol, Northern Ireland traders will be subject to not just UK VAT rules, but EU VAT rules. Do the provisions that the Minister is now putting forward exempt Northern Ireland traders from being subject to dual VAT rules, given the costs that that would present and the huge administrative issues which would arise from it?
Jesse Norman
We do not expect the vast majority of any trade into Northern Ireland to be subject to any dual VAT arrangements. The whole purpose of these rules is to put in place the simplest and most straightforward arrangements that can be put in place and that replicate in so far as possible the current experience that people will have when they trade with the EU.
Jesse Norman
I will give way once more, and then I will make some progress.
Sammy Wilson
The Minister has said that he would not expect that Northern Ireland traders will be subject to VAT rules of another jurisdiction, but article 8 of the protocol makes it clear that they will be subject to a dual VAT regime. Do these provisions remove that requirement from all traders in Northern Ireland, or are we giving away some of our sovereignty by accepting that some parts of the United Kingdom and some sectors in that part of the United Kingdom will be subject to VAT rules from another jurisdiction?
Jesse Norman
I am afraid that inadvertently the right hon. Gentleman has misrepresented my position, or misdescribed my position. I am saying that we are following the Northern Ireland protocol and, therefore, following any provisions that he refers to, but what we are doing is putting in place mechanisms that make them as easy and as facilitated as possible, so that the experience of someone trading in Northern Ireland should be as close as possible to that which they would have today.
The Bill will allow us to amend or modify certain provisions in relation to VAT and excise, including mechanisms to ensure that, in so far as possible, VAT will be accounted for in the same way as it is today, as I have said. In addition, it will make provision for amending current legislation for excise duty. Most of these changes are necessary to ensure that there is comprehensive VAT and excise legislation in place in relation to Northern Ireland at the end of the transition period.
In addition to those steps, there is also a small number of other taxation measures that need to be in place before the end of the transition period. They include provision for an increase in the rate of duty on aviation gasoline, which will apply across the UK. Otherwise known as avgas, the fuel is a form of leaded petrol predominantly used in private aviation.
Alan Brown
I notice the Minister said private aviation. Is the Treasury going to look at hydrocarbon fuel duty overall? Kerosene is zero duty rated, which is ridiculous, when motorists pay duty. We need a system in which the duty is applied to kerosene used by airlines, but given the fragile state of the flight industry, we should perhaps do that in a cost-neutral way to it and the Treasury, by incentivising the use of sustainable fuels. Is that something that the Treasury would look at?
Jesse Norman
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ingenuity in bringing this matter into a debate that has no direct relevance to that issue at all. I, like him, would like to see as green and sustainable a world as we can arrange. This is a measure that does not relate to kerosene; it relates to avgas, and it has to do with the need to harmonise—or rather, to manage—the relationship between Northern Ireland and the UK, and that is what we are seeking to do. The requirement for an increase is set out in the Northern Ireland protocol—again, it relates only to Northern Ireland—but we are expanding it to the whole of the UK to ensure consistency, to avoid burdens on business, and to reduce compliance risks for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It is extremely small in its magnitude.
The Bill will also make provision for the introduction of a new system for collecting VAT on goods entering the UK. This includes moving the VAT collection on certain imported goods away from the border, and removing the VAT relief on low-value consignments. Together, these provisions will help to level the playing field for UK businesses, and they will protect the UK high street from VAT-free imports. The Bill will also take forward measures to ensure that the Government retain their ability to prevent insurance-premium tax avoidance after the end of the transition period. This will provide Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs with access to the same tools to prevent insurance- premium tax evasion—sorry, I should have said “evasion” rather than “avoidance” earlier—regardless of whether or not an insurer is based in an EU member state.
Finally, the Bill will make provision for new powers that will enable HMRC to raise tax charges under the controlled foreign companies legislation for the period from 2013 to 2018. This technical provision will deal effectively and efficiently with the legacy state aid decision relating to the period before the UK left the European Union.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I wonder why, if the Bill is so technical and dry, and does not have much relevance to the statements that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is making outside the House, we cannot see a copy. Why do we have to listen to the Minister tell us all about it, but none of his hon. Friends or my colleagues on this side of the House can prepare properly to respond?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman. What I am actually doing is giving him a preview of a Bill that will be published in the normal way, after the resolutions debate has concluded. This is a debate on the resolutions required to lay the Bill, and we will do so as soon as the debate has concluded and the measures have been voted on. At that point, he will have a chance to see the Bill and its details.
Sir William Cash
In view of the statement that has been made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—a press statement has been put out; we do not have enough notice of that at the moment—will my right hon. Friend explain whether the Bill, which we will receive in a few moments, or whenever the ways and means resolution has been completed, will contain those notwithstanding provisions? On the basis, as I understand it, that it will not, as the Minister responsible for the Bill which is being brought in, I think, would he not know that the notwithstanding provisions had been removed? Presumably, they are not contained in the Bill—or are they?
Jesse Norman
I salute my hon. Friend’s astonishing indefatigability, but I am afraid his memory plays him false. I have already said that the notwithstanding provisions will not feature in this Bill. I said that earlier in my speech, but I am sorry that that was not as clear as it should have been, because that is the state of affairs.
This Bill will help the UK to cement its position as an independent trading nation at the end of the transition period. It will give businesses throughout the UK certainty about the arrangements that will apply from 1 January next year, and it will play a part in safeguarding the unity and integrity of this country, both in the months ahead and long into the future. I therefore commend these resolutions to the House.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment (a), at end add
“; but any such provision must not place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community which entered into force on 1 February 2020, and specifically its obligations under the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of that Agreement.”
It is 1,629 days since the UK voted to leave the European Union. In that time, our country has managed two general elections, and we are now on to our third Conservative Prime Minister. It is just 23 days until the United Kingdom’s transition period following its exit from the European Union comes to an end, yet this afternoon, we still have little clarity on the Bill that the Government tell us they will present tomorrow to set the legal framework for future taxation in Northern Ireland, for value added tax, for aviation fuel duty, for insurance-premium tax and for state aid rules.
With less than four weeks to go, the single sheet of A4 in front of us is almost all the detail that the Government have shared with Parliament about their new tax plans for next month. The only other information we have is that, just over two hours ago, the Government confirmed that they would withdraw clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and that the provisions of the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill would reflect the same approach. The Minister recently tabled a written ministerial statement to that effect, although he offered little more this afternoon by way of further clarity.
The clock has been ticking ever more loudly. People in this country might reasonably have assumed that by this late date, it would already be clear what the Government’s plans for Britain’s future were. They might have assumed that by this late date, there would be a clear agreement on our future relationship with the European Union.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Member makes an interesting point about the late stage of these negotiations. Who is she blaming for that—the United Kingdom Government or the European Union negotiators?
Bridget Phillipson
Time is ticking. We want to get a deal. We are frustrated that at this point, we still do not have a clear understanding about our future relationship. If the hon. Member shares those concerns, I suggest that he raises them with his own Prime Minister.
People in this country—especially those who live near our 300-mile border with the European Union, or those who live in or near our port towns and port cities —could be forgiven for expecting that trading relationships and rules on the movement of goods would long since have been finalised. Such reasonable assumptions would not have been partisan. After all, we have the Prime Minister’s own word for it: to leave with no deal would be a “failure of statecraft”.
One thousand six hundred and twenty-nine days is a very long time in which Ministers have chosen not to address the issues that leaving the European Union raises. It is 1,421 days since the Government announced that we would be leaving the single market. It is 1,350 days since the Government notified the EU of the United Kingdom’s decision to trigger article 50. It is 1,240 days since the Brexit talks began and 886 days since the Chequers plan was announced to the current Prime Minister by the previous Prime Minister. It is a little over 500 days since the Prime Minister took office. It is 320 days since the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 became law. They have had ample time.
John Redwood
Up to this point, Labour has always backed the EU position and not the UK position. Will the hon. Lady now use the Opposition’s voice to say that we should not give away our fish and our independent lawmaking?
Bridget Phillipson
That is, frankly, a ludicrous statement for the right hon. Gentleman to make.
With epic irresponsibility, successive Conservative Governments have wasted this time. Still businesses are not clear how they will be trading next month. Still people living along our land border with Ireland are unsure what daily life will bring in four weeks’ time. That epic irresponsibility comes in two forms. First, there is the immediate irresponsibility—the irresponsibility to businesses and working people; to everyone who needs to be able to plan their future and their finances; to everyone who wants the simple security, stability and certainty that a responsible Government should provide; to everyone who believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said on the “Today” programme a year ago tomorrow,
“We won’t need to plan for no deal because we will have a deal”;
and to everyone who believed the former International Trade Secretary when he told us that a trade deal with the EU would be
“one of the easiest in human history.”
That irresponsibility has meant months and years of uncertainty and insecurity for so many families and so many firms. Make no mistake: the Conservative party has now lost forever any claim to be the party of business. That irresponsibility means that people in Fermanagh, Galloway, Anglesey, Kent and all around our key ports today still face the risk of their roads being clogged with queues of lorries for months on end. That irresponsibility—a failure to engage with the problems of our country, to look ahead and to plan, to lead and to rise to the level of events—is sadly of a piece with the Government’s wider failures in recent months.
The country has suffered terribly from the pandemic: the worst economic hit in the G7; the worst level of excess deaths in Europe; a Government who are again and again caught on the hop, scrambling to catch up with the consequences of their own incompetence; a Government who never use the time they have to get ahead of the problems that they know are coming. It is all too familiar. It is the story of everything that this Government touch.
If the Government had got ahead of the issues that our country faces, we would have had a Budget, not a statement, in the summer. Instead of multiple episodes of the winter economy plan, we would have had a Finance Bill with proper time for debate, and proper time for businesses to plan on that basis. But just as the Government were behind the curve on covid, so they are behind the curve on Brexit. And here we are, with tax decisions for next month being bundled together into a last-minute Bill, which they have not yet even published—inaction, incompetence, and scrambling to fix the mess that they have created themselves, again and again, month after month.
Jesse Norman
I am awfully grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Could she possibly name any EU treaty that has not been concluded by the EU at the last minute?
Bridget Phillipson
I look forward to seeing in detail what the Government intend to bring forward on our future trading relationship, as that will determine so much around what our businesses will need for years into the future. I believe that our country is a great place to do business. I want all our businesses to succeed into the future. That is why it is so important that we see a good deal for our country, and that the Government use the time they still have available to them well. They have not done so yet. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister later about exactly what the Government intend to set out in this legislation, because he has not really offered a great deal so far this afternoon.
The Government’s irresponsibility has not been limited to inaction and incompetence in the face of a ticking clock. There is also the greater irresponsibility that we have seen in recent months—an irresponsibility of which I fear the consequences may last for generations—and that is the irresponsibility with which this Government have made it clear that they are prepared to break international law. The world will not forget that just weeks ago the Government introduced legislation to tear up an international agreement that was signed less than a year ago. We welcome the fact that they now propose to withdraw those measures, but we fear that the damage has been done. The Government threatened to break the law to get their own way. What message does that send to Britain’s friends and allies with whom we have signed that agreement, with whom we have other agreements and with whom we hope to conclude future agreements?
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
You talked about the notwithstanding clauses as irresponsible and said that the damage may have been done, but would you like to join me in welcoming the Government reaching an agreement in the Joint Committee, as was announced just a couple of hours ago, on the issues that those clauses were intended to address?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just a gentle reminder not to use the word “you” to the shadow Minister, because “you” means me.
Bridget Phillipson
In fact, I had just indicated that very point. Everyone on the Opposition Benches is delighted that the Government have in recent days managed to conclude a trade deal with North Macedonia, but what message does it send to our friends in the USA, who have made their position on this point very clear, that the Government no longer regard it as at all times non-negotiable that they will uphold the rule of law? It is because of our concerns on that point that we have tabled the selected amendment to the first resolution. We wish to append the text of the first resolution, at the end, with a clear limitation that provisions under that resolution may not place this country in breach of its obligations under law. The amendment would insert new text at the end of the current text of the first resolution to ensure that
“any such provision must not place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community…and specifically its obligations under the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of that Agreement.”
Obviously, in the last two hours the Government have announced that they have reached an agreement in principle with the European Union on that protocol and will therefore resile from their expressed intention to enact legislation that would have breached those agreements. Of course, Opposition Members welcome that news, even as we find it astonishing that it should ever have been delivered and shambolic that it arrives so late. We would not, until this autumn, have ever imagined it necessary to make it clear in a resolution of the House that the Government, in exercising their powers, must obey international agreements into which they freely entered. Yet, as a result of the deep irresponsibility of the Government, that is precisely where we find ourselves today. We will not oppose the substantive resolutions, and we shall wait to see what further reassurances the Minister can provide before deciding whether to press our amendment to a vote.
We recognise that there needs to be a lawful basis for the collection of VAT, customs duties, aviation fuel duty and insurance premium tax, even while we do not yet know what the Government propose to table by way of a Bill. Let me repeat that: we do not yet know what the Government propose to table by way of a Bill—less than 24 hours before its Second Reading and Committee of the Whole House. Less than a month before we leave the European Union, we simply do not know with any certainty what measures the Government intend to set out. This extraordinary state of affairs undermines the ability of Members to give such important legislation the scrutiny it rightly deserves, not to mention the ability of businesses to plan. Is the Minister really telling us that it was not possible before today to set out the Government’s proposals on aviation fuel duty or insurance premium tax? Of course it was. These clauses were held back—they still are—so that the Government could, until a few hours ago, continue to brandish the threat of breaking international law as part of their negotiating tactics with the European Union, believing they have an ace up their sleeves, when in fact the whole world sees the Government as a pack of jokers.
Although we will not oppose these resolutions, we cannot and will not vote for any measures that the Government introduce that would breach agreements into which this country has entered with her friends and allies, because the consequences of such unlawful acts have been made clear to us. The Speaker of the United States 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.”
Sammy Wilson
I note the hon. Lady’s concern for Northern Ireland, the Good Friday agreement and the people of Northern Ireland, but does she not recognise that if the protocol goes through in its present form, the EU has made it clear that it will require measures to be implemented that have already led to supermarkets saying that they will no longer operate in Northern Ireland—that they will withdraw from Northern Ireland? The goods that would be supplied from here to Northern Ireland will no longer be supplied. I am only talking about one limited area. How can she defend that protocol, which would so adversely affect people in Northern Ireland?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand the point he raises, but I am afraid I do not share his assessment of the situation. I say to him sincerely that I think it is important that we have certainty around this area. The Government’s approach on this has been misguided and has caused real damage. However, while understanding his concerns, I am afraid I do not recognise his assessment of the situation.
We hope the commitments announced earlier today by Ministers will be further repeated in this place, and that the assurances regarding the withdrawal of the offending clauses of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill will be honoured. Ensuring that the UK’s forthcoming tax legislation does not breach our international treaty commitments, and in so doing put the Good Friday agreement at risk, is the sole purpose of our amendment. I do not doubt that there will be those on the Government Benches who regard such an amendment as weakening their hand, even as they too welcome the Government’s recent announcement. To them, seeking to legislate to break international law may have seemed a way of showing that they mean business. The delusion would be comic were the consequences not so grave. A negotiation in which one party makes it clear that it cannot be trusted—not inadvertently, but by what passes for strategy—is not one on which strong future relationships will be built, nor one that will commend us to other nations as a reliable partner for trade or security. What the Government have tossed away this autumn in the search for a fleeting advantage is a reputation that will take our country many years to regain.
Ways and Means resolutions enable the House to give effect to the taxation decisions of the Government for the year ahead. Some of those taxes and duties will fall more heavily on some of us than others. But for the Government’s extraordinary irresponsibility, which today’s events illustrate so powerfully, I fear the price will be paid by all of us, not just next month or next year but for many years to come.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I have already made a number of comments to the Minister in charge of this motion, also in respect of the Bill that we have not yet seen. It seems quite extraordinary, if I may say so, that we are being asked to give such blanket agreement to the Ways and Means resolution, which is the manner in which the money is raised to deal with the questions that arise in respect of the Bill, when we have not actually seen a copy of the Bill itself and therefore do not know what the provisions refer to.
I see, for example, that the motion includes reference to amending section 9A of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, part 3 of the Value Added Tax (Place of Supply of Goods) Order 2004, schedule 4B to that Act, which relates to call-off stock arrangements, section 18A of that Act, which affects fiscal warehousing, and paragraph 114(2) of schedule 8 to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. It also includes proposals relating to the rate of fuel duty on aviation gasoline, amending section 6(1A)(aa) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979. It also deals with value added tax questions relating to such matters, and makes provision regarding value added tax in cases involving
“supplies of goods by persons established outside the United Kingdom that are facilitated by online marketplaces”,
or
“the importation into the United Kingdom of goods of a low value.”
There are also provisions relating to the insurance premium tax in respect of the liability of the insured, amending section 65 of the Finance Act 1994, and matters relating to the recovery of unlawful state aid in respect of controlled foreign companies, in particular dealing with the Commission decision of 2019 relating to state aid
“concerning the CFC Group Financing Exemption.”
That gives some indication of the breadth, and also the depth, of these matters. It is very difficult, to put it bluntly, to dissect, comment on and make what I would describe as a full analysis of a provision that we have not yet seen, and as I had not actually seen these—nor did I know that they were going to be included until I got notice of them just now—I am not in a position to be able to do more than to say that I regard the whole question of these provisions as something that will obviously have to be dealt with when we actually see the Bill. What we have not seen, we cannot really comment on. It is really almost Alice in Wonderland, isn’t it? The fact remains that there are important issues of principle in relation to all this, and the notes that I have received raise some interesting questions. I do not know whether those notes have been made generally available.
John Redwood
Will my hon. Friend comment on the sovereignty issue, which is at the heart of all this? I was not satisfied by the Minister’s reply, when my hon. Friend was asking very good questions. Does he share my worry that we have not solved the sovereignty issue over Northern Ireland in this provision, and that we are making it worse?
Sir William Cash
My right hon. Friend might have anticipated that I would raise this very question with the Minister, as I did when he was in mid-flow at the beginning of these proceedings. That was the question I asked, and my right hon. Friend has now referred to it. I am extremely supportive of the Government in relation to Brexit and to the statements that have repeatedly been made not only by the Prime Minister but by other members of the Cabinet, including the Paymaster General in the statement that she made yesterday, in which the word “sovereignty” was completely reaffirmed and stated over and over again, and I take the Government at their word. But of course issues of the kind that we are dealing with do get somewhat obscured sometimes by provisions of legislation, particularly when we have not seen the legislation but are asked to comment on it. That makes life quite difficult in being able to identify with precision exactly what effect this would have on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, save only to say that yesterday the House of Commons, by a majority of something like 90, passed provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, and one would therefore have expected the Bill that is under consideration now—which must have been prepared yesterday when we were debating the other one, because otherwise it could not have been printed—to have contained similar provisions.
I am left in a bit of quandary until we can see that this Bill does not contain the notwithstanding provisions that were put in yesterday, which the House decided on, in principle, in the interests of sovereignty. I know a bit about that. I was also responsible for section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was passed by a majority of 120 with notwithstanding provisions in it at the beginning of the year. So for practical purposes, the principle of whether notwithstanding provisions are needed has already been established.
I repeat that I am very supportive of the Government and very supportive of the Prime Minister, and I make that absolutely crystal clear, but that makes it absolutely essential for us to have a very clear understanding about the reasons for withdrawing the provisions that were passed in respect of this Bill and were passed in respect of the other Bill yesterday, on the same principles of sovereignty as would need to be put forward under section 38 of the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act, which, by the way, is still in statute and can still be used —and will be, I hope, as we move forward.
The Government are withdrawing these provisions of the Bill, which is presumably done for some reason that I cannot quite get but is to do with managing to assuage some of the hostility in the House of the Lords and the hostility that has led the European Union and the Commission to threaten legal proceedings unless we withdraw them. No doubt all this is being done in an attempt to arrive at some sensible or other kind of conclusion and settlement.
Sir William Cash
But I reserve judgment on that until I have heard what my right hon. Friend says.
John Redwood
Is it not up to Parliament to withdraw the provisions that we were asked to support, and did support, yesterday? Was there not a long debate in which my hon. Friend made a contribution, while I was arguing the case elsewhere? Were we wasting our time? It seems to me that Parliament needs to be asked again if Ministers have changed their minds.
Sir William Cash
Indeed.
It is extremely important to point out that these notwithstanding provisions are directly related to the issue of sovereignty, but also related to the substance of our leaving the European Union. Not until we see a copy of the Bill will we be able to make the judgment about the extent to which they would impair or affect that sovereignty. We will have to wait until tomorrow to see exactly what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster presents to the House. We have an outline, but no more than that. The question of sovereignty will no doubt be much discussed tomorrow during his statement.
I heard the Opposition spokesman declaiming, in line with the amendment that they have tabled, that this is all about breaches of international law. I have to say to the hon. Lady that in the context of the continuous provisions on a whole range of matters, including Finance Bills that the Labour party was responsible for bringing in when it was in government, there are stacks—hosts—of treaty overrides. As I said in my contribution yesterday, such overrides have been passed as Labour party proposals when it was in government, by the coalition in 2010 and the years following that when the Liberal Democrats were involved, and also in some Conservative measures that have been passed that are overrides of international law. I pointed out yesterday that it has been done in the past for very good reasons of national interest, including economic national interests, as they clearly have been in the past. Some of them were hugely important constitutional issues—for example, affecting the independence of India and Pakistan—and there were other provisions that I will not go into in detail now, but I have put them all out there on the record.
The extraordinary thing is putting down this amendment based on so-called breach of international law, when actually the Labour party itself has done exactly the same in consistency with—not inconsistent with, but in consistency with—international law. Article 46 makes this abundantly clear. I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) conceded that point on the Floor of the House yesterday when he said, at last, that he was going to support the Government on this question. Lord Judge, a very distinguished judge in the House of Lords—the ex-Lord Chief Justice—who has been leading the argument on the question of international law, has said, in effect, that in principle he knew there was a moment at which there were circumstances whereby a given Government would be entitled to take such steps as were necessary in order to protect the national interest.
Nothing could be more important than protecting our sovereignty. That is what this whole Brexit is about. It is about being able to ensure our having left the European Union lawfully by having passed all the Acts of Parliament—and the House of Lords having passed all those Acts of Parliament as well—and in addition to that, having had a referendum on the votes of the people of this country, which itself was based on the authorisation by Parliament that the referendum should be allowed to take place. That was passed in the House of Lords and the House of Commons—in the House of Commons, incidentally, by six to one—and it was followed, as I have said, by a series of other enactments.
The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 was passed by 499 to 120, including by the Labour party, so there should not be any question about that, and I do not believe that the Labour party has anything to gain by trying to argue that somehow or other we have unlawfully left the European Union, which is what it seems to be implying in its amendment. Then we move on to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which, as I pointed out in an intervention, was passed by 120 in this House on Second Reading. It contained the notwithstanding provisions, in section 38, that I had proposed to the Government on 17 October last year. For all these reasons, we have not only lawfully left, but lawfully left on the basis of our sovereignty, which has been endorsed not only by the referendum and by the voters of this country, but by their representatives in this House as the House of Commons. They are elected, unlike the House of Lords, and in the House of Commons they have endorsed these provisions by massive majorities. So what on earth would be the purpose of removing provisions that ensure that our sovereignty can be maintained?
I can almost hear somebody on the Government Benches perhaps thinking to themselves, “Well, they’re not needed because, actually, the situation has now been firmly dealt with in the Joint Committee”. Of that we know nothing, more or less, because I have asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster three times to appear in front of our European Scrutiny Committee, and thus far he has not come on these matters. He knows that, and I have had some very diligent, shall we say, correspondence with him on his not attending, although he did allow the Paymaster General to come and she did appear before us a few weeks ago.
The point I am making is that this is a critical time in our history. This is the moment when we regain our sovereignty. It is not just a philosophical statement or a constitutional theory; it is actually about the practicality of how this country is governed. It is as simple as that. We are governed by a constitutional arrangement under which, through parliamentary government, the Members of Parliament who are who are elected by the voters pass laws that are imposed upon the people by the consent of those representatives. It is as simple as that.
John Redwood
Will my hon. Friend confirm that when his admirable clause 38 was tried on the previous Prime Minister, she rejected it on the grounds that it would mean that Parliament could unilaterally override the withdrawal agreement if it wished, and she did not want that?
Sir William Cash
Absolutely, which was precisely why I brought it forward. It solved a lot of problems.
I must say that the reasons for the notwithstanding provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill were based on the same principle of sovereignty, and the same applies to the taxation Bill, in which it was understood that the notwithstanding provisions would be included. I have not seen the Bill yet—I wait to see it with interest—but I am assuming that the adjustment will not appear. Therefore, I reserve my position with respect to the question of the notwithstanding arrangements, because I need to be satisfied that there is no impugnment of our sovereignty by virtue of the removal of those provisions in this Bill. It is as simple as that. I could say much more, but I do not think it will be strictly speaking necessary for me to do so, because I have dealt with all the matters of principle that arise.
I am not quite sure how authoritative the material I have been supplied with is, only because it was given to me by somebody associated with the Government and I am not at all sure whether it is in the Library of the House of Commons; all I can say that it is quite extensive and that it deals with a lot of matters that the Minister has already dealt with and that no doubt will be further examined when we get to see the Bill itself. However, I notice that it does include such matters as the fact that, whatever the outcome of the FTA and joint committee negotiations,
“we have an obligation to the people of Northern Ireland to make sure that they continue to have unfettered access to the UK under all circumstances, to ensure that there are no tariffs on goods remaining within the UK customs territory and to ensure that there is no legal confusion about the fact that, while Northern Ireland will remain subject to EU state aid rules for the duration of the protocol, Great Britain will not be subject to EU rules in this area. That is the Government’s overriding priority.”
I have heard that said before, in one form or another, but I think we need to note that that is what this Bill does. There are other provisions relating to Northern Ireland customs and Northern Ireland VAT and excise on goods, and a provision that says:
“VAT will be accounted for the same way as it is today, with Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK’s VAT and excise system”—
we will check that when we see the Bill.
“HMRC will continue to be responsible for the operation and collection of the revenues, which will not be passed on to the EU”—
a-ha!—
“while Parliament will remain responsible for setting VAT and excise rates across the UK.”
I am not going to be entirely negative about all this; I never am. I rely with confidence on what the Government have said with respect to sovereignty and with respect to tax.
These are important questions. I have confidence in the Prime Minister. I have confidence in the fact that we have had a general election and that the manifesto made the whole of the Brexit question quite clear to the people who voted, giving us a majority of around 80 and, in my own case, as much as 63% of the vote in my constituency, for which I am deeply grateful to my constituents. All I can say is that we will be watching all these matters with great diligence and with a constructive approach, because we hope and trust that, when we have been through the full proceedings on this Bill and, indeed, finalised the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, that confidence will be entirely justified and there will be no impairment of our sovereignty as the United Kingdom, which is what this is all about.
I will conclude simply by saying this. Not since 1688 have we been faced with a situation of such historic importance, other than when we went into the European Union under the false pretences of a White Paper that turned out, unfortunately, to be misleading the British people. There have been two world wars where people have tried to take over this country by force of arms—in particular Germany—and I simply say this: this is the most important moment in our history in the last 250 years, whereby we have regained the sovereignty that was embedded in the arrangements after 1688-89.
By gradual evolution, we developed parliamentary government and representative government. We are described as the mother of Parliaments, as John Bright put it. This is our sovereignty, and we have absolute, total determination—as I understand it, so does the Prime Minister—to maintain that. It is about democracy; it is about freedom. It is what Churchill was proud of; it is what Margaret Thatcher was proud of; it is what we are proud of. I simply make this final point: we will maintain our sovereignty at any price.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure, I guess, to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). He was talking about 1688; I think we travelled there in real time, but I thank him very much for the comments that he made.
This time last year, we were all in the throes of a slightly surreal Christmas general election, pounding the streets and chapping the doors in the freezing cold, listening carefully to the concerns of our constituents. My constituents were deeply concerned about the state the UK was in, and they remain concerned today.
It is difficult to believe that we are a full year on since the Conservative party won a majority in this place with promises of a Brexit deal that was “oven ready”. I say it is difficult to believe because we are now just a couple of weeks from the end of the transition period and there still is not anything of substance in the oven. I am not even convinced, actually, that the Government have an oven. The only thing the Prime Minister has driven a bulldozer through lately is his own reputation, treating these negotiations as a game and continuing to pursue a no-deal Brexit in the middle of a global pandemic as households and businesses in this country struggle with the second wave of covid-19.
Anthony Browne
I wonder whether the hon. Member would like to join me in making it clear to the British public that the phrase “oven ready” was used about the withdrawal agreement, which we did indeed vote into law one week after the general election, not about the trade deal. The Prime Minister never described the trade deal as “oven ready”. Would the hon. Member like to join me in making it clear to the British public that that is the case?
Alison Thewliss
It is very difficult to understand anything that the Prime Minister says because he swivels around on just about everything that he has ever said. He had two positions on whether we should leave the EU, so who knows whether he has an oven-ready deal, an oven or even a microwave? Who can really tell? It is quite difficult to establish that. Perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, we could have a TV mounted in the Chamber somewhere showing BBC live news so that we can keep track of what is happening in the negotiations, as the new Brexit countdown calculator they have in the corner ticks away.
It is no secret that these negotiations have been difficult and that the UK Government have not helped themselves as we have gone through them. The UK’s leaving the EU, because of the attitude that the UK has taken, was always going to be the messiest of messy divorces, but the Government have done absolutely no favours in the way they have approached things.
The hon. Member for Stone talked for 21 minutes, I think, about things that he could not see in terms of the Bill that is supposed to be being brought forward tomorrow. The Minister said from the Dispatch Box that he was no better sighted on where things are at with the negotiations than the hon. Member for Stone, who also regards this whole situation as extraordinary. The Minister says that this is going to be debated in the normal way, but there is nothing normal about this situation here today. We go to the Public Bill Office and ask it for advice on what is in the Bill and it does not know; we ask the Library what is in the Bill and it does not know. None of this is their fault; it is the Government’s fault that we do not know what is in this Bill. It is an absolute farce.
These six resolutions and this phantom Bill are a prime example of the procedural chaos that has dominated the Government’s handling of Brexit. Before the taxation Bill has even been published, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says he
“will keep under review the content”
relating to the Northern Ireland protocol. Yesterday, a statement from 10 Downing Street stated:
“Good progress continues to be made regarding the decision as to which goods are ‘at risk’ of entering the EU market. Talks continue this afternoon. In the light of those discussions, the government will keep under review the content of the forthcoming Taxation Bill.”
At 1.16 this afternoon, we had a tweet from Maroš Šefčovič, one of the negotiators, but we still do not know the implications of today’s announcement and it is very difficult to see exactly what is going to happen. The joint statement talks about determining the criteria for goods to be considered not “at risk” of entering the EU, but we do not know what that means. It mentions an agreement in principle, but the Government have not been very principled in the way they have approached anything. How the EU can trust them I do not know.
Kevin Hollinrake
Every business person would ideally like to have seen the deal done and dusted some months before, but on the basis that the European Union made a commitment to an ambitious free trade agreement, are there no words of criticism that the hon. Lady is willing to use regarding its part in these negotiations that are taking so long?
Alison Thewliss
I think the EU has been more than patient for some time, to try to get some kind of agreement and something sorted out. The UK Government have held two general elections in that time, and we have had several different Prime Ministers. The Government have been an absolute shambles from start to end, and that is where we are today.
Alan Brown
Despite the valiant efforts of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), is it not the case that if the EU was not so patient, we would already have suffered a no-deal crash out months ago, perhaps even a year ago?
Alison Thewliss
The EU has done everything it can because it knows it is everybody’s interest to have a deal.
Alison Thewliss
I will make some progress and bring the right hon. Gentleman in later on. It is interesting that Tony Connelly from RTE said that the EU nations are watching closely to ensure that the relevant clauses are effectively withdrawn from the Bill. If I were them, I would be looking very dubiously at the UK Government on that issue, because we do not know what is going to happen.
It is quite surreal to prepare for a Bill that we have not yet seen, and from which clauses that do not yet exist could still be removed or added, after being rubber-stamped by the House. The six ways and means resolutions on one side of A4 paper represent a significant volume of very detailed VAT resolutions. Resolution 6 alone refers to a Commission decision that runs to some 39 pages on the treatment of CFC group financing exemptions to state aid, and there is still no detail on specifically how the Government wish to amend the substantial pieces of taxation legislation.
We would have advance notice of a Finance Bill, for example. We would have Second Reading, Committee, and Report over an extended period. That time would allow evidence and engagement with stakeholders, but that is not so with these resolutions. To take an example, the Finance Bill earlier this year contained a solid five and a half pages on the detail of call-off stock arrangements. We debated them in the Bill Committee at great length, and it was tremendously exciting.
Alison Thewliss
If the right hon. Gentleman can tell me something about call-off stock arrangements and what the Government are proposing, I will let him in.
John Redwood
I would like to know why the hon. Lady supports the EU position on everything. On the question of fish, does she support the general EU smash-and-grab raid for most of the fish, or does she prefer the French version, which is to take practically the whole lot?
Alison Thewliss
I would prefer it if the Government would listen to the concerns of west coast fisheries in Scotland that do not want their fish to die and rot in lorries at Dover because the Government have not sorted out the trading customs.
Members of the House are expected to scrutinise the new tax regime in a fast-tracked timetable with no time for debate or consultation with businesses. There are a host of details in the VAT resolutions. I went through them this morning. I copied them and pasted them, and took them from the VAT regulations that currently exist. That runs to some 20 pages of detail on those VAT resolutions. [Interruption.] I can see the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton waiting for me to read through those 20 pages, but I am not going to do that. I will send him a copy if he would like to read it over later. We will certainly be further forward than we are with the Government concluding anything.
There is a lot of detail in the resolutions and we need to know what exactly is going to happen with them. There are issues on penalties relating to VAT in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. There are issues to do with the importing of goods as well, and how that is going to work. The guidance on the resolution
“Value added tax (online sales by overseas persons and low value importations)
That provision may be made for the purposes of value added tax in cases involving—
(a) supplies of goods by persons established outside the United Kingdom that are facilitated by online marketplaces, or
(b) the importation into the United Kingdom of goods of a low value.”
runs to 11 pages on the UK Government’s website. There are 11 pages of detail, but we do not know what the Government are proposing to change here. We do not know what the Government are proposing to do here and that is very unfortunate. The issue really does follow on from that: we do not know what the Government are going to do and we do not have adequate time to scrutinise all the papers and see what is in them. We do not know whether the Government’s drafting will actually work, when it has been done in such haste.
Patrick Grady
My hon. Friend is providing a ray of sunshine in between the dark clouds of the Maastricht rebels who are featuring so heavily on today’s call list. Is it not the case that it is not just us and the Opposition who do not know what is going on? Clearly, the Government do not know what is going on either. The Bill has not been published because there is a massive copy-and-paste job going on somewhere in Her Majesty’s Treasury right now, so that they can have it ready. That is probably why we are going to be speaking until 7 pm—they will need that length of time to get the thing finalised, printed and in the Vote Office.
Alison Thewliss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps I should send the Minister my copy-and-paste job from earlier and that would help him out.
But this really matters. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) talked earlier about people, supermarkets, food arriving and places, and what the impact will be. The Road Haulage Association’s director, Martin Reid, has warned:
“Regardless of whether there is a deal or not, there will still be customs requirements and it’s the customs requirements that will cause the delays. Those delays could run on for at least the first quarter”
of next year. The post-transition situation will be chaotic and that will be devastating for business, particularly the way the Government are going about it. Further to that, speaking to The Press and Journal, Mr Reid said the fact that issues still remain to be resolved is shocking:
“The hauliers’ handbook that they produced contains links that take you nowhere, so we’re nowhere near the level of information that is required basically. For goods moving to Ireland, we are still not 100% sure what it’s going to look like; as for moving through the short straits, we still have a great deal of concern as to the government’s capability either to have the right people in place.”
Nothing the Minister has said this afternoon—or indeed, the scuttling that is going on, on the Government Front Bench just now—gives us any reassurance as to what is going to happen.
Business bodies in Northern Ireland’s legislative committees have expressed concern about potential compliance costs for the future operation of VAT and excise, and nobody knows what it is going to look like. Businesses and farmers in Northern Ireland have been clear that they are not ready for a no-deal scenario. They have said it will place them under unbearable and unnecessary strain. The UK Government are providing no technical detail and very little guidance to those businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) pointed out so well earlier on, the IT system to support all of that just is not there. We heard similar evidence to the Treasury Committee. Businesses have begged the UK Government to reach an agreement, but the UK Government have indulged in bad faith negotiating at every turn.
Sir William Cash
On the question of bad faith, I do not know whether the hon. Lady heard what I said yesterday, but I will say this: there has never been a more egregious example of bad faith than the manner in which the EU sought to bounce the Government in the middle, and indeed at the end, of the negotiations. It is quite outrageous and in itself warrants the use of article 46, which is there to terminate the agreement if the Government cannot get what they need to preserve our sovereignty.
Alison Thewliss
I do not really agree with the point the hon. Gentleman makes. That probably will not surprise him. The difficulty with all of this is that the UK has never really known what it wanted.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman says sovereignty. I am not sure he really understands that either.
The UK Government have not known what they wanted from this situation from the start. I commend the Brexiteers on the Conservative Benches. They have taken this as far as it can go and they have got what they wanted. Perhaps they knew what they wanted, but the Government have not had a clue. That has been clear all the way through and that is part of the reason we are in the difficulties we are in.
The resolutions in front of us do not represent clever negotiating tactics by the UK Government. On the Opposition Benches, on the Government Benches and in Brussels, everyone can see quite plainly the Government’s recklessness in this scenario. At every stage of this laborious and unnecessary process, they have sought to undermine trust in proceedings. Any remaining shreds of goodwill that the UK Government have internationally are in absolute tatters. The UK Government are at the wind-up at a time when we no longer have time to waste. An EU diplomat quoted in the Financial Times this morning said that the moves of the UK Government amounted to the UK
“trying to use rogue behaviour as leverage”.
Presumably the UK Government have caved today in taking the clauses out of the Bill, but we have to ask why they were there in the first place. How does it help us to say that we will break international law? It is a pretty basic principle that the Government have breached. Presumably, if the negotiations take a further slide backwards, the clauses can be put back in again. With apologies to Mark Durkan, because it is the kind of thing he would have said, it is hokey-cokey legislation.
It is perhaps not a surprise to those of us in Scotland that the Prime Minister and this Tory Government would sell a devolved nation down the river in order to appease those on the more extreme fringes of their party—
Jesse Norman
Did the hon. Lady say that the Government had sold someone down the river?
Alison Thewliss
Devolution. If the Minister was paying attention, I said devolution has been sold down the river—
Alison Thewliss
But devolution has been fundamentally undermined—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will like that phrasing better. Devolution has been fundamentally undermined by the actions of the Government in the internal market Bill yesterday, ripping up the very principles by which devolution was established 20 years ago. Scotland did not vote for any of this—not in the EU referendum, not in either of the snap general elections this Government have called, and not in the European elections—not once, but we are being dragged off the cliff edge anyway.
Even before the pandemic, modelling suggested that a no deal would decrease Scotland’s GDP by 6.1%, considerably more than even the 2008 crash. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that a no deal Brexit on 1 January would inflict a cost on the UK economy of about £40 billion, and increase unemployment by 300,000 next year. All this while the UK economy is already among the worst performing in the OECD due to the UK Government’s shambolic handling of covid.
Jim Harra, the head of HMRC, confirmed at the Treasury Committee yesterday that doing the paperwork alone for this will cost business an eye-watering £7.5 billion a year. That is £7.5 billion that businesses will not have to spend on improving their businesses, increasing staff wages or investing in productivity. There will be 265 million customs forms after Brexit, compared with 54 million now. What a complete and utter waste of everyone’s time and money, and nobody put that on the side of a bus.
Not content with inflicting damage on our economy, these resolutions and the behaviour of the UK Government throughout this process permanently damage and erode trust in the devolution settlement. We are seeing a shameless power grab of state aid powers that should have been devolved, quite rightly, to the Scottish Parliament.
There is still time to pull back from the no deal cliff edge. The choice is entirely the Prime Minister’s to make. It is as clear as day that Westminster is acting against Scotland’s interests. It is little wonder to any of us on these Benches that the majority of Scots now support independence. One of those people who supported Scottish independence relentlessly was Craig Munro, who passed away just recently, and our thoughts are with his sister Gail and his son Sam. They will be devastated that he will not be here to see independence when it comes, because it is there to be won for all of us. More and more people are seeing the urgent need for independence to protect Scotland’s place in Europe and all the powers that we have come to enjoy through devolution. Scotland will complete that journey. The UK Government’s behaviour through all of this is only hastening that journey’s end.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I declare my business interests in the register.
I came to this debate expecting to hear the Minister set out a vision of post-Brexit Britain, how the taxation system will be transformed and how VAT will be changed to encourage our businesses and give our consumers a better time. Instead, we have six resolutions that are mainly about trying to make sure that the Government can get even more VAT out of people after we have left than before. The Government could have done that at any time. Where is the vision that we will have a much better tax system after Brexit?
We are taking back control of VAT, which was almost entirely under EU control. The Government say, for example, they wish to be a green Government, but these measures will not even take VAT off a whole series of green products, which should not have VAT on them if the Government are trying to encourage people to insulate their homes, change their boiler controls or put in more fuel-efficient ways of heating their homes. The Minister has failed this very simple test.
We have six resolutions about a piece of legislation which we are not allowed to see until after the debate. It is a piece of legislation that will be very complex, because it is mainly about the techniques of raising revenue and making sure that no revenue escapes. However, the Brexit voters out there—the majority in the country—have had to vote three times now for Brexit to make it clear to the House of Commons that they want even this House of Commons to be in charge, even though there are still too many MPs on the Opposition Benches who hate the idea of this country legislating for and governing itself and think that every law that comes from Europe is wise and necessary and every law that is made here is somehow inappropriate.
We want our Ministers to say, “No, we are the people’s representatives. We had the majority in the election and we are going to transform our country’s economy, recover the economy from covid-19 and level up the country.” That requires bold and visionary leadership and it certainly requires pretty fundamental tax changes. VAT rates on some things are too high. VAT should not be imposed on some things at all. We need to remodel that tax. We need to look again at our corporate taxes, where a series of judgments by the European Court of Justice prevented this country levying all the corporate taxes that it wished to raise.
Patrick Grady
I probably should not rise to the bait, but does the right hon. Gentleman honestly think that the way the Government are treating the House tonight is an expression of parliamentary sovereignty? Is this what he really campaigned for over all these years, so that the Government could fast-track major financial legislation, bounce it through the House of Commons, not give us the information we are looking for and not subject it to proper debate? Is that what he campaigned for for all these years?
John Redwood
The answer is that I campaigned for this Parliament to take control and use it in the interests of the people, which is why I am making the speech that I am making. Why does the hon. Gentleman not listen to it instead of planning an intervention for a speech I am not making? I am urging the Government to take back control and use it in the way that the public would like to see them use it.
I must take up the point of sovereignty. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is quite right to go back to that. The simple truth about Brexit is that Brexit voters knew exactly what we were voting for. We understood the slogan “Take back control”, and we think control—the right of self-government, the right to trust people in these Houses of Parliament to make decisions for us or the right to throw them out if they are useless—is fundamental to our freedoms and living in a democracy. You do not bargain those away in some kind of dispute about tariffs. You do not argue about those in the context of making compromises.
This is the fundamental truth of Brexit. Like practically every other country in the world that is not a member of the EU, we just want to be free to make those decisions and laws that we can make and have representative institutions—a great Parliament—in order to do that. We clearly need to train some of the parliamentarians in the idea that we can make better laws here than people can make for us abroad and that we can modify European laws that we currently have so that they work in our interests better.
Alison Thewliss
Does making better laws not start with letting MPs see a Bill before it exists?
John Redwood
I do not disagree with the hon. Lady. I have said that I want to debate a real Bill. I am giving ideas to the Minister because I do not think what he has in mind for this Bill is going to quite suit me. I want to pep it up. I want to make it more exciting so that we can go out to the public and say, “This is the party that is going to level up. This is the party that knows how to recover an economy that has been damaged by covid”, and that requires lower taxes and different taxes and requires that we use the powers that only the House of Commons has. The House of Lords has very limited abilities to intervene, and on this occasion I am very pleased about that, because it nearly always wants to take the European answer, and the European answer is the high unemployment answer, the high taxation answer and the very complicated taxation answer.
VAT is an extremely complicated tax. We had to adopt its complications and we are now trying to add to those complications to try to avoid items slipping through. We are trying in these proposals to deal with small transactions that sometimes escape the net. They try to find ways of making online organisations, for example, responsible for levying tax between two people trading with each other.
Alan Brown
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the levelling-up agenda. On rough figures, we have had 50 years of the EU, 20 years of devolution and over 300 years of the Union. Why are devolution and the EU to blame for the requirement to level up when, quite clearly, the Union is at the heart of the problem?
John Redwood
I do not agree, and nor did Scottish voters when they were asked this question. We do have a great democratic country and I was a great enthusiast for the people of Scotland deciding whether they liked our Union or not. They said, yes, they liked our Union. Then the people of the United Kingdom were asked whether they liked the European Union and they said they did not. So I found myself in the happy position of agreeing in two big referendums with the winning side. It is such a pity that the Scottish National party lost both and has never understood the democratic principle that it then has to accept the verdict. I was on the losing side in a former referendum; like my whole party, I was against the principle of Scottish devolution, and we got that wrong. We lost that referendum and from the day after that we did not fight it, delay it or dilute it. We said, “Yes, devolution is the wish of the Scottish people.” We got on and implemented it.
Sir William Cash
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can recall this, but when that Bill was introduced by the late Donald Dewar in 1997 I put forward a proposal that the devolution settlement should be decided by a referendum of the entire UK. Perhaps it is some encouragement for him to know that despite a three-line Whip half the Conservative Back Benchers went through the Lobby behind me on that question of having a referendum for the whole UK on this devolution issue, about which he is being so extremely articulate.
John Redwood
We are probably straying a little away from the resolutions before us, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not try your patience any more. I have made my two main points, but just to summarise: we need more vision from the Government to use our power to tax in our own way, because our current tax system is ill fitting and not yet geared to promoting that recovery we want —we need greater simplicity, lower taxes and a lower incidence of taxes to get that recovery going; and we need reassurances from the Government that sovereignty is not something one can bargain away or compromise over, but is fundamental. We either have a free trade agreement between an independent UK and the EU, which is our preferred model, or we have no deal. It is as simple as that. The choice is theirs.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
It is a great honour to speak after my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and hear his impassioned plea for a vision about life in Britain after Brexit. Let me say one thing on that. In my one year here in Parliament, I have spent a lot of time working on different bits of legislation about what life will be like after Brexit. For example, the Environment Bill sets out a whole new framework, one far more ambitious than the EU’s, to preserve the environment, and the Agriculture Bill removes the totally discredited common agricultural policy, which I would like to see any Opposition Members support, and replaces it with a new regime in the UK that is fit for purpose.
I am the proud product of the EU and its internal market; I am half Norwegian, part Irish, part French, with extended family in Italy and Denmark. I have also been engaged in European politics for about 20 years. I was Europe correspondent for The Times, living in Brussels for three years. I was in charge of all the EU funding in London during the Prime Minister’s first term as Mayor of London. As chief executive of the British Bankers’ Association, I led all the negotiations for Britain’s biggest export industry in the European Commission, Council and Parliament, with meetings up to and including Jean-Claude Juncker. So I have had a ringside seat at many European negotiations, and we all know that they are part showmanship, part brinkmanship. Everything is always left to the last minute, and for a very good reason—this picks up on the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson)—which is that we are negotiating with 27 different countries and they all have differing interests. A lot of them have a vested interest in trying to leave everything to the very last moment. I have sat through many Council meetings and summits where things went to not just to one minute to midnight, but several hours past it.
Alan Brown
Earlier, the hon. Gentleman tried to do the whole “oven-ready deal was to do with the withdrawal agreement”, which we know is a fudge. If this is so complicated, as he highlights just now, with 27 other countries involved, what does he say about the former International Trade Secretary, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who said that a free trade agreement with the EU would be the “easiest in human history”? How does the hon. Gentleman conflate or twist that?
Anthony Browne
I never thought that it would be a really easy negotiation. It was clearly going to be complicated, and the Government have been negotiating in good faith.
Another thing I have noticed from EU negotiations is that there are many different negotiations happening in parallel, and virtually no one knows what is going on. In fact, no one really knows what is going on apart from the people in the negotiating room, and often the people in the negotiating room do not know what is going on, because there is some ambush being plotted somewhere else that then slips into the negotiations. We have to trust our negotiating team. They are the only ones with the insight and knowledge of what is going on to be able to make judgments about when an issue should be pushed, when to play hard ball and when to turn up the charm.
That brings me back to the “notwithstanding” clauses. I strongly welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announcing this agreement on all the Joint Committee issues with the European Commission. That protects the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, and it will protect peace in Northern Ireland.
Those “notwithstanding” clauses were needed only in case the Joint Committee did not reach agreement. It has reached agreement, and therefore those clauses are not needed. The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South said that the damage is done, but it is not. Often in negotiations, we need to play hard ball to get an agreement. It is entirely plausible that if we had not had those clauses, this agreement would not have been reached. We have that agreement, and the whole House should welcome it.
But it’s not all over till it’s over. We do not have the trade deal yet. There are still negotiations going on. I hope that we do get a trade deal, as I think the whole House does; very few people do not want that. It is very much in both sides’ interests that we get an agreement. It is in President Macron’s interest as well. I would not like to see him have to tell his entire fishing industry that it is about to lose 100% of its access to British fishing waters. Until we have a trade deal, the Government have to negotiate for all the different scenarios of having or not having a trade deal. We do not have to legislate for the Joint Committee not reaching an agreement, because it has done so. Therefore, we do not need those “notwithstanding” clauses in the Bill.
The Government have an absolute duty to ensure the integrity of the UK and its internal market and to do everything they can to ensure as much continuity as possible for businesses affected by this. The Government have an absolute obligation to the people of Northern Ireland—I speak as someone with a lot of family in Northern Ireland—to ensure that they have unfettered access to the UK in all circumstances. There must be no tariffs on goods from Northern Ireland to GB or GB to Northern Ireland, so long as those goods are consumed in the UK.
I welcome the agreement on the Northern Ireland border, which is be welcomed, but there is still the possibility of a no-deal scenario, and there might therefore be tariffs. It would be a dereliction of the Government’s duty if they did not legislate to have a tariff regime in Northern Ireland, which is what the Bill does.
The Government have a duty to ensure as much continuity as possible for businesses. The Bill ensures continuity of administration for VAT and excise duty in Northern Ireland, so that businesses in Northern Ireland know that they will still be part of the VAT and excise duty regime in the UK.
Alan Brown
The details of the Bill have not been made clear, so I am not sure how it provides the certainty that the hon. Member is talking about.
Anthony Browne
We have been given enough information so far to know the general principles of the Bill, but we are discussing a Ways and Means motion. The Bill will be published after this, in time for Second Reading.
There are two provisions on tax evasion in the Bill that are very welcome. The first is on ensuring that VAT is paid on goods bought online from overseas. We all know the scenario, and I am sure we have all done it: we order goods online from overseas and they are delivered through the post. The VAT payment is not made in the UK—it is often made overseas—or often not made at all. That mattered less when we were part of the EU, because we had an agreement with the EU under which VAT was charged. Following Brexit, it is even more important that we have a system where there is proper, robust payment of VAT. This is really important for high streets in Britain. The high streets in my constituency have really suffered from the coronavirus closures and lockdowns and from people moving to e-commerce. More than ever, we need a level playing field between the high streets and e-commerce, so I fully support that provision.
The second tax evasion provision is on the insurance premium tax. Again, this was less of an issue when we were in the EU. It is about whether somebody who buys insurance from other countries pays the insurance premium tax that insurance companies in the UK are required to pay. We had an assistance agreement with the EU to ensure that EU insurance companies paid that insurance premium tax. At the end of the transition period, that comes to an end, and this provision fills that gap, so I very much welcome it. This Bill is absolutely necessary. It would be a dereliction of the Government’s duty to ensure the integrity of the UK if we did not pass it, and I fully commend it.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I note that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) talked of being part French, part Norwegian and part Irish—he had other bits as well that I did not quite pick up. Can I assure him that I am 100% British and want to remain 100% British? I have taken the stance I have against the withdrawal agreement, and the approach that people have taken to it, because it diminishes my Britishness.
I am not quite clear what is in the legislation that the Minister is introducing today, and I am even less clear now, because, according to the statement issued by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at lunch time, whatever is in the Bill today, some of it will not be in it tomorrow. As far as I am concerned, the parts that are important seek to manage the parts of the withdrawal agreement that are damaging to the Northern Ireland economy and to the internal market of the United Kingdom, which are underpinned by the Act of Union. Those are the important parts for me. It seems that they might well be removed from the Bill before it even gets to the Floor, or certainly they will not be exercised.
Why do I believe that protections are needed? The withdrawal agreement intervenes and undermines many parts of the Northern Ireland economy. It also damages the Northern Ireland economy’s relationship with the biggest market for Northern Ireland businesses, which is the market in Great Britain. It interrupts the supply of goods from the main source of the supplies that we receive in Northern Ireland, right down to basic foodstuffs, the equipment required by manufacturers and the parts required by producers in Northern Ireland who then export their goods across the world. The withdrawal agreement seriously undermines that and the interpretation of the withdrawal agreement by the EU even goes beyond what the agreement said and what the Government expected from the agreement.
Let me give just one example: goods at risk. According to article 5 of the protocol, exemptions could be made, determined on the basis of
“the final destination and use of the good; the nature and the value of the good; the nature of the movement; and the incentive for undeclared onward-movement into the Union, in particular incentives resulting from duties payable pursuant to paragraph 1.”
Yet despite the fact that some goods clearly do not present a risk under any of those criteria, the EU was insisting up until this week—I do not know what has happened at the Joint Committee; we will hear from the Minister tomorrow—that even supermarket goods brought from GB to Northern Ireland for shops that did not even have outlets in the Republic would be regarded as goods at risk. Goods that had been freely consumed across the EU for the last 40 years, made in GB, from which nobody died of poisoning or had their health affected, were no longer acceptable.
Kevin Hollinrake
The right hon. Gentleman is making some very good points. He is clearly saying that the European Union is being difficult in these negotiations. Is he therefore surprised that there was not one word of criticism for the EU’s role in the negotiations from the SNP or the official Opposition?
Sammy Wilson
No, I am not, and the reason for that is that from the day that the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, the cheerleaders for the EU have been those sitting on the Opposition Benches—apart from the Members from my own party. At every stage, it has almost been as if the EU had its representatives sitting in this Parliament. The Labour party in particular suffered from that, because many of its patriotic supporters asked, “What kind of representation are we getting, where these people are seeking to undermine our country, rather than uphold our sovereignty and the result of the free vote that the people of the United Kingdom undertook in the referendum?”
John Redwood
Did the right hon. Gentleman note that when I intervened on Labour and SNP Members to invite them to support just something in the current UK negotiating position, they could not bring themselves to support a single thing that this country wants from the negotiations?
Sammy Wilson
Again, that does not surprise me, because most Members on the Opposition Benches wish, first, that the referendum had never happened; secondly, that the result had not been as it was; and thirdly, that they could find some Machiavellian way to undermine it, as they have been doing for the last number of years. It is unfortunate that we are in the position that we are partly because the EU knows that there are people in this Parliament who will undermine the Government’s negotiating position. That, of course, makes it more difficult for the Government to negotiate. I do not give that as a justification for some of the things that the Government have agreed to in the withdrawal agreement, whether they relate to Northern Ireland or to the impact on the rest of the United Kingdom; to me, the withdrawal agreement is poison that will infect any future trade arrangements that we might get with the EU.
The point that I am making is that protections are needed because the EU has taken the withdrawal agreement. Even where the agreement does give some latitude to allow the internal market of the United Kingdom not to be disrupted and the economy of Northern Ireland not to be undermined, the EU has refused to give that interpretation. In fact, it has done the exact opposite and looked for the most draconian interpretation of the agreement. Only last Friday, the EU insisted that anyone travelling from GB to Northern Ireland would have to have their personal baggage searched to ensure that they were not taking any contraband into Northern Ireland, despite the fact that article 5 of the Northern Ireland protocol states that the “nature and value” of the goods should be considered.
I hope that the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) can understand that when she and the Labour party table amendments such as the one she moved today, saying that the withdrawal agreement must be guarded and protected at all costs, she is in effect saying, “We put the value of this piece of paper above the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.” This is putting that piece of paper above the interests of the people of Northern Ireland to have the range of goods that they want and at the best prices, and above the interests of businesses that export from Northern Ireland to GB. In effect, that is what her amendment says.
I am even more amazed that any representative from Northern Ireland dares to put their name to that amendment. I wonder what the consumers and businesses in their constituency think about somebody who values protection of the EU, and an agreement that the EU has with the UK, above the interests of their constituents.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Republic of Ireland’s interests with regards to Northern Ireland are many times predatory in terms of our businesses? They wish to stifle the competition that exists on the island and to stifle the thrifty economy of Northern Ireland. They have done so in many ways and the withdrawal agreement gives them further opportunity to do that.
Sammy Wilson
Yes, the worrying thing is that, with the withdrawal agreement in place, Northern Ireland is subject to laws made in Europe—laws into which the Irish Republic will have an input; laws into which, because we have left, the UK will have no input; laws into which Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly will have no input. We are at the mercy of those who wish to engage in this predatory behaviour and use EU legislation to damage Northern Ireland.
That is why the protections are needed. The protections that I would like to see in the Bill—unfortunately, it appears the Government are prepared to withdraw the protections before they have even introduced the Bill—would apply where the EU insists that goods that come into Northern Ireland have tariffs and would have tariffs imposed on them if they were going into the EU. That barrier should not be in place. Northern Irish consumers and businesses which bring in goods that will clearly be sold and consumed in Northern Ireland should not have to pay those taxes. I heard what the Minister said. It appears that, even with the Bill, he is not ruling that out. If I noted him correctly, he said that there would be a waiver where tariffs are incurred that should not have been incurred. He is almost admitting that, in the Bill that he has introduced, there will be provision to repay those tariffs. However, producers in Northern Ireland will find themselves in a situation where they have to pay EU tariffs, prove that the goods on which they paid the tariffs did not go into the EU, and then get the money back.
That presents a number of problems. First, the trade itself is not free. Secondly, the business that has to pay the tax has a cash-flow issue. Thirdly, there are additional administrative costs involved in proving that some of the goods on which it paid tax did not leave Northern Ireland. If there is anything that will put a chill on trade between GB and Northern Ireland, it is that. I am concerned—perhaps the Minister in his response will be able to give me some comfort—that the Bill, even though it will carry some protections, still does not give that absolute protection for businesses in Northern Ireland because of the terms of the protocol. I could provide many other examples of the EU’s draconian interpretation of the Bill. Someone who takes their pets from GB to Northern Ireland would be affected, or someone going on holiday there. Someone taking their pet from Northern Ireland to a dog show in Scotland will now have to have a pet passport, a rabies vaccination, and all the documentation surrounding that—probably about £400 a trip, yet we are part of the United Kingdom.
That is why protections are needed. I implore the Minister—I know what has been said in the statement today—not to remove the notwithstanding clauses in the Bill until it is sure that the issues that are likely to arise have been dealt with properly, because we have not even seen the detail of the particular things that have been agreed.
In conclusion, it is a pity that we do not have the detail of this Bill today. It is a pity that we do not have the assurances. I note what the Minister said about the VAT regime, which is that Northern Ireland businesses will remain under the UK VAT regime. That is true, but what he failed to say was that, as a result of the Bill, they will not also remain under the EU VAT regime. Article 8 of the Northern Ireland protocol makes it clear that we will and that has all kinds of implications. We have to have two different VAT systems. We have to have different means of VAT recording. Will we be subject to the EU conditions when it comes to VAT exemptions, or the various tiers of VAT rates? Will the EU exemptions for small businesses apply to Northern Ireland—the €85,000 or whatever it is—so that small businesses find themselves caught in a net that they would not have found themselves caught in had we been truly under the UK VAT system? It is not enough to say that we will remain under the UK VAT system. The important thing is: will we be exempt from article 8 of the protocol as a result of the measures in the Bill?
Those are the kind of issues that people in Northern Ireland are looking for. Traders in Northern Ireland—people who sell used cars, for example—will now be subject to EU rules. It used to be that they incurred only the marginal VAT rate, on the profit made on the car. Now the VAT rate will apply to the whole price of the car, putting up the price of second-hand cars for people in Northern Ireland. They will be paying above what they would pay if they lived in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps in his summing up, the Minister can let us know whether the Government are addressing any of those issues, because those are the issues that concern my constituents and those are the issues that stem from this protocol. That is why this protocol is poisonous to the internal market of the United Kingdom.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He is one of the most effective and passionate communicators in this Chamber and, if nothing else today, he has reminded the Labour party that there are two sides in a negotiation.
We have had a very wide-ranging debate so far, some of it even on the ways and means resolutions. Should these actually come to a vote later this evening—we have had some apocalyptic language used, but apocalyptic language does not always follow through into actually voting—I will be supporting them, because we must make sure that preparations are in place for the end of the transition period. This Bill is a part of that, which is why these resolutions should pass. This Bill is also a part of ensuring that we are legally prepared for the different outcomes that could flow from the negotiations, this work in progress. We do not know what it will say, but I just want to put it on the record again that I hope we will have a deal along the free trade lines already agreed.
The Bill is also about ensuring that we have smooth continuity of business. Of the six measures, three deal with Northern Ireland and the protocol. There are colleagues in this House more focused on the detail of Northern Ireland policy than me. I just want to say that I view Northern Ireland as a really important part of the United Kingdom. I want to see the continuity of trade operate smoothly and effectively across all four parts of our United Kingdom, and I am pleased that the Government have made the obligation to the people of Northern Ireland about continued unfettered access to the UK under all circumstances.
I will not add anything further to the contributions on Northern Ireland. Those measures have been talked about in this debate already and very articulately. There are three other measures, which are reforms to the wider tax system. The most significant is the new model treatment for VAT on goods arriving into the UK from overseas. Basically, the collection of VAT will move from the existing arrangements on to the overseas seller or the online marketplace where the sale transaction occurred, making the collection of VAT easier and ensuring a more level playing field, especially for the UK high street. Businesses on every high street in the country have been having a rough time for many years, and one reason for that is the rise of internet shopping. Many businesses have a physical and digital offer—both bricks and clicks—making themselves available to customers through whichever purchase route they choose. These businesses pay VAT and will be unfairly undercut if overseas businesses are allowed to make VAT-free sales. This measure will tackle non-compliance. I understand that similar measures are in place in other parts of the world and, indeed, that the EU is introducing something similar.
The fifth measure is about tackling tax evasion in the insurance sector so that HMRC can prevent tax evasion whether an insurer is based in the UK or not—basically it is the power to issue a liability notice irrespective of location. That is part of the creation of a level playing field for UK businesses, just as the previous measure was. The last measure is very technical in nature, dealing with taxation implications from legacy state aid decisions. All I can say is that as I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister is on the case. This measure was perhaps designed for specialists.
Overall, the continuity of seamless trade across the UK is critical for us all. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill has that at its core. That principle is maintained in this Bill, alongside the measures for a level playing field, which is why I shall support it.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
This debate has been far more entertaining than I imagined it would be at the start. We have seen some real squirming on the Government Benches, particularly from the Minister and some unsettled Members who have steadfastly supported Brexit for quite some time. One of the best pieces of gymnastics I have heard today has been from the Government Bench: it has to be the rejection of the idea of the Prime Minister’s oven-ready deal. It reminded me of William Hughes Mearns, who said—well, he didn’t; I am reimagining—“Yesterday upon the table, they had a deal that wasn’t there. It wasn’t there again today. Oh, how they wish that deal would go away.”
The Minister said at the start of the debate that he was not even briefed on his own Government’s announcement; he did not know the news coming through that affected what we are debating.
Jesse Norman
As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, I said no such thing. In fact, I responded and outlined the relevance of the statement to the speech and the debate. What I said was that I had no privileged access, since I am not myself a member of the committee that discussed this item, but that the Minister concerned would be coming to the Chamber to discuss it tomorrow.
Drew Hendry
Hansard will confirm whether or not he said he was not sighted on the Government’s announcement this afternoon. Even if we take him at his word, he comes here woefully ill prepared to tell us what might be in the Bill; he can tell us some things that will not be in there because of that announcement this afternoon, but he cannot tell us what will be in there. We are none the wiser as to what might be in the detail, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) so forensically went through earlier. He could have given a lot more detail on the issues that will be affected. We just do not know what is going to come forward. It is not clear. It is good to know that the lawbreaking clauses that might have been contained in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill will no longer be contained in this Bill. Of course, they should never have been in this Bill or the internal market Bill. While we welcome their going, that situation should never have occurred in the first place.
The Minister talked about giving confidence and certainty and meeting the commitments to the people of Northern Ireland, but there are still serious issues for the supply chain. It is a dry term, “the supply chain”, but it has direct effects on people’s lives. It means goods, food and essentials being available to people’s families and, of course, to sustain businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) talked earlier about the evidence given to his Committee about systems that were simply not in place. The Minister cannot claim that access will be unfettered in those circumstances, because even with a low deal, there is a clear probability of critical shortages and delays. People’s lives will be affected, in some cases severely, amid what is, let us not forget, a global pandemic.
The Northern Ireland Retail Consortium has naturally welcomed the news today, but it points out that there are still major problems ahead, as is the case in Scotland. It has published new research from its Brexit working group showing that the majority of businesses could not and will not be prepared in time. They include food producers such as those in the Northern Ireland meat industry.
We have also heard from the Road Haulage Association. It has to be said—a former Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), is sitting across from me just now—that the association has been raising concerns about this, year after year. It has known what is coming in logistical challenges. Even with a deal there will be delays, and delays mean shortages, so spare a thought for the Road Haulage Association. It should have been central to the Government’s planning. Its members are the experts on logistics; they are the people who know on a day-to-day basis what needs to be done, yet they have been ignored by this Government pretty much all the way through, save for some platitudes and some “There, there, things will be okay” comments. Those people should have been at the heart of these preparations.
It is rare for me to agree with anything that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has to say, but I have to agree with him that what we are being asked to debate today is impossibly vague. As far as I can see, the Ways and Means resolution in its present form, even after the Government’s announcement today, still contradicts the withdrawal agreement. So unless the Minister can clarify that that is not the case, we will have to assume that it is still the case at hand. Northern Ireland, like Scotland, never voted for this Brexit shambles, yet families and businesses there will both feel the effect.
The Minister said earlier that it was inappropriate to say that the Tories had sold devolution down the river. Well, apart from being tellingly sensitive, he has obviously also not been sighted on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill clauses that still remain. People in Scotland are not daft. They see what this Government are doing. They see what is going on, and that is why, soon, they will choose to take their own place in their own future with an independent nation.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate today. I have been listening to the debate from the start with some interest, and there have certainly been some vigorous contributions. I must say that I was presented with some hope by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) when he spoke to the actual motions. I was nearly aghast, because for me this debate has felt a bit like groundhog day, to be honest.
Twelve months ago, like all of us in this House, I was out there pounding the streets in my constituency, 70% of which had voted to leave the European Union. There had been a Labour MP there for some 90 years. I was there as grown men were breaking down and crying on their doorsteps because everything they believed in had been completely betrayed and abandoned. They had been told that they did not understand what they had voted for, that they had no comprehension of the impact of what they had done, and that as a result, they did not really deserve to have their voices heard. That is why I am here today; it is because of how they felt.
I will now get to the core of the motions. Hon. and right hon. Members have talked in much depth, and I want to talk about the VAT implications, particularly for my retailers, and about motion 4 on the Order Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made a very detailed interrogation of these regulations, and he was right. This is about ensuring that our high streets, our domestic retailers, can have a balanced playing field as we move forward.
These regulations are needed either way, because we have to accept the fact that we have left the EU and that on 1 January we will have a new relationship, whatever that looks like. My constituents, leave or remain, want a deal. They want to ensure that this is done. There is no denial about that. We want to get this done in the right way. We want that consistency; we want to ensure that traders can carry on. I represent an area that has a significant manufacturing and advanced engineering base. We want to be sure that our manufacturers and engineers can still have access to those markets, that it can be done in the right way and that they know where they are and where they stand.
I completely stand with the Government in their commitment to ensuring that we get there, but, as right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is a historical fact, which we know from previous negotiations such as these, that they go to the eleventh hour, and political bluster and back and forth often characterises them. I am absolutely behind the Government in their attempts to ensure that we get that deal, because my manufacturers and my businesses need it.
Coming back to the point on VAT, which has been raised consistently throughout this debate, we have seen the impact of the covid-19 pandemic, and let us just for a moment remember what we are talking about with these motions. We are talking about real people. We are talking about their livelihoods. We are talking about how they provide for their families.
It might seem quite abstract when we talk about ways and means resolutions and what they mean, because at their heart is the technical and administrative way in which revenue is raised. They are very technical motions, and I do not think they are going to garner a wide audience at five minutes past 5 in the afternoon—although we never know; some of the speeches today have certainly garnered some interest. However, at the core, this is about those individuals we are here to represent, about those families, and about ensuring that businesses, particularly on our high streets—as right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken to these motions have stated—are able to carry on. As we come through this period into next year, it will be vital to ensure that we can have communities that thrive again and that we get beyond this.
The fact is that life is going to move on. We are going to have to go into 2021 and carry on with our lives. We will have to move forward, whatever our nation looks like; I appreciate there are divergent views across the House on how that will look in one way or another, but we must ensure that we can function, that our constituents can carry on with their lives and that business can carry on, and that is what these motions are about. At their heart is the practicality of ensuring that we can raise revenue, that we can follow through those taxes and that our VAT system works.
To pick up a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) made, we have real potential now, with our VAT freedoms coming back to us, to do some really innovative things. A prime example would be zero VAT on sanitary products; that has been a huge campaign, and I pay tribute to the people involved in it. That is something that we can ensure carries on. Equally, on digital books and services, we can ensure that, in areas such as mine with some of the highest levels of child deprivation, we close the digital gap and ensure that educational opportunities are there.
People might think that these things are minutiae and that they are abstract compared with everyday life, but they are not. They are at its core. We do not hear about them and we do not talk about them often, but they are there and they have an impact on every single one of our communities, from Princes End in my constituency to Aberdeen, Broadland, Harrogate—even Doncaster, Madam Deputy Speaker. They have an impact on everyone.
We talk about the importance of these resolutions and why we must get them through, and that is about ensuring that ultimately, as we move forward, we can operate a tax system that is efficient and that can carry on and that, as we look forward to 2021, as life goes on beyond these debates that have plagued us now for four and a half years and as we finally respect the decision that was taken by 70% of my constituents in 2016, we can do so in an efficient way that works for everyone. I will be supporting these resolutions today, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Minister for bringing them forward.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I add my comments to those of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), with his optimistic tone. I, too, am optimistic about the future; despite the fact that I have never looked at Brexit through rose-tinted spectacles, I have never argued that this country cannot succeed economically outside the European Union. I welcome some of the measures in this proposed Bill, particularly on creating a fairer and more level playing field for our small and medium-sized enterprises—I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Before talking about that, however, I would like to talk about the national interest. I think it was Churchill who said that in our parliamentary duties we should put country first, constituency second and party third, yet all I have heard from the Opposition and the SNP today is putting their party interests first.
Alison Thewliss
What the hon. Gentleman is missing is that we have a different definition of nation, and our interpretation of Scotland’s national interest is quite different from the UK’s national interest that he sees.
Kevin Hollinrake
I have heard quite a lot the argument that Scotland did not vote to leave the European Union, but that is not how the votes were added up. This was a national, United Kingdom vote. Those were the terms of the referendum, which were voted for in this House. That is how the entire nation voted, and we are leaving the European Union. Some of us will be less happy about that than others, but nevertheless, that is what we are instructed to do and what we should do.
For the Opposition, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) said time and again that the Government were irresponsible in these negotiations. Can I just remind her that there are two sides to this negotiation? There are two sides, and I would ask which side she is on, because she is not representing the national interests in the way she is discussing these matters and blaming the Government for being in this position at this stage. Of course—and I am in business today—every business in this land would have liked the situation to be done and dusted last June, as we had hoped. However, there are two sides to this negotiation, and it has to be said that the European Union has been difficult in these negotiations.
If the hon. Lady does not believe my words about that, she should listen to one of the most reliable commentators on her Benches, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), in his speech on 14 September. He was talking about the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, and he said that
“I have to say that I have some sympathy with the Government’s argument: exit summary declarations should not be required for goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB. When Wrightbus sells one of its wonderful buses to a transport operator in the UK, why is the form needed and what is the EU going to do with the form?”
On goods at risk, he said that
“surely it is possible to reach a pragmatic solution, because a lorry load of goods destined for a supermarket in Belfast can hardly be described as being at risk of entering the European Union.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 64.]
Yet those are some of the matters that the European Union was negotiating on or on which it was trying to negotiate hardball.
I ask again: who does the hon. Lady think, and who does the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for the SNP think, is being difficult in this negotiation? Is it purely the United Kingdom? Of course it is not. Why are there no words of criticism for the European Union’s position and for leaving it this late before agreeing what should be a simple trade deal to arrange and negotiate? It has negotiated similar trade deals with many other countries around the world, and we start from a similar position with our regulations and customs duties.
Kevin Hollinrake
From an identical position. This should have been an easy trade negotiation, but of course it is not, for the reasons that we know. Of course, there is politics behind this negotiation, and the politics in this place should be united on one side, in the UK’s national interests, but they are not. Too often, Opposition Members have represented the European Union’s negotiating position in these negotiations.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Of course, it was the United Kingdom Government who were threatening to break international law. Does he have any similar examples from the European Union, or is it simply a one-way street as far as he is concerned?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Member makes a fair point, but I would point him back to the political declaration, which sat alongside the withdrawal agreement, within which there were clear commitments from the European Union to agree an ambitious free trade agreement. He must accept, as commentators on that side of the fence—on the Opposition Benches—have also said, that it is clear the European Union has been difficult in these negotiations, and more difficult than perhaps many had anticipated. It is clearly in the European Union’s interests and their constituents’ interests to agree a free trade deal without this kind of last-minute drama.
Shaun Bailey
On that point, I am sure my hon. Friend will, like me, have seen in the press German car manufacturers begging the German Government and saying, “We’ve got to get this done. The European Union has got to get it done.” Equally, French fishermen have been doing the same with President Macron. Surely our European cousins and partners get this—that it is a bilateral thing that the European Union needs to do—but why do the Opposition seem not to get that? Perhaps he could enlighten me.
Kevin Hollinrake
Of course, the European Union is negotiating in its interests and is obviously trying to protect its interests in that negotiation, but one thing the European Union has done much better than we have on this side of the channel is negotiate with one voice. In this place, we have not—we absolutely have not—and that has undermined the UK’s negotiating position. If the Opposition think that the European Union does not hear what this place says, that is clearly a naive position. If the Opposition think that the European Union does not hear what this place says, that is clearly a naive position. I would argue, at this very late stage, that we work together, cross-party, to try to bring about a situation where we can get the free trade agreement that we all know is possible and can be delivered within the timescale we have left.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about working cross-party. We entered into this in the spirit of cross-party working. The Scottish Government put forward constructive proposals on cross-party working that the UK Government rejected. For a long time during this process, it has been his own party that has been undermining his Government’s negotiating position. Does he not accept that that has been part of the problem?
Kevin Hollinrake
No, I do not. The UK Government have to take a number of matters into consideration. They have a collective position. Clearly, we cannot always get exactly what we want in terms of negotiation. My point is that we could have done better in these negotiations and there could have been less drama around them. The fact that these negotiations are concluding so close to the deadline for businesses has been brought about partly because of the divided nature of this Parliament. The hon. Lady and the Opposition should take responsibility for that position.
My point about a fair and level playing field is about the fact that many of our small businesses in the UK compete with online platforms—online marketplaces, as they are called—such as Amazon and eBay. How can it be right that for so long many of those small businesses have been competing at a 20% disadvantage? Many retailers selling into the UK are not paying VAT on those sales. I am pleased that the Government have acted on this and closed the loophole. They have closed a number of loopholes in recent years through measures such as the digital services tax and the diverted profits tax. This creates the fairer and more level playing field for the rest that I very much welcome. There is one more loophole that we could close, not in this legislation, but in the Financial Services Bill, which is going through Parliament at the same time.
Country-by-country reporting would also have a profound effect in closing loopholes that some companies are using to divert profits out of this country.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Government are making an important point in this Bill in starting to look at online retailers facilitating the sale and that is making a difference, particularly with international trade. Does my hon. Friend agree that this should be expanded beyond just VAT into things like the extent of producer responsibility and other aspects of international trade?
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes, I do. We all know that the best way of driving down prices and driving service for our consumers—our citizens—is through a free, competitive marketplace. Our job, wherever we can, is to let that marketplace do its work. Our job is also to make sure that it sits on a fair and level playing field. My hon. Friend, in talking about regulation for some of the retailers—some of the UK businesses but not businesses abroad—makes a very sound point that the Government should consider.
Going back to country-by-country reporting, let me give an example. Google’s turnover in the UK is about £10 billion. We can work that out by extrapolating certain figures from a couple of years ago. Internationally, it declared a 22% profit margin, which means a £2.2 billion profit in the UK. Based on corporation tax at 19%, it should pay £420 million in tax on that. Last year it actually paid £67 million in tax. That cannot be a fair and level playing field for other UK retailers or other UK companies that compete against Google, particularly in terms of advertising space—many of our regional papers, for example. I would like the Government to bring forward legislation, in some vehicle or other, to tackle that issue.
I am very pleased that this loophole is being closed and I very much commend the principles and the outline of the legislation that we will see tomorrow.
Bridget Phillipson
It is extraordinary that we have not yet had sight of the Bill and that all we have is a single sheet of A4, just 23 days until the end of the transition period. The Minister did not offer much this afternoon other than to merely say he regarded Opposition amendment (a) as unnecessary. I regret that our trust in the Government’s promises and assurances has run rather thin this autumn. In the absence of the publication of formal texts, I have not been persuaded by the Minister’s arguments this afternoon.
Jesse Norman
This has been a very wide-ranging and interesting debate, and we have heard some diverse voices. I was particularly interested, as I am sure the House was, to see the knights of Maastricht swinging a leg as they get into the saddle once more and go into battle—always an interesting sight. I thank the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for reminding us that this is a complex and difficult process. It is not straightforward to negotiate with another party at the same time as seeking to make legislation, and we recognise that.
I want to quickly pick up on a couple of the points that arose in the debate. I rather differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in thinking of this as the most important constitutional moment since 1688. I might respectfully offer the Act of Union 1707 or even the Act of Union 1801 as possible alternatives.
Imagination in tax is of great interest to the Treasury, but that must come after the transition period has ended and we have regained this full measure of sovereignty. That is the moment to think about these issues in the wide way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) described. This is a technical matter of putting into place the requirements for us to leave in as orderly a way as possible.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), on classically robust form, rightly highlighted the lack of balance in this debate relating to the European Union, and I thank him for that. I remind the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) that the rules as they stand were that all goods going into Northern Ireland were to be considered at risk. The “notwithstanding” clauses were designed to protect us against that transparently absurd outcome, which would have had the effect that a bag of salad brought in for sale in a Northern Ireland supermarket was considered an at-risk good and was therefore treated on that basis. That cannot be right. In advancing the “notwithstanding” clauses, the Government were seeking a perfectly sensible and proper readjustment to the situation. I am delighted that those clauses have been withdrawn, and with that good message, I commend these motions to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As the House has just agreed, amendments and new clauses to be moved in Committee of the Whole of House may now be tabled. Hon. Members should table through the Public Bill Office inbox, which is pbohoc@parliament.uk. They should not attempt to hand in amendments and new clauses to the Table in the Chamber due to the current situation of the pandemic.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
17:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 360 / Noes: 16 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Delegated Legislation
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Petitions
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I hand in a petition with nearly 7,000 signatures from those who wish to stop an incinerator plant being built on the beautiful island of Portland in my constituency. Those who want to build it call it an energy recovery facility. Thousands of people disagree with that interpretation and say that it is a waste incinerator, and they do not want it on their island.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of South Dorset,
Declares that the proposal to build a waste incinerator on Portland should not go ahead and that the Government should review its support for incinerators more generally; notes that almost 7,000 people have signed a corresponding online petition to stop the waste incinerator; further declares that South Dorset is a beautiful part of the world and that it should remain a healthy place for our children, grandchildren and ourselves; further that research has shown that a waste incinerator will cause the release of tiny dangerous particles into the air; further that a waste incinerator will cause a small increase in health risks for children; further that it will bring more lorries thundering along already busy roads; further that there is a possible need for the incinerator to be “fed” in the future by waste imported from outside the UK; further that it will create a big, unsightly blot on our beautiful landscape and coast; further that it will discourage recycling; and further that it will not create many jobs for local residents.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to rethink its support for incinerators and look towards a greener, circular economy.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002634]
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I present a petition from residents of my constituency that has now been supported by over 1,000 signatories.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Henley,
Declares that there is considerable concern about the increased impact of flooding in the village of Shiplake as a result of the actions being taken by Taylor Wimpey in relation to a development at Thames Farm; further declares that the developers are increasing the flood risk by filling in sink holes and injecting these areas with a grout-like substance to reinforce them which makes the chalk less porous; further that the developers are diverting floodwater to a brook in Flood Zone 3 in the village via a new pumping station at the north-eastern corner of the site; and notes that this petition is presented on behalf of two individuals of the village of Shiplake whose corresponding online petition has been signed by some 999 signatories.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government, in particular the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to request South Oxfordshire District Council to ask Taylor Wimpey to submit a Material Variation Application because the change in the drainage solution is such a major departure from the original approved scheme, and to encourage public consultation as part of the approval of the drainage works, and to look at the change as a material variation in application.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002636]
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During my exchange with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) across the Dispatch Box during Justice questions this morning, the Minister claimed that the reason for the huge reduction in the number of trials in England and Wales between 2010 and 2019 was
“because crime is significantly down since 2010”.
Recorded crime, which of course drives the amount of court activity and therefore trials, has, according to the Government’s own figures, increased considerably from 4.3 million in 2010 to about 6 million this year.
The Minister should not try to hide behind the Office for National Statistics crime survey statistics, when the public at large know full well both the reality and consequences of the increased crime in our country today. Given that reality, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister has clearly—inadvertently, I am sure—misled the House and I would be obliged if you would summon him to apologise for his mistake and to set the record straight.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but he knows very well indeed that the Chair is not responsible for what Members or indeed Ministers say in this Chamber. I suspect that the point that he has just made is not so much a point of order as a continuation of the debate and a matter of the interpretation of statistics. I am also quite sure that he has, in raising a point of order, drawn the matter to the attention of the Treasury Bench and to the Minister, whom I hope he has given notice that he was planning to mention—
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has not given notice to the Minister that he intended to mention him.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I note the hon. Gentleman’s apology for not having done so, and I accept his apology. I can see by his demeanour that his apology is meant in good faith and that if he had remembered to inform the Minister, I am sure he would have done. I am also quite sure that the Minister’s colleague on the Front Bench, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), will let him know the point that has been raised. This is not a matter for the Chair and it is not a matter on which I or Mr Speaker can summon the Minister to answer, but I am quite certain that there will be other opportunities in future debates and question sessions when the hon. Gentleman can raise this very matter with the Minister again.
Arrest of Egyptian Human Rights Advocates
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of Karim Ennarah, the husband of my constituent Jessica Kelly. I also want to highlight the widespread human rights abuses under the current Egyptian regime.
Karim Ennarah works for a human rights organisation, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. He holds a master’s degree from the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London and was a Chevening scholar. He has lots of UK connections as well as family connections.
Karim Ennarah was arrested on Wednesday 18 November by Egyptian security services at a beach café while he was on a break in Dahab on the Sinai peninsula. His colleague, Mohammed Basheer, was also arrested, on 15 November, and the director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Gasser Abdel-Razek, was arrested in Cairo on 19 November. This follows an arrest earlier in the year of another of their colleagues.
The three arrests happened following a meeting with EIPR that was initiated by diplomats from Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland, as well as the chargés d’affaires of Canada, Norway and Sweden and the deputy ambassador of the United Kingdom. At that meeting, the diplomats and the EIPR discussed the human rights situation in Egypt.
The arrests of Karim Ennarah and his colleagues were a co-ordinated crackdown on those campaigning for human rights issues. The United Nations human rights agency called the arrests “chilling”. Karim was held without trial in the notorious Tora prison. That is a complex known for the torture of political prisoners, where the cells are designed never to see sunlight. Those who have experienced it tell of cells without beds, the denial of medical attention, floors crawling with insects, and temperatures soaring to unbearable highs before crashing to freezing cold. Political prisoners are routinely starved, beaten and abused.
On 4 December, after a global outcry and pressure on the Egyptian regime, the three were released from prison, but they remain in Egypt under close surveillance and their assets have been frozen by order of the courts. We are yet to hear whether they are being held under any other conditions, as the investigation continues to hang over them. Karim’s wife, Jessica Kelly, with support from campaigners, human rights organisations and nearly 150,000 people who signed a petition, alongside a number of celebrities, has led the global efforts to secure his release and that of his colleagues. She deserves our praise and admiration for her incredible fortitude in such trying circumstances.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this case to the main Chamber for our consideration. Does she agree that we have an obligation to use all diplomatic procedures available to encourage those we have relationships with to treat with basic human rights those who oppose them, and that the message from this House tonight is that the way human rights are handled has a bearing on the strength of our ties with other nations that abuse human rights?
Rushanara Ali
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The strength of our partnership should be judged by the ability to provide constructive criticism to Governments who are responsible for human rights violations, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what work our Government are doing to ensure that the Egyptian Government, as well as other Governments who have been responsible for significant human rights violations, take action to bring an end to such violations.
Karim’s wife, Jessica Kelly, was instrumental in campaigning for her husband’s release and that of his colleagues. We are all relieved to hear about their release, but there are a number of outstanding issues. What matters now is that the Egyptian Government allow Karim to leave the country to come to the UK where he can be reunited with his wife. I would be grateful if the Minister provided an update on whether that will be possible and what action our embassy is taking to enable Karim to be reunited with his wife in the UK.
The men were also accused of having links to terror organisations and of spreading fake news on social media, but let us be crystal clear that they were arrested for shining the spotlight on the human rights abuses of that regime.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware of the case of Giulio Regeni, the Cambridge PhD student who was researching trade unions in Cairo. He was brutally murdered five years ago. Does she agree that it is in the interests of everyone, including the Egyptian Government, that, in the end, the truth comes out and justice is done, and is seen to be done?
Rushanara Ali
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case and I could not agree with him more. It is really important that the European Union and the UK work together to ensure that such actions of the Egyptian Government are confronted, and that Giulio’s family get the justice they deserve.
Yet again, we see that repressive regimes—in this case, Egypt—behave far worse if they think the world is not watching and holding them to account. It is critical that we work with our partners to ensure that we hold Governments such as the Egyptian Government to account for human rights violations, and that action is taken to bring an end to such violations. We must ensure that we shine a spotlight—in the most aggressive way possible through diplomatic means and through our relationships—to ensure that these kinds of arbitrary arrest and detention do not happen to people who are fighting for the rights of others.
This regime came to power in 2013 in a military coup, dissolving the constitution and dismissing the opposition. Since then, there has been widespread concern about human rights violations, some of which have been raised this evening. On 14 August 2013, Egyptian security forces, under the command of General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, raided two camps of protesters in Cairo. Human Rights Watch described these raids and the subsequent massacres as
“one of the world’s largest killings of demonstrators in a single day in recent history”.
It also pointed to the fact that over 900 people were killed during the massacre.
Human rights activists and observers report that the regime has employed arbitrary imprisonment, torture, extrajudicial killings, home demolitions, forced disappearances and sexual violence against its opponents. The families of Egyptians abroad have been detained to stifle criticism of the Government. There are not free and fair elections; al-Sisi won the 2014 election with 97% of the vote. All this evidence of thuggery, intimidation, violence and torture makes the bravery of human rights defenders even more apparent. They are truly courageous and heroic, risking their lives to protect the rights of others. It is right that we offer them whatever support we can, and it is necessary and right that our Government do all they can to provide the support that they need.
Jessica Kelly, her family and I are grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the statement that he made immediately after the arrests, and for the representation that he and his Ministers made to their Egyptian counterparts to help to secure the release of Karim Ennarah and two of his colleagues. As I mentioned, another colleague, Patrick Zaki, remains in detention, and his term has just been extended by another 45 days by the Egyptian courts. I would be grateful if the Minister provided an update on that case and whether further representations have been made to secure his release.
I would also be grateful if the Minister told us what further representations he is making to ensure that the Egyptian Government take seriously our concerns, the UK Government’s concern and the international concerns about human rights abuses and about the wider record of the Egyptian Government on human rights violations and the culture of arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and torture of human rights defenders. Will he update the House on what efforts our Government are making, working with our European counterparts and other international partners, to apply diplomatic pressure on the Egyptian Government to ensure that these kinds of human rights violation are brought to an end?
This case was highlighted to me because the husband of a British national—my constituent—was arrested, alongside his colleagues, but for every one of those cases, there are many others that do not get the attention that they should be getting. We are all grateful to Jessica Kelly and her family, and to all those who have campaigned for the release of her husband and his two colleagues, but it is vital that our Government work with our international partners to ensure that all those who are being locked up, tortured and punished for standing up for human rights are protected. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed those concerns.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for securing this debate and to the Members who have intervened for making important points during her speech. I have no doubt that the whole House will have welcomed the release on 3 December of three men, Mohammed Basheer, Karim Ennarah, and Gasser Abdel-Razek, from the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work she has done and the active role she has played in advocating for the men’s release. I also pay tribute to the family, friends and supporters of the three men, particularly her constituent, Jessica Kelly, who have campaigned tirelessly on their behalf and worked so hard to secure their release.
It is the eve of International Human Rights Defenders Day, and these courageous people must be allowed to carry out their work without fear of arrest or reprisal. The UK Government will stand up for human rights defenders, wherever they are.
On the specific case, although the release of the three men is welcome news, we understand that, as the hon. Lady said, the case is not yet closed. We will continue to take a close interest and to explain why we, the UK Government, think it is vital that they and the EIPR continue to play their vital role as an independent voice on human rights in Egypt. We remain concerned about the application of anti-terrorism legislation in this and other such cases. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and where we have concerns we will raise them. The hon. Lady made points about prison conditions, and we have not hesitated and will never hesitate to raise the issue of prison conditions and treatment of detainees with the Egyptian authorities whenever necessary, including in this case.
Furthermore, although I welcome the swift and positive developments in this case, I want to stress the Government’s broader commitment to human rights defenders and to the protection and promotion of human rights. Civil and political rights, including fair access to justice, must be respected in Egypt and around the world.
It is no secret that the UK wants to see better protection of human rights in Egypt. We have an ongoing dialogue with Egypt on this matter. The strength of our bilateral relations with Egypt allows us to speak frankly, and where we have concerns we always raise them. We work closely with Egypt at ministerial and official levels on a range of bilateral priorities, including trade and economic development, tourism, education and cultural co-operation. We also work together on a range of regional and global issues that matter to both our countries, including climate change, combating covid-19 and conflict resolution, including the conflict in Libya. As I say, that co-operation does give us the opportunity to speak with them on more difficult and sensitive issues, as we did in the case we are speaking about today.
The Government took swift and decisive action on the EIPR case. On 19 November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke directly to his Egyptian counterpart to register our deep concerns about this arrest. Indeed, he was the first Foreign Minister to do so. Senior officials, including our ambassador in Cairo, continued to underline these concerns, and the British embassy in Cairo remained in regular contact throughout with the EIPR, the detainees’ lawyers and the British family of Karim Ennarah. Naturally, the UK also worked closely with international partners who shared our concern, including European partners, as the hon. Lady mentioned. In Cairo, the embassy worked closely with like-minded partners to take joint action. In Geneva, the UK’s human rights ambassador has been active in organising briefings on the case with civil society and other like-minded states.
The UK wants to see Egypt thrive. We want better protection for Egyptians’ constitutional rights and freedom of expression, and more space for NGOs and civil society is an essential part of that. It is also in the UK’s interest to co-operate with Egypt on other issues that matter to both countries, such as strengthening trade, tackling climate change, working together to address our shared security challenges and concerns, and protecting regional stability. Trade between the UK and Egypt was worth £3.5 billion in 2019, and the association agreement that we signed on 5 December, to ensure continuity of bilateral trade after the end of the transition period on 31 December, provides a new framework to boost trade and help both countries to build back better after our fight against the covid-19 pandemic.
Rushanara Ali
As I said, I am grateful for the interventions the Foreign Secretary has made as well, and I know the family are. Will the Minister take away my point about Patrick Zaki, a colleague of Jessica’s husband, as he is still in prison? I recognise what the Minister is saying about the work that the UK Government are doing on human rights issues, but given our strong trade ties, can he reassure the House that we are not going to overlook the importance of human rights, in the interests of needing to have strong trading relationships?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, which spurs me to clarify why I made the points about the bilateral economic relationship. While making representations to the Egyptian authorities about the cases she raised, we were simultaneously working towards this closer economic partnership. I was hoping to get across that we do not regard these as mutually exclusive. We can work closely with international partners, including our partnership with Egypt, while simultaneously raising our concerns about human rights and individuals who have been incarcerated. The two go hand in hand, rather than being in contradiction to each other.
We will continue to advocate. I am concerned about the reports that Karim appears not to have been allowed to leave the country and be reunited with his wife. Human rights defenders make an essential contribution. They are important and we will continue to call on the Egyptian authorities to allow Karim to be able to conduct his work and his life unimpeded.
Therefore, the Government are totally committed to taking action to promote and protect human rights. Wherever and whenever we have concerns, we will raise them. Everywhere in the world, human rights defenders should be able to carry out their work without fear of arrest or reprisal. We welcome the release of Mohammed Basheer, Karim Ennarah and Gasser Abdel-Rasek from the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, and we expect them to be able to go unmolested from now on. We will continue to have regular and frank discussions with the Government of Egypt on human rights issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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 |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (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 |
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 |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (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 |
Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
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 |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
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 |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (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 |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Tom Hunt |
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 |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (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 |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (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 |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (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 Conflict Minerals (Compliance) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations
(3 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members about the social distancing requirements. Spaces available to Members are clearly marked. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Conflict Minerals (Compliance) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Mr Hollobone, it is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning. The regulations, laid on 15 October, are necessary for the application “to and in the UK in respect of Northern Ireland” of the EU conflict minerals regulation, which is listed in annex 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol. The EU regulation establishes the due diligence obligations of the largest importers of tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold— collectively and, as far as I am concerned permanently, referred to as 3TG. Supply chain due diligence for these so-called conflict minerals is absolutely crucial, as a large proportion originate from conflict-affected high-risk areas.
The EU regulation requires importers to apply relevant Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidance that would otherwise be voluntary. It aims to break the link between armed conflict and exploitation of 3TG and to put an end to abuses of miners and local communities which, sadly, are often linked to violations of human rights.
Parts of the conflict minerals regulation have applied in the UK since 2017. However, its key operative provisions do not apply until 1 January, after the transition period has ended. These include the relevant obligations on businesses and member states’ competent authorities to ensure its effective implementation throughout the EU. Those key provisions will not, therefore, form a part of retained EU law and will not take effect in Great Britain. The regulations that we have laid before Parliament implement the EU regulations in Northern Ireland, as required under the protocol, and they establish an enforcement framework for non-compliance. This means that from 1 January 2021 the largest importers in Northern Ireland of tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold will need to conduct and demonstrate due diligence to ensure that their imports have been mined and processed responsibly. They will have to demonstrate that they are managing the risk that their supply chains could fuel conflict or be linked to human rights violations.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a very interesting speech. Will he elaborate on other minerals such as diamonds, which are also often mined in conflict zones? Is there separate legislation that covers those in Northern Ireland?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that point. There are of course other high-value items—diamonds being the most obvious—that are subject to provisions in other legislation, to ensure that they do not originate in conflict-affected states and that their mining is not linked to human rights violations.
To enable enforcement in Northern Ireland, we are proposing powers for the Secretary of State to require businesses to produce information about their due diligence activities. The regulations also make provisions for inspectors to enter business premises to inspect documents, data and records. The regime follows a civil sanctions route and provides for the power to issue civil compliance notices and financial penalties where businesses do not comply. The decision to impose a financial penalty may be appealed to the first tier tribunal. The regime does not impose penalties for substantive breaches of the due diligence obligations, as this is considered outside the scope of the EU conflict minerals regulation. As required by the regulations, we will publish guidance at the earliest opportunity on how the civil sanctions will be used.
We accept the comments of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on regulation 8. In particular, it said that regulation 8 enables the Secretary of State to serve a notice requiring a person to produce information, but is enforceable only against Union importers—importers into Northern Ireland. The regulations do not make provisions for enforcing a requirement under regulation 8 that is imposed on a person who is not a Union importer. We also accept as a point of principle that the imposition of obligations in statutory instruments should be accompanied by enforcement measures with equivalent scope.
It is necessary for these regulations to be made before the end of the transition period, to meet the UK’s obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. We are proceeding with the regulations as currently drafted, but we will bring forward legislation as soon as possible to amend regulation 8. This amendment will make it explicit that the power to require the production of information can be exercised only in relation to a Union importer—an importer into Northern Ireland. In the meantime, the Secretary of State undertakes not to exercise the power to require production of information under regulation 8 against persons other than Union importers. When the amending regulations are laid, they will also implement some minor administrative and clarifying corrections.
Our intention through these regulations is to allow businesses to operate responsibly in conflict-affected and high-risk areas, because 3TG minerals are key components of much of our technology, and it is our view that, in the right conditions, they can be mined in a way that builds prosperity and security for local communities. Conducting due diligence, in accordance with the OECD guidance, is key to managing the risks and to ensuring that businesses along the supply chain behave responsibly. Our proposed regime for Northern Ireland is in line with the spirit of the OECD guidance, incentivising business to continually improve their due diligence processes. The approach taken in the regulations, including the financial penalties for failure to co-operate with procedural requirements, corresponds with the European Commission’s stance on the scope of the EU regulation.
To conclude, we consider that this approach to implementation of the EU conflict minerals regulation in Northern Ireland will meet our obligations under the protocol. I welcome this opportunity to hear the views of Members on the regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
May I say how lovely it is to be in Committee again, after our rather unusual coronavirus circumstances and to contribute under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
We will not be opposing the legislation this morning because we think it is important to get as much done as possible before 31 December. However, I want to ask a few questions for clarification and make a few comments, and to pick up the comment made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. The big question in this statutory instrument is what is used in technology. What brings us together, whether we are Members for Kettering, Hornsey and Wood Green, Braintree, Essex, Wales or the north-east is our mobile phones. Obviously, we are dealing with that. However, as the hon. Member for West Worcestershire mentioned, we never know when other special mined materials may become politically difficult. I am pleased, therefore, on behalf of the Labour party to say that we will not contest the statutory instrument.
I am a little disappointed at the rushed feeling of this morning. The Government have had quite some time to introduce measures on this crucial issue that Members across the House care deeply about—the supply chain of goods and services into the UK. I welcome the chance to debate the SI, but obviously we could have done so earlier than just a few sitting days before the end of the year. That does seem to be the theme in the Brexit area of the Foreign Office portfolio. As my colleague Lord Collins of Highbury remarked in a recent debate in the other place on this instrument, the title belies the importance of what has been discussed in this short debate, because the materials are incredibly important for very high-value items so there is a real incentive to ask some question about the supply chains. It is vital that we scrutinise our supply chains because we know that, whether it is fast fashion, mobile phones or parts for manufacturing, the importation of natural resources from conflict areas can be abused. We also know that people within those supply chains can be abused. That was the point that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire was getting at.
The instrument goes some way to guard against the misuse of those supply chains. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, the Minister, addressed some of Labour’s concerns in the House of Lords debate, but I will point out one or two here for our benefit. The Minister is aware that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments mentioned defects in the instrument. He briefly addressed that, but I seek his reassurance about when we can see amendments to regulation 8 on enforcement measures. Obviously, we can sit here and say all we like, but unless we have enforcement measures to make a difference, we will be toothless. It is important that the Minister gives us a date—not just “as soon as possible”—for when he believes the amending legislation will be introduced. It is a little embarrassing for the Government to have legislation described in the House of Lords as defective. That suggests rushing and lack of preparation; it suggests, “We didn’t think about this beforehand. Oh, yes that is how things goes at the moment.”
A further concern is the wider issue of the geographical scope of the measures. Clearly, they rightly address the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland and do not address the rest of the UK, but what measures is the Minister taking to ensure that the spirit of the regulations covers the rest of the country, so there is no divergence and no gaps in coverage?
My final point is about steps to address the wider issue of exploitation and human rights in conflict zones. The statutory instrument is reasonably tight in its application, but there is a broader issue at play here of the importation into the UK of goods that have been produced and created as a result of the exploitation of civilians in conflict zones. We are all aware of that through our study of Rwanda and those kinds of areas, but it could be anywhere in the world. Sadly, anywhere could become a conflict zone. The UK could have an implicit role in the undermining of human rights in countries, should we get this wrong in our trade remit. We have a duty to ensure that our trade and our supply chains are clear and humane, especially post Brexit, to strengthen our standing on the world stage further. With that in mind, will the Minister give his commitment today to ensuring that that is addressed in future instruments by a robust and wide-ranging set of human rights benchmarks through which Parliament can scrutinise trade deals and arrangements?
James Cleverly
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the points that she has raised. Unfortunately, I cannot give her a specific date for the revision of regulation 8, but it will be as soon as possible.
The UK remains a vocal and passionate defender of human rights and in our future trading relationships, whether with the EU or in the new trading agreements that we make with international partners, the protection of human rights will always be at the heart of what we do.
The hon. Lady asked specifically why the instrument relates only to Northern Ireland. Without wanting to go into too much detail, the operative provisions of the EU regulation will come into force in January 2021. As the transition period is due to end, those operative provisions will not form part of retained EU UK law. Therefore, there are no available statutory powers to implement the operative provisions of the EU regulation in Great Britain. Enforcement in Great Britain would therefore require an enabling power in primary legislation. Ministers agreed in June that we should focus on what we are required to do by the withdrawal agreement and its protocol so at this stage we are focusing the regulations exclusively on Northern Ireland.
I thank all members of the Committee for their involvement today. The regulations will ensure that we comply with our obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
9.42 am
Committee rose.
Draft Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone about the social distancing regulations. Spaces available to hon. Members are clearly marked with a tick, and I would be really grateful if you stuck to those spaces only. Hansard colleagues would be really grateful if you sent any speaking notes to them via email.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 15 October. The regulations are necessary to ensure a functioning export control regime at the end of the transition period on 31 December. The aim of the regulations is to take forward the transposing of the existing system, which is reliant on EU law, into the United Kingdom’s own law. At the same time, they implement certain EU regulations in Northern Ireland to the extent required by the Northern Ireland protocol. They are not intended to make any change in export control policy.
At this point, I wish to be open with right hon. and hon. Members. My Department has taken forward these regulations in good faith, and I both acknowledge and welcome the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments following its meeting on 25 November. As you know, Mrs Miller, I am not a solicitor or parliamentary draftsman, and I am not sure how many of us here this morning are, which is why I welcome the scrutiny that the Joint Committee is able to provide. The Joint Committee has shown that the drafting of this statutory instrument could be improved, and I am grateful for that.
What I do know is that the purpose of new article 42N(2) of the Export Control Order 2008 is to re-enact, in relation to transfers from Northern Ireland, an existing exception that allows the transfer of software or technology that is or may be intended for weapons of mass destruction purposes from the United Kingdom by non-electronic means—most usually paper—if either the final destination of the software or technology is the customs territory of the European Union, or processing or working is to be performed on the software or technology in the customs territory of the European Union, in which case the law of the destination member state will be responsible for the control of any subsequent transfer.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging at the outset the error that the Joint Committee has identified. The noble Lord Grimstone, when commenting on its report, said:
“Nothing is weakened by this error; indeed, the situation is strengthened for this particular category of software that might be used for weapons of mass destruction.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. GC202.]
Given the significance of the issue—we are talking about potential items that could be used to do huge damage—why not just leave the strengthened provision, albeit that it was originally conceived in error, on the statute book?
Mr Jayawardena
I welcome the shadow Minister’s reflections on my noble Friend Lord Grimstone’s remarks. I will come to the point about this being a strengthening of the regime, but also how it interplays with the Northern Ireland protocol, in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
Re-enactment is necessary overall because the existing exception, which applies in relation to the entire United Kingdom, is to be removed at the end of the transition period and export controls will be applied for exporting from Great Britain, so there is a distinction. As the shadow Minister has just said, the effect of the incorrect conjunction in article 42N(2)—“and” instead of “or”—between sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), is to make the exception less permissive. In other words, as he implies, it makes the exception less of an exception: it makes our export controls from Northern Ireland even tougher than intended, as exporters wishing to use the exception will need to comply with both conditions, not one or the other.
To be clear, the provision does not take effect today; it would only be in relation to transfers from Northern Ireland after the transition period. Given that the drafting makes the regulation tougher, not weaker, my Department did not consider the error to have sufficient impact to warrant the withdrawal and re-laying of these draft regulations. To do so would mean that appropriate export controls would not be transposed into the United Kingdom’s own law at this point. That is not an outcome that anyone here would want.
For context, I should say that my Department assesses the likelihood that people and businesses transfer software or technology from Northern Ireland to the European Union by non-electronic means, despite awareness that the software is or may be intended, in entirety or in part, for WMD purposes, as very low—a very rare event. None the less, I have instructed my Department to correct the error later this month.
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but I genuinely say to him that he has not yet explained why we do not just leave the provision as it is. Will he get to that point?
Mr Jayawardena
Of course I will; the hon. Gentleman has not given me a chance yet. That is indeed my very next point. As I said, I have instructed my Department to correct the error later this month, and we will do so through an instrument using the negative procedure, as is appropriate in these circumstances.
To the point that the shadow Minister makes, I should say that the United Kingdom already has one of the strictest export control regimes in the world. Members will know that all export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. In reaching a decision, the Department for International Trade receives advice from several Departments, including the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Together, we draw on all available information, including reports from non-governmental organisations and our diplomatic missions.
The consolidated criteria provide a thorough risk-assessment framework and require us to think hard about the impact of exporting any equipment. These are not decisions, whatever the use of the conjunction, that my Department would take lightly. We would not license in any circumstances the export of items where to do so would be inconsistent with the consolidated criteria. Those are our guiding principles.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 enables a functioning statute book at the end of the transition period by providing Ministers with the tools to deal with deficiencies in domestic law arising because of our exit from the European Union.
Mr Jayawardena
I will make a bit of progress.
Some hon. Members will recall that this House has already debated and approved legislation to ensure that there is continued functioning of retained EU law in Britain in respect of export controls. The Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were debated here on 25 March 2019 and the Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 were debated here on 13 May 2019.
Those new regulations are necessary because under the Northern Ireland protocol, which forms part of the withdrawal agreement, the EU regulations and directives relating to export control of dual-use items, civilian firearms and goods usable for capital punishment or torture will continue to apply directly to and in Northern Ireland.
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He will be aware that under the German presidency of the European Union, new rules have been provisionally agreed, allowing for
“more accountable, competitive and transparent trade of dual-use items.”
Presumably, if the process of application continues, what has been agreed under the German presidency will apply to the rules in Northern Ireland very shortly. There will be one set of export control rules for the rest of the UK under domestic law and a slightly different set very quickly for Northern Ireland. Will the Minister comment on that point?
Mr Jayawardena
I am, of course, happy to comment on that point. The shadow Minister is right that Northern Ireland will be subject to slightly different rules than Great Britain. For example, under this instrument, unamended by any future negative statutory instrument that will be introduced, an exporter from Great Britain would require an export licence full-stop, whereas an exporter from Northern Ireland would need to secure one only if the export were, first, from Northern Ireland and, secondly, to the European Union. The technology will be worked on in the European Union, as reflected in article 42N(2).
Going forward, we will correct that under the statutory instrument that I referred to earlier and, indeed, European Union law will apply in Northern Ireland as opposed to in Great Britain, where we will incorporate it into our own law using the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
I continue with my reflections on the draft regulations themselves. The provision of the European Union directive on the intra-Community transfer of defence-related products will also continue to apply to all movement of military goods between Northern Ireland and the EU. The regulations amend provisions of retained EU law to accommodate the Northern Ireland protocol, which is why they are important. Let me explain to Members how that will work. Beginning at 11 pm on 31 December, the export control rules applying in Great Britain will be derived solely from domestic law, as I referred to a moment ago, which will include retained EU law. In contrast, the export control rules applying in Northern Ireland will continue, as I referred to a moment ago, to be derived from EU law, as required by the Northern Ireland protocol.
My Department will continue to be the licensing authority for strategic exports from the whole of the United Kingdom, but exports of such items from Northern Ireland will be done under a licence issued under EU regulations.
Mr Jayawardena
No, I will make progress.
To make that work, the draft regulations amend existing legislation. First, they amend the Export Control Order 2008, which has been the centrepiece of domestic export control legislation since April 2009. Secondly, they amend two instruments: the Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were made last year in preparation for EU exit. In addition, they amend the draft Trade in Torture etc. Goods (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations, which were debated here on 8 April last year and approved by both Houses, but have not yet been made. It is necessary to amend them to remove a dependency on the non-existent Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Let me be clear that today’s regulations do no more than is necessary to ensure the continued functioning of export control law, and therefore the continued effective operation of our export control system in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Mr Jayawardena
No, I will make progress; the shadow Minister will be able to make his own remarks shortly.
Without the draft regulations, our ability to control the export of such goods would be undermined. The legislation will ensure that the Secretary of State continues to control exports from all parts of the United Kingdom of dual-use items, firearms and goods that could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. Her Majesty’s Government believe that the procedures for assessing licence applications and decision-making processes are robust, and will remain so following the end of the transition period.
The eight criteria used to assess export licence applications, as set out in the consolidated criteria, will remain the same. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence will continue to provide my Department with advice and analysis. A licence, for the avoidance of doubt, would not be granted if to do so would be inconsistent with any of the criteria.
My Department will also continue to provide detailed advice and guidance about export controls, and, at the end of the transition period, to support legitimate exporters. I remind the Committee that these regulations are solely about preparing for the end of the transition and making sure that we have a functioning statute book after the end of the year. These amendments need to happen, and Parliament needs to make sure that the existing controls remain in place. Negotiations about the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union—or, indeed, the wider world—are a separate matter, of course, and play no part in the debate today.
I am sure that the Committee will want to work in the interests of our national security and in support of retaining robust strategic export controls by making sure that the legislation passes; it is essential to the preparation for the end of the transition period. The legislation is necessary, and I commend the motion to the Committee.
Gareth Thomas
It is a pleasure to have what I think is my first opportunity to serve on a Committee under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller.
These regulations make amendments to legislation relating to the export and transfer of military and—more importantly, for the purposes of this debate—of dual-use goods. By their own estimate, the Government say that Britain is the second-largest global defence exporter and, in particular, a major exporter of arms. It is clearly important for us to have a robust export control regime now and after the end of the transition period—indeed, even more so as a series of concerns have been raised in recent months about the way the export control regime is working.
The regulations will make changes at the end of the transition period, when export control regulations in Britain will be covered by domestic law, while export control regulations in Northern Ireland will continue to follow EU law. Ministers have admitted that they and the Prime Minister do not fully understand the Northern Ireland protocol, which the Prime Minister signed to clinch a withdrawal agreement with the European Union; perhaps the need for this statutory instrument is one of the unfortunate consequences. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster headed to Brussels, apparently to thrash out a deal to minimise checks on goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain. Will the Minister say whether he expects any changes to the regime for arms exports as a result of that discussion?
In an intervention earlier, I alluded to the fact that the German presidency appears to have agreed new rules with the rest of the European Union about dual-use exports; it would be good to hear a little more from the Minister about how he expects this regulation to affect Northern Ireland. I understand that there will be a further statutory instrument around export control rules. It would be good to hear whether that is purely to correct the error identified by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, or whether it will include changes to reflect what has been agreed under the German presidency. It would also be good to know if there will be a public consultation on whether to adopt the new reforms adopted by the European Union and on whether, potentially, to go further.
The noble Lord Bassam asked a series of questions when speaking for my colleagues in the other place. The Minister’s colleague in the Lords did not answer those questions. Will the Minister answer them? I repeat them for his benefit. The explanatory memorandum says that
“Regulation 7(4) provides for an exception to certain prohibitions to continue in relation to a certified person who is part of the armed forces, a police force, or public authority…who is a hunter or sport shooter, or who holds a Manx firearms certificate.”
The noble Lord Bassam asked how many people in total the Minister thought that would affect. Will this Minister provide the Committee with the answer to that question?
The noble Lord Bassam went on to ask a point about the statement in the explanatory memorandum that regulation 9 amends the Secretary of State’s
“regulation-making powers in the Export Control Act 2002”.
He asked whether the regulations would be made under the affirmative or negative procedure, and who the Secretary of State would consult before using the powers. That concern was specifically in relation to the SI that will come forward to correct the mistake identified by the Joint Committee. It would be good to hear clarity from the Minister on that.
My noble friend asked a third question, which was also not answered at that point. The explanatory memorandum states:
“Regulation 15 provides for certain authorisations granted by the Secretary of State under the Torture Regulation that have effect before the end of the transition period to continue to have effect after”
the end of the year. He asked specifically:
“How many authorisations does the Minister expect to be granted between now and 31 December?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 199.]
Again, it would be good to hear the answer to that question from the Minister.
When the Minister winds up the debate, perhaps he can use some real-life examples to explain the significance—or not—of the regulations and, if there continues to be divergence between the EU arms export control regime and the UK arms export control regime, to show how that is going to affect things in practice. Let us take a company that is exporting arms. It wants to send or export dual-use weapons, for example, to Northern Ireland to be part of an order to go off to another country. Will it need a licence under UK domestic law to send those goods to Northern Ireland, and will the company then also need a licence to export those controls from Northern Ireland to the final destination? It would be good to hear some clarity from the Minister on that potentially real-life example.
As the Minister said, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments raised a series of concerns about the SI. Indeed, it specifically suggested that the regulations were “defectively drafted”. The Minister made much of the consolidated criteria, but I did not hear a specific answer as to why the regulations cannot just be left as they are. The Minister in the Lords said that they have strengthened the situation. Why, as a country, would we would want to risk weakening the regime now for equipment, parts or software that might be used to make weapons of mass destruction? Again, it would be good to hear the Minister’s explanation on that.
I ask the Minister to say where he thinks the blame lies for the mistake. Is it his fault? Is it the noble Lord Grimstone’s fault? Is it officials in his Department, or is it the Treasury solicitors who drew up? How was the mistake made? He will understand that I ask this question in the context of the concerns that Campaign Against Arms Trade has raised about the increasing use of open licences and about not being able to track the final destination for some of the arms that are exported. There are concerns about the way in which arms exports have been restarted to Saudi Arabia, given the context of what has been happening in Yemen. Any further suggestion that mistakes are being made around arms export controls will raise a series of additional concerns.
The Joint Committee highlighted that part 5 of the draft regulations amends the trade in torture regulations, which have not yet been made. As I understand it, they currently do not take account of the Northern Ireland protocol and are therefore approved in draft only. Again, the Committee said that that was defective, and reported that part 5 of the regulations made for highly
“unusual or unexpected use of enabling powers”.
It would be good to hear a full explanation for this use of the powers. Crucially, can the Minister explain when he expects the trade in torture regulations to be made?
It would also be helpful to hear from the Minister why he thinks it was not practical for the Department simply to amend the draft, if that is what he thinks is now required. Is it perhaps because the Department was focused on trying at the last minute to get the roll-over deals completed? Is it perhaps because the Secretary of State was too focused on trying to get a deal with the Trump Administration? Or is it because the Department’s efforts are focused on the Brexit negotiations? Either way, it would be helpful to understand why the Department does not feel that it can make the changes at this stage.
The Minister said that there will be new draft regulations. It would be good to know when they might be published. Can we expect them as an early Christmas present, or will it be in the new year? I ask that as a serious question, because the longer the time gap before the new changes are brought in, the longer the lacuna—the mistake, as the Minister describes it—is perpetuated. It would be good to hear what the process for consultation on that will be, if there is one. It was not clear from the Minister whether he and his officials will be consulting with anybody other than each other. Although I recognise that the general trend in the current Government is just to consult with one’s chums, as opposed to the wider public, it would none the less be helpful to understand from the Minister what formal process, if any, will be undertaken.
I say gently to the Minister that the new draft regulations could be an opportunity to rebuild some confidence in the way the export control regime works. He will know of the concerns about the export to the US of riot control equipment, including anti-riot guns, tear gas and riot shields. There were concerns in the United States, as well as here in the UK, about the possible use of that riot equipment against peaceful, unarmed civilians taking part in Black Lives Matter protests. As I have alluded to, there have been even greater concerns about the sale of arms to the Saudi-led coalition for use in the war in Yemen.
The Minister will also be aware of concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who currently chairs the Defence Committee, about reports of UK-made sniper weapons, made by a Portsmouth company, finding their way into Russian hands and being trained on British soldiers taking part in NATO operations in support of the Baltic countries. Apparently there was due to be an investigation. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether it has been completed and whether it has thrown up any problems with the current export control regulations that the new draft regulations might be able to counteract.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. The Opposition want to ensure that there are strong, robust export control regulations and procedures. As long as the Minister can give useful answers to us, we do not intend to divide the Committee.
Mr Jayawardena
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I must confess that they seemed to stray a bit further than the regulations in front of us. I am sure he will table questions to me in due course in respect of a number of those issues, as he has done to date.
Gareth Thomas
On a point of order, Mrs Miller. I would be grateful if you could clarify whether I was at any point out of order in asking those questions of the Minister and expecting a reply from him.
The Chair
Sitting in the Chair, I would say that you were pushing at the boundaries at points, but I was certainly satisfied that you were within the realms of talking about issues to do with exports. If I had felt that it was necessary to draw to the attention of the Committee that you were straying, I would have done so.
Mr Jayawardena
At no point did I say that the hon. Gentleman was out of order; I simply said that he was straying.
I am not going to apportion any blame for the drafting. That is not my job, nor is it my style. Rather, I believe that we should focus on fixing any drafting errors that might have been made. To that end, I welcome the fact that, in order to secure the licensing controls on strategic exports, the Labour party will be supporting the regulations. If these measures were not in place, we would not have the correct controls across the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman asked, why not leave it? Why not leave the wrong conjunction between sub-paragraphs (a) and (b)? I thought I had made this point clear, but let me restate for the record that it would not be consistent with EU law and it would be a breach of the Northern Ireland protocol. That is why we cannot leave it. That is why we wish to bring forward a statutory instrument using the negative procedure. I hope to bring that forward this month, but certainly we will bring it forward as soon as possible.
In terms of any future changes to the regime, we will always consider how we can further improve our system, but we are confident that we have one of the most robust systems in the world, and we do think very hard before licensing any goods so that all licences are always consistent with the consolidated criteria.
I will write to the hon. Gentleman in respect of the number of people who might benefit from an exception, or the number of licences that might be granted before 31 December.
The hon. Gentleman rightly wanted the flavour of a real-life scenario to draw reference to how things might be different between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Let me provide the House with such a scenario. Take Neil and Eleanor, who are both mechanical engineers designing a component typically used in horticultural spraying equipment. They intend to courier their respective printed technical drawings—on paper, non-electronic—to their customer in the European Union, and they know that their customer intends to incorporate those technical drawings into their design schematics for use by a manufacturing plant outside the European Union. The Secretary of State has informed Neil and Eleanor that the type of technology they are working on may be intended for use in connection with the dissemination of a chemical weapon—that is, a WMD purpose.
Neil works in Belfast; Eleanor works in Coventry. The current exception would mean that no export licence is required if the export is from the United Kingdom to the European Union, and the exporter knows that the final destination of the software or technology is the European Union or that processing or working is to be performed on the software or technology in the European Union. The issue that we have identified through the scrutiny of the JCSI is that no export licence is required if the export is from Northern Ireland to the European Union, and the exporter knows that the final destination of the software or technology is the European Union and processing or working is to be performed on the software or technology in the European Union.
That would mean that Neil in Belfast requires an export licence, because the export is from Northern Ireland, the export is to the European Union, the technology will be worked on in the European Union, but the final destination of the technology is not the European Union. Eleanor requires an export licence full stop: the export is from Great Britain, and the exception only applies to exports from Northern Ireland.
The correct exception, once we have brought forward the amending statutory instrument using the negative procedure, will mean that Neil does not require an export licence because the export is from Northern Ireland, the export is to the European Union, and although the final destination is not the EU, the technology will be worked on in there. However, Eleanor would still require an export licence because she is based in Great Britain. I hope that clarifies the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members about social distancing; spaces available to Members are clearly marked.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020, No. 1309).
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray.
For the sake of time, I will refer to the statutory instrument as the consequential amendments SI. Parliament has approved the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020, which will end free movement on 31 December at the end of the transition period. The Act represents an important milestone in paving the way for the new points-based immigration system to operate from 1 January 2021 and to deliver our promise to have a single immigration system, which judges people by their talents and skills, not by where their passport comes from. The consequential amendments SI is the next step in ending free movement, and it completes the legislative changes necessary for that historic act. The SI is made under the delegated regulation-making power in section 5 of the 2020 Act, the scope of which was debated extensively in both Houses during its passage, including in the Bill Committee on which many members of this Committee served.
The Government were pleased to share an illustrative text of the SI in early September, and there are only limited changes to it in the version before the Committee today. The SI amends primary and secondary United Kingdom legislation as a consequence of, or in connection with, the provisions in part 1 of the 2020 Act, which end free movement and make provisions for the new status of Irish citizens. It amends legislation relating to immigration, nationality, benefits and services. It also amends devolved matters where changes are required for an immigration purpose to reflect the end of free movement, but not devolved legislation more generally.
As hon. Members will have noted, the SI is rather lengthy given the breadth of amendments to domestic legislation required, based on the number of times free movement has been mentioned in UK legislation during our membership of the European Union of more than 40 years. The effect of the legislative changes is to align the immigration treatment of European economic area citizens and their family members who are not protected by the withdrawal agreement and the UK’s implementation of that agreement with non-EEA citizens under the UK’s immigration system. Once free movement has ended, newly arriving EEA citizens and their family members will be subject to the same UK immigration law as non-EEA citizens; they will need to meet the requirements of the new points-based immigration system set out in the immigration rules made under the Immigration Act 1971. As members of the Committee may know, many of those routes opened for applications last week on 1 December.
The SI provides clear protections for Irish citizens and EEA citizens, and their family members granted status under the EU settlement scheme. It also removes references in domestic legislation to the UK’s membership of the EU and EU-derived law that has been retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, at the end of the transition period.
Most of the changes will come into force at 11pm on 31 December—the end of the transition period—but there are some exceptions; the provision to bring EEA citizens within scope of the immigration skills charge came into force on 1 December to coincide with the opening of the new skilled worker route. That means that the charge will apply to EEA citizens who arrive in the UK from 1 January 2021 onwards under that route, and it is part of ensuring equality of treatment between citizens of the rest of the world and EEA citizens.
Various provisions to bring EEA citizens within the scope of the sham marriage and civil partnership referral investigation system do not come into effect at the end of the transition period. They will come into force on 1 July 2021, after the deadline for applications to the EUSS, at which point it will be easier for the Anglican Church in particular to differentiate between EEA citizens with status under the EUSS and those without. That reflects a range of other provisions that we have in place during the grace period next year before the deadline for applications.
The consequential amendments SI reflects the repeal of free movement at the end of the transition period, as enacted by Parliament’s approval of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020. It makes the statute book coherent and terminates arrangements relevant to the operation of free movement law in EU legislation—the latter legislation will no longer be appropriate once free movement has ended—and implements our obligations under the withdrawal agreement. It is an essential step in fulfilling our promise to end free movement and to deliver on the referendum vote. That is something that the Government are determined to do, even if others would rather that the referendum result were ignored.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mrs Murray, as we consider this very important secondary legislation. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks, but I suspect that Labour’s opposition to the regulations will not come as a surprise to him, as we rehearsed a great deal of the debate during the passage of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020. Then, however, we did not have any of the detail that is contained in the SI. We were greatly concerned that the Act granted the Government powers to bring forward the changes to the law contained in the SI. A 90-minute delegated legislation Committee is no way to scrutinise law changes of such magnitude.
The SI is 64 pages long and if I am not mistaken, it changes well over 70 existing Acts and regulations. We have been working hard to follow the changes to understand the implications for people’s lives but we would need to consult the country’s leading experts and lawyers on everything from immigration to housing and equalities to devolution even to scratch the surface of the regulations.
To put the changes in context, the regulations document is five times bigger than the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020, which ran to only 14 pages. Bizarrely, the explanatory notes accompanying the regulations constitute just 14 lines.
We sought a number of improvements to the process at various stages of the Act’s passage in the hope that we would not be in the current position. We called for limits to its Henry VIII powers or for the changes in the regulations to be included on the face of the Bill, as called for by experts at the evidence sessions, so that we could all exercise due diligence and allow for proper Parliamentary scrutiny. Sadly, our efforts were in vain.
I have had the chance to discuss the detail of the legislation with experts and they have expressed their real concern about what they believe its impact will be. They have voiced concern not least that some Acts of Parliament are to be amended when not strictly necessary to give effect to Brexit and the withdrawal agreement. To quote from one of the country’s leading experts on this matter, other changes will leave the law in a state of “bewildering complexity”. That is contrary to the Minister’s suggestion that the regulations will render the statute book coherent. Those changes risk errors in interpretation by public officials and those private persons including landlords and employers who will have to apply the regulations.
Feedback from those working in the field has flagged up that the regulations amend some fairly recent Brexit-related statutory instruments, but leave other parts unamended when it would have been a significant improvement simply to have replaced the regulations with new ones that could have been followed and understood.
That principle applies to at least three changes including those to the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) Regulations 2020, the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) Regulations 2006—if I am not mistaken, that amends a Brexit-related SI but leaves parts unamended, which means the amended 2006 regulations have to be read with schedule 4 of the amending regulations—and the saved parts of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016. It is painfully complicated and completely at odds with the Government’s aspiration to simplify the immigration system. A leading expert described it to me as a “Frankenstein-like patchwork quilt” of 20 years-plus of immigration changes, layered on top of each other.
It is the combination of the process and the content of today’s regulations that make for such a toxic mix. They lay bare the architecture of the hostile environment to be extended to a brand-new cohort of people. We fear some of those most vulnerable, who have made their lives in the UK, perfectly within the rules, will stand to fall into its trap, without even being aware that they will do so come the end of June next year.
If we consider just some of the details, the Minister has outlined the variations in the start date for some of the changes. We were particularly interested in the regulations relating to changes to marriage and sham marriages, which come into force on 1 July 2021. I appreciate the Minister’s explanation about why that might make life easier for those who conduct such ceremonies, but I still wonder whether there is scope to push the start date for other changes back to coincide with that July date. That would give everyone the chance to be aware that all those changes are on the way.
I note that the Aliens Employment Act 1955 is changed by the SI; EU citizens and family members with leave to enter or remain on a basis outside the scope of the EUSS—for reasons such as family members or as skilled workers—will have restricted access to civil service jobs. Why do that when they are lawfully resident? That is just one of the anomalies thrown up in the time that we have had to consider the regulations. However, our substantive concern with the legislation is that it is highly likely that a significant number of individuals will not apply to the scheme before next June’s deadline—the Minister and his colleagues have previously acknowledged that risk—for a multitude of reasons. That means that a significant number of individuals with full rights to be in this country will lose those rights overnight.
We are about to launch our own campaign to encourage all local authorities to reach out to those who have not yet applied, or who do not know that they need to do so. The Minister will have seen the utterly depressing statistics released by the Home Office on 13 November, which revealed that only 46% of children in the care of local authorities have made an application to the EUSS. The Children’s Society fears that those figures are worse again. We argued for a declaratory scheme for that group of children as an absolute minimum during the passage of the Bill, and those figures are simply just not good enough.
I have outlined examples of groups who will be affected by the proposed changes. We believe that the Government’s disregard for those groups by attempting to enact such significant changes through secondary legislation is totally inappropriate, given their scale. The regulations, which will have such major long-lasting effects, should be examined line by line, in detail, by all Members of Parliament, who should have their say. We have argued for that time and time again.
We have grave misgivings about the substance of the regulations, as well as about the procedure governing their introduction. Those apprehensions relate to the possible consequences of the regulations for those who fail to meet the deadline for whatever reason and therefore fall prey to the hostile environment created by them.
We cannot vote for the regulations in good faith, and I call on the Minister to withdraw them and reintroduce them in primary legislation, which would enable the House to exercise proper and appropriate scrutiny of the proposed changes.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray.
Personally, the regulations represent the most difficult element of having accepted the EU referendum result: we are putting an end to people’s freedom of movement. I support the regulations before the Committee, however, and I would like to make some helpful points about how we should understand the Government’s position.
The explanatory memorandum states that the SI should be read alongside the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. I would be grateful if the Minister could say something about the reasonable explanations that the Home Office might accept in the event that those who have been lawfully resident, exercising treaty rights, until the end of the December this year are unable to register for the settled status scheme, for whatever reason. I remember two years ago, when we first discussed the matter, being told that there were about 3 million EU nationals living in this country. Of course we find, as I have always argued, that a larger number of individuals have registered as part of the settled status scheme, and that is to be welcomed.
I would like the Government to look very carefully at what the reasonable explanations and excuses are. I did write to the Minister about a month or so ago, and I look forward to his response.
We should note that the corollary of what we are doing today is that we are ending the freedom of Brits to move to the EU. It is right that we do that, because it respects the EU referendum result. It does not matter whether people voted for Brexit to control immigration or to regain sovereignty; one of the effects of leaving the European Union is to end the free movement of people. That includes British people being able to move freely to work and reside in the EU, as many Brits—indeed, more than 1 million—have done over the past few decades.
In conclusion, I will vote for the regulations, but I want it noted on the record that I will scrutinise the Government over the next seven months to ensure that they honour the personal pledges that have been made to me over the past two years as I have championed the rights of citizens, be they British nationals in the EU or EEA nationals here in the United Kingdom.
The Chair
I call the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, Mr Stuart C. McDonald.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It would be good to rename my constituency for the benefit of colleagues, but it is good to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I hope you can hear me okay. Colleagues might prefer not to hear me, but I will have my say anyway.
Stuart C. McDonald
Thank you, Minister.
I am grateful to the Minister for the way he introduced the regulations. I concur with 99% of what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax, had to say. It will be no surprise to the Minister that we, too, oppose the regulations. The SNP very much regrets the end of free movement. We believe that the hostile environment is a disaster. It is important to say that the regulations do not really end free movement; they are about extending the hostile environment. The two do not have to go together.
We have always argued for a declaratory scheme, and we maintain that that would have been a much better approach. However, there is no point going over all that old ground again. We have debated these points a million times and we are where we are. It is incumbent on us all to try to make the arrangements the Government have decided to put in place work as best we can.
When the Minister came before the Home Affairs Committee recently, I think it is fair to say that we had a fairly constructive exchange about how EEA citizens would be able to access the NHS and other public services in various hypothetical scenarios. In that vein, I want to probe him on another four brief scenarios. If he cannot answer the questions today, it would be useful to have the answers in writing. The shadow Minister said that these are very complicated regulations—I will come back to that point in a bit—and I genuinely do not know the answer to all these questions, despite my best efforts.
The first scenario is that in January—in the grace period, but after the transition period—two EEA nationals, an uncle and a niece, who could have applied to the settled status scheme but have not yet done so, go to rent a new property. The uncle is a worker, so his rights are protected by the grace period regulations, but the niece is not and does not have comprehensive sickness insurance. Arguably, she was therefore not exercising her treaty rights prior to the end of the transition period. As I understand it, that means she has no protection under the grace period regulations.
My first question is: is it the case that the worker—the uncle—would be able to rent, but not the niece? I understand that in the past, the Government have said, “We will not ask employers and landlords to make these checks,” but legally speaking, is it the case that the regulations would exclude the niece from the right to rent? Secondly, if they realised that they needed settled status and applied for it, would that situation remain the same, regardless of the fact of their application, until such time as a decision on the application was reached? Similarly, am I right in thinking that the uncle could access homelessness assistance, if he qualified for it—ironically he does not need to because he has the right to rent—whereas the niece could not access it, even though she is the one who would need it because she would struggle to access the right to rent?
The second scenario is the same as the first, except that it takes place in July, which is outside the grace period. In this case, as I understand it, neither the uncle nor the niece can rent or access housing assistance. Let us say that they can prove that they were negligently advised by lawyers that they did not need to apply for settlement because of a misunderstanding about nationality law—something I very much hope the Home Office would accept as a reasonable excuse for a late application. They make a late application, arguing that they have a reasonable excuse. Is it the case that while they wait for the application—even if it takes six week, eight weeks or two months—in the meantime neither of them would be able to rent and, similarly, they would not qualify for homelessness assistance?
Scenario three of four is the same as scenario two, but it is now July and one of the couple—the uncle and the niece—needs two small operations. They are not lifesaving, but they will fix some pretty serious pain. The first of the two operations happens just before they make the late application and it costs £10,000. The second happens after they make the application and it costs £15,000. Am I right in thinking that because of separate regulations made on 3 December—just last week—even the making of the late application means that the person continues to qualify for NHS treatment? Therefore, even while they could not rent or access homelessness assistance under the regulations that we are debating today, they could access the NHS.
If my understanding is right, why is there the inconsistency that while an application is outstanding, someone can get NHS treatment but not homelessness assistance? Is it not arguable that the regulations before us infringe the withdrawal agreement, particularly article 18(3), by not making a similar provision where a person has an outstanding late application? As I say, the Department of Health and Social Care published regulations last week that seemed to acknowledge that it has to give rights to those with outstanding applications, even if they are late; the Home Office does not appear to have recognised that.
Am I right in understanding that the £15,000 operation would not have to be paid for, because it happened while the application was outstanding? What about the £10,000 operation that happened just before the application went in? Even if the uncle and niece subsequently do get settled status, will they still be chased to pay the £10,000 for the operation that happened just before they submitted their application?
The fourth and final scenario again concerns a couple in a very similar position: they were badly advised and did not apply in time, so they have a reasonable excuse. Late next year, the Home Office charges them with illegal working. They apply in September for the settled status scheme and that is granted late. However, is it the case that the couple were, legally speaking—regardless of what practical answer the Home Office comes up with—guilty of a criminal offence from July, after the end of the grace period, until the application was decided? Because settled status is not retrospective, there would be a gap where they did not have status.
As I say, this is all very technical and I might have completely misunderstood some of the scenarios, but I have no doubt that we could go through every single one of the 60 or 70 regulations and conjure up scenarios that involve similar complications and technicalities. There are ways that the Home Office could make this easier. A declaratory scheme would be one, but putting that aside, there are things the Home Office should think about.
First, if a public body is approached by an EEA national without settled status and it appears that they could still apply for that settled status, perhaps we should put a duty on the public body to signpost them to the scheme. Rather than just saying, “You are not entitled to support,” there would be a duty on people to say, “Just now you are not entitled to support, but if you put in an application, you would be able to access it.” At the very least, I hope that is something the Home Office is encouraging of all people who are involved in checking immigration status, of whom there are many.
Secondly, if a person makes an application late—a situation I have alluded to—the Home Office should provide them with a certificate of application that makes it clear that they continue to be entitled to access support and all their rights while the application is outstanding. If there are clearly no reasonable grounds for the late application, the Home Office will be able to refuse immediately and no damage would be done. Otherwise, my view is that there is little to lose and much to gain from ensuring that they continue to be able to access all these rights while the application is outstanding. That seems to be the approach the Department of Health and Social Care has taken in the NHS regulations that were published last week, so I do not understand why that approach cannot be taken in the regulations before us today. It seems to me that that is arguably required by the withdrawal agreement.
Thirdly, if such a late application is successful, why do we not make settled status backdated so that there is not a break in the continuity of residence? When he was before the Home Affairs Committee, the Minister talked about how he was looking to ensure that that did not impact on nationality—for example, in the case of kids born during that period. I am aware that the Home Office is alive to this issue, but why not just make it retrospective in a blanket way, so that there is no gap in status?
I have one final request of the Minister. At the Home Affairs Committee, he was generous in agreeing to meet a couple of organisations. One to add to that list is the3million. It is a very sensible, pragmatic organisation. It accepts where we are at, and is just keen to work through all the scenarios and to work with the Government. If he is happy to meet it, that would be very helpful.
There are a million other issues I could raise today, such as access to national insurance numbers, which appears to be incredibly challenging for EU nationals.
I emphasise what the shadow Minister said about the complexity of the regulations. That is why we opposed the sweeping Henry VIII clauses when we debated the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020. It is why my party proposed an equivalent to the Social Security Advisory Committee. This issue is so technical that we need experts on housing law, marriage law, family law, social security law—it covers such a huge range of subjects. The regulations are much more detailed and technical than the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, yet we have 90 minutes to consider them, with no witnesses and no access to experts, whereas the Bill essentially went through Parliament twice and we had lots of expert evidence to help us.
I have tried my best to scrutinise the regulations. Indeed, I think there might be a typo in regulation 12, if the Minister wants to note it down. The placing of the quotation marks and the stray “(3)” to my mind means that part of that regulation has no effect or has the opposite effect of what was intended. That is why this sort of regulation, which has important consequences, needs line-by-line scrutiny. I think that there is a mistake, but I do not know how we fix it, because we cannot amend the regulations, unlike the Bill.
My final question is: why rush this? Much as I hate it, free movement is coming to an end. Even if the regulations—or 90% of the regulations—were not passed until late next year, free movement would still end; it would simply mean that all these aspects of the hostile environment would not be applied to EEA nationals. There could be mistakes in here and we need to think about it much more carefully. Again, I echo what the shadow Minister says: let’s put this off and do it properly. As MPs, let us do our job of scrutinising the proposals properly by withdrawing the regulations and bringing them back as a Bill.
Kevin Foster
I thank members of the Committee for the debate we have had and for the observations they have made.
I will start with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire and then move on to the shadow Front Benchers. To be clear, we have said that we will publish a non-exhaustive list of examples. In each instance, a decision-maker should be able to use discretion if it is fair in the circumstances to do so. I have given examples, such as those who were under 18 on deadline day and their parent or local council, who had a duty to apply for them, did not. As I reassured my hon. Friend, when they hit the age of majority, which could be in 10, 13 or perhaps even 14 or 15 years’ time, and realise that there was no application, we would see it as reasonable for them to have assumed that their parent or guardian had done it.
Again, other circumstances include ill health or mental incapacity to make an application. I reassure Members that we will look at situations where someone has clearly received faulty or negligent legal advice in relation to their status. Generally, we will ensure that decision-makers are able to look at the circumstances and see whether there are reasonable grounds, rather than having a list and saying, “If you don’t meet that list, you can’t apply.”
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
If that extra discretion, and the complexity and anomalies that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax mentioned, were being added to a functioning, gold-plated, brilliant system, Members might be assured, but it is being added to a dysfunctional Home Office that is failing many of our constituents week in, week out through delays and erroneous decisions that leave people destitute.
Kevin Foster
I am sorry to hear that description of the EUSS that has already had 4.26 million applications. I give the hon. Gentleman a tip that it is about to hit another milestone in numbers of applications. We think that it is working fairly well. For most people, making an application is a 15-minute job at home, using a smartphone.
We want to take the lessons from how the EUSS has worked into the wider immigration system. Hon. Members may not have picked this up, but in the skilled worker route, an EEA national can use their smart phone from home to apply rather than making a trip to a visa application centre. Building on the experience of the EUSS, we have been able to provide secure identity checks from home. For obvious reasons, I will not go into all the details of what we do to verify identity, but this has been a real success and I am sorry to hear that description of it.
To reassure my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire, we will have a range of circumstances listed along non-exhaustive lines. The longer the delay, the more there is a chance that someone knows that they do not have entitlement under the withdrawal agreement, but is claiming that they do. We want decision-makers to have flexibility and to treat this as faces, not cases. There will be a list, but it is not exhaustive.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East always makes well thought-through contributions, even though we have fundamental policy disagreements on this and a range of other issues. I will provide a detailed written response to him and the Committee, but I shall deal with a couple of points now. He mentioned two EEA nationals. Let us assume that they are in England, because as he will know the right to rent checks do not apply outside England. If they were renting before 30 June a landlord is perfectly entitled to accept an EEA passport or national identity card as proof that they meet the compliant environment checks. If anyone has concerns, they can regularise and make their application via the EUSS straight after. We will not be asking landlords to make retrospective checks if they have accepted an EEA passport or identity card, just as we would not expect employers on 1 July suddenly to check that every member of their staff has EUSS status. Up until that point, landlords and employers cannot insist on it, provided that someone has presented an appropriate document. They can, of course, use it and we are finding that it is very popular. Between April and June there were 400,000 checks under the new improved service, 100,000 of which were to look at EUSS status. Those who have it are already finding it a handy and convenient way of meeting the checks.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will set these things out in writing, and I get that the Home Office is not requiring landlords and employers to do those checks. I would like clarity on this: is the Home Office saying to landlords, “You do not need to do that check even though in the niece scenario she does not have the right to rent?” I am concerned that there is a danger in saying to landlords, “You don’t need to worry about the fact that you are renting to someone who does not have the right to rent.” Given everything that we know about how the right to rent operates, is that not just going to ramp up professional indemnity, so that landlords will take the safe course and not touch these people with a barge pole?
Kevin Foster
My next point relates to that example. He gave a clear example of a worker here in accordance with the EEA regulations on free movement. His second example was of someone who did not have retained rights because they were not here in strict accordance with those regulations. As he will know, the criteria for the EUSS is not strict compliance with EEA free movement regulations – it is residence in the United Kingdom. He would support the notion that it would produce some harsh outcomes if we based it purely on the free movement regulations. The situation that he has described would be that of the landlord in England who is renting today. He is talking today about someone who is not here strictly in accordance with the free movement regulations and who does not have free movement rights to be retained at 11 pm on 31 December – although I accept that someone could get a job and create new free movement rights before 31 December. It would be exactly the same legal position in January. No one has fewer rights or less ability in January than they have at 11 pm on 31 December. However, beyond the transition period new free movement rights cannot be created. That is the core difference.
Moving on to what would be a reasonable excuse for a late application, on some of the finer points – for example, someone being badly advised – it would probably be better for clarity to respond to those in writing.
I met representatives of We Belong last week. It was a productive conversation and we look forward to taking forward some changes. The3million group is on some of the Home Office’s advisory panels that are regularly engaged at official level. Once we have published the new guidance on the next milestones for the EUSS – the late grounds guidance – we will review ministerial engagement with the groups. I will be looking to meet the3million group at that stage – although by then we may have hit another milestone in millions of applications. We very much welcome all the applications coming in. We genuinely welcome all groups that promote the message that it is time to get in applications. If people have any concerns about their position in the United Kingdom beyond 1 July next year, now is the time to get in their application. Support is available on the phone, online and through our grant-funded organisations if people have any queries or concerns, or genuinely need assistance with the application.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said that it would be no surprise that, as a member of the Scottish National party, he will opposing the legislation. No, it is not. I recognise that the SNP has a long and fairly solid policy on free movement. I was slightly more surprised at the position being adopted by the Labour party, given that we are only a few days away from the anniversary of the general election, in which an inability to respect the referendum result became a decisive moment for many former Labour Members of Parliament. This SI is about ending the references to free movement in UK law. Free movement is ending. There will not be a reciprocal arrangement on the continent of Europe beyond the end of the transition period. We published a draft of this regulation while the Bill was being debated in the House in order to allow more time for scrutiny. We accepted that just publishing it under the usual SI rules would not be the best way of ensuring good scrutiny and debate. We do not imagine that some of the changes – for example, designating every registry office as a designated place – will be particularly controversial, given that it will make life easier for many non-EEA citizens to get married in the UK. It is a surprise to see the resistance to ending free movement, and to having a single immigration system that judges people by what they have to offer to the UK and their talents, not by where their passports were issued, continuing a year after the general election, but I am sure that it will be noted with interest across the now blue wall.
There are many areas of law to be changed. We joined the European Union – or the EEC as it was called then – in 1973. That means that, unsurprisingly, there is a large number of references across legislation to free movement. Any immigration law that has been passed since then by Governments of both colours will inevitably have referred to the fact that EU citizens had free movement rights. That free movement is coming to an end. That policy has been supported and it was clearly part of our manifesto commitment. In terms of the civil service rules, it is right that someone who works in the civil service has the appropriate immigration permission for the UK, as was of course covered by the withdrawal agreement. I want to reassure anyone who is working in the public service, who is an EEA national and who will inherently have free movement because they are working here, that the EUSS is there for them and we very much look forward to them making an application.
It is a surprise that, a year later, we are still hearing reasons from the Labour party why they do not support this core part of implementing the referendum result. I accept that other parties have a clear view on continuing freedom of movement, but I was not aware that the Labour party did: one day it argues that it does, and other days it argues that it does not. For this Government, the focus is on ensuring a functioning statute book, that we have an EUSS that is effective in protecting the rights of our friends and neighbours who have come to this country and who make a huge difference to it, and that we move forward and deliver our promises. Therefore, I ask the Committee to support the regulation.
Question put,
Draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2020.
The draft order will amend the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007, which provides for a certificate scheme commonly known as the RTFO. The draft order will increase the support available to the supply of biofuels by increasing the buy-out price from 30p per litre to 50p pence per litre. That figure is used to calculate any buy-out payment due under the RTFO certificate trading scheme. The change is crucial so that we have a strong UK market for renewable fuels and reduce transport carbon emissions.
The RTFO establishes targets to drive the supply of renewable fuels by placing obligations on larger suppliers of fuel to ensure that supply. The amount of renewable fuel that must be supplied is calculated as a percentage of the volume of relevant fossil fuel supplied in a calendar year. This obligational level—or target—has increased over time; it is currently 9.75%. The target gradually increases until 2032, at which point, without further legislation, the yearly target would be 12.4% in each subsequent year.
The 2007 order also provides for a certificate trading scheme that supports a market for renewable fuels. Under the scheme, obligated fuel suppliers must acquire sufficient renewable transport fuels certificates to meet their obligation, either by supplying renewable fuels or by purchasing certificates on the open market. Alternatively, they can make a buy-out payment. It is the buy-out option, and increasing its price, that the draft order deals with.
The ability of suppliers to pay a buy-out price acts as a safety valve. It protects consumers of fuel from exceptional spikes in the price of renewable fuels. However, in normal market conditions, the continuing success of the RTFO scheme depends upon renewable fuel being supplied. Biofuels remain the main type of renewable fuel supplied under the RTFO. Recent increases in the cost of biofuels relative to petrol and diesel mean that there is a potential sustained commercial incentive for suppliers to buy out. Any reduction in biofuel supply will affect greenhouse gas emission savings from transport fuels, which poses the risk that there will be a gap in UK carbon budgets. It also risks damaging our biofuels industry and the future investments that are needed to keep us on the path to net zero.
The RTFO applies UK-wide and has been highly successful for the past 12 years. In 2019, renewable fuel supplied under the scheme saved almost 5.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, which is the equivalent of taking 2.5 million combustion engine-powered cars off the road. Indeed, renewable fuel supplied under the RTFO currently contributes 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 made by the draft statutory instrument follows consultation in the summer, which proposed an increase in the buy-out price from 30p per litre to either 40p or 50p per litre. The vast majority of respondents agreed that there was an urgent need to increase the buy-out price. Some 45 respondents out of a total of 61 agreed with our preferred option to increase the buy-out price from 30p per litre to 50p per litre.
In proposing the change, we have carefully considered the balance of interests across the fuels industry, environmental organisations and consumers, recognising that the potential additional costs of meeting the RTFO would ultimately fall to the consumer, as well as the need to maintain a competitive biofuels market that is capable of driving reductions in carbon emissions. The increase in the buy-out price to 50p per litre strikes the right balance, so I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
We can all support the transition to renewable fuels across the transportation sector. As the Minister will be well aware, transport is the largest contributing sector to UK emissions, and progress in trying to decarbonise the sector has been very slow in recent years. To achieve that, we need to make the types of vehicle that we use, and the fuel they consume, more sustainable. It was disappointing to hear this week that the transport decarbonisation plan will not be published until spring 2021; we really do need an overarching strategy and coherence in policy making, as well as a greater sense of urgency.
The renewable transport fuel obligation was a key achievement of the last Labour Government. It has been a central part of encouraging the adoption of renewable fuels in transport, particularly fuels sustainably sourced from waste. I am pleased that the RTFO continues to be considered a success across the transport sector, but we must recognise that, as the climate emergency becomes more pressing and transport emissions continue to stagnate rather than reduce, it now needs reform.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
The hon. Lady gives credit to the previous Labour Government, but was it not agreement at a European level that actually forced all EU Governments to move towards more renewable road transport fuels?
Kerry McCarthy
That is a very good argument for European co-operation, so it is sad that the right hon. Gentleman is such a fan of going it alone.
The statutory instrument goes some way towards meeting the need for reform. As the Minister has explained, from 1 January, it will mean that the buy-back price multiplier will increase from 30p to 50p, strengthening the RTFO by providing more incentive for people to meet our renewable fuel requirements, rather than buying themselves out of their obligations. The Government estimate that, without acting to raise the buy-back price, we risk losing annual greenhouse gas savings of up to 6.5 million tonnes of CO2.
As the Minister said, the SI is the result of consultation. I am pleased that, as a result of that consultation, there was agreement to go for a 50p multiplier rather than 40p, which would have been considerably less ambitious. I am also pleased that implementation will begin swiftly on 1 January.
We will support the SI on the grounds that it strengthens the mandate to supply renewable fuels. Moving forward, however, I hope to see action from the Government to support renewable fuels in other ways. A consultation on introducing E10 petrol was launched earlier this year, but we are still waiting for the Government response, with a final decision on how it will be introduced and, hopefully, how we can ensure that an increased demand for biofuels does not lead to an increase in deforestation due to changes in land use.
Many stakeholders are proposing further reforms to the RTFO, such as a floor price mechanism to help to ensure stability for investment in the sector. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the Government are considering that reform to further strengthen the RTFO, because it has come up in many of my conversations with people in the sector.
I hope to see more support from the Government for emerging sources of renewable fuels, especially in hard-to-decarbonise sectors such as aviation, shipping and HGVs, which at present cannot easily be electrified. Proper investment in genuinely sustainable fuels for those modes of transport may prove vital in meeting net zero targets and putting us back on track. I know that we are expecting more details of the sixth carbon budget soon, and I will be watching closely for future announcements.
Mr Goodwill
I will be brief, and I first draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a wheat producer who is likely to benefit from an increased use of renewable fuel.
When we talk about new technologies to green our economy, and certainly to green our transport network, they often involve innovative solutions, but in the case of biofuels, not only is the technology mature, but the plants are already there. Investment has already been made on Teesside, in Hull and by British Sugar at Wissington. The problem is that those companies that have invested billions in this new technology have, in effect, been slapped in the face, because it was cheaper for fuel suppliers to buy out their obligations rather than sourcing the fuels. The order will address that particular problem.
The situation faced by the plant in Hull has been particularly disappointing, not only because it was designed to produce bioethanol to incorporate in fuel, but because the residue would have been a great animal feed for ruminants. Unfortunately, as such plants have completely stopped, or certainly operated at a much lower capacity, we have not seen the market for such by-products developing.
Does the Minister have ambitions to move to E10—10% ethanol fuel? Under the EN 228 fuel categorisation, fuel can be either E5 or E10. Many other countries around Europe have already moved to E10, which will increase demand for that fuel. When the Minister responds to the debate, including the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol East, will she comment on whether that change might result in more UK-produced biofuel, because one of the biggest concerns for many of us who were in the European Parliament when these things were decided—I will not take the credit for it, but I was there at the time—was indirect land use change, as some of those biofuels could have been sourced from the developing world, which may have had an effect on the rain forests? We often heard about so-called deforestation diesel, and countries such as Brazil are clearing rain forests to produce more ethanol. Indeed, vehicles there are running on E100—100% ethanol.
I welcome the order, but I would like reassurance from the Minister that the measure will herald the introduction of 10% ethanol fuel, and that we will do everything that we can to ensure that biofuels are sourced from the United Kingdom, rather than imported from countries that do not have the exacting environmental standards that we do.
Rachel Maclean
This has been an incredibly useful discussion. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby for their contributions. With his considerable expertise, my right hon. Friend identified the importance of the industry and the potential that the Government have to support our home-grown British industry, which is exactly what we want to do.
My right hon. Friend and the hon. Lady asked about E10, and we are working hard to publish our response to the consultation on its introduction as soon as possible. I am aware of the industry’s keen interest in the matter. We anticipate that any requirement to introduce E10 would come into force in 2021. There would need to be a period of at least six months in advance of that introduction so that fuel suppliers and consumers could prepare for the change in grade. The experience of other countries suggests that a comprehensive communications campaign is crucial to any successful roll-out to ensure that motorists are well informed ahead of the change in grade. Should E10 be rolled out in the UK, I reassure those who are interested that we will remain committed to ensuring the retention of an E5 grade for those vehicles or equipment that cannot use petrol with high levels of ethanol.
I am delighted by the hon. Lady’s support for the statutory instrument, for which I thank her. She rightly referred to the transport decarbonisation plan that she and I have discussed on many occasions. It remains at the forefront of the Government’s efforts to decarbonise the entire sector. Regrettably, in the light of the covid pandemic, we have had to deal with very pressing public health issues, but that has not detracted from our intense work on the plan, which we will publish in spring next year.
Kerry McCarthy
Following my conversations with people in the sector, I am concerned that some companies, particularly those operating fleet vehicles or bus companies —I know that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby has a company in his constituency that is keen to manufacture cleaner buses—have been so financially hit by covid that they have put their plans on hold, because it is not an ideal time for a company to upgrade its vehicles if it has not made a profit in the previous year. Will that affect what is in the decarbonisation plan?
Rachel Maclean
I do not want to stray too far from the statutory instrument, but the hon. Lady rightly raises very important questions. I will be happy to discuss that further with her, but I want to reassure her that our commitment remains. We work very closely with the sector, as she does, and we understand those natural concerns. Of course, the Government have supported the entire economy to the tune of at least £330 billion, which has gone to transport operators and many others. We recognise the challenges that operators face, but we nevertheless remain determined to decarbonise the transport sector.
The order makes a small but important amendment to ensure that the RTFO continues to support the renewable fuels industry as intended. We need the industry to drive down emissions in sectors that are harder to decarbonise, such as heavy goods vehicles and aviation, and to deliver the cleaner fuels that will play an even greater role in achieving our aim of a greener and more prosperous economy. I reassure members of the Committee that we have the most ambitious crop cap in Europe for fuel sources, which is 4% and will be decreasing to 2%. We have therefore taken note of the concerns that hon. Members have raised.
It is true that as we transition to zero emissions vehicles, we cannot ignore measures to reduce emissions from the conventional road vehicles in use today, particularly given the contribution of renewable fuels to meeting UK carbon budgets. We will be setting out in our transport decarbonisation plan more detail about the future of low-carbon fuels across transport modes, and that will be published in spring 2021.
The statutory instrument will change the RTFO buy-out price for the start of the next obligation year—1 January 2021. That timing is important so that we can provide certainty for fuel suppliers and minimise administrative costs. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the statutory instrument.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Reach Etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Draft Control of mercury (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Draft Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Draft Waste and Environmental permitting Etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft REACH Etc. (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Control of Mercury (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations, the draft Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the draft Waste and Environmental Permitting Etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Rebecca Pow
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Sir Charles, as we debate this bevy of statutory instruments.
Of the four instruments before us, three are concerned with the regulation of chemicals and chemical products, and the fourth concerns the regulation of waste and environmental permitting. The common thread is that each one contains provisions necessary to implement the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland.
I should like to inform the Committee that we have worked with the devolved Administrations on all four SIs, and consent has been received for all of them except the instrument on the regulation of waste and environmental permitting. That instrument has received consent from Scottish and Welsh Ministers but has not yet received consent from Northern Ireland Ministers. However, given that time to make the SI is now short, and the overriding need to provide certainty for businesses at the end of the transition period and to discharge our protocol obligations, we are proceeding with debating the SI without consent. We will continue to work closely with the Northern Executive in the coming days to resolve outstanding concerns in advance of making the SI.
I can confirm the all four instruments will be able to function with or without a deal with the European Union. I can also confirm that all four instruments have been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and that no issues have been drawn to the attention of the Committee.
The REACH Etc. (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 have three main purposes. The first two relate to the Northern Ireland protocol. They fulfil the United Kingdom’s obligation effectively to implement the protocol with regard to REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—and they provide for access by Northern Irish goods to the Great Britain market. After the transition period, UK REACH will regulate the GB market while EU REACH will apply to Northern Ireland. Additionally, the SI amends the existing transitional deadlines for GB businesses to submit information about their chemicals and their safe use to the domestic REACH system. The SI also makes some technical amendments that will ensure that cross-references in the UK REACH regulations are up to date at the end of the transition period.
The provisions that implement the protocol first of all redefine the scope of the domestic REACH regime from the UK to Great Britain. They provide for the Northern Ireland competent authority function to continue to be exercised jointly by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department for the Economy. They also ensure that there were still be effective enforcement arrangements for REACH in Northern Ireland.
The provisions on chemicals moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain reflect our commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses. They will also ensure that UK authorities have the appropriate information and regulatory safeguards in respect of chemicals placed on the GB market.
The SI permanently removes the requirement for a full REACH registration for chemicals that are, or are in, ‘qualifying’ Northern Ireland goods being placed on the GB market. Instead, there will be a light-touch notification process to ensure the Health and Safety Executive knows what chemicals are being placed on the GB market. Information necessary to ensure safe use must also still be passed down the supply chain.
Substances of very high concern entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland will still need a UK REACH authorisation. That is needed to manage the risk from those hazardous chemicals to GB consumers, workers and the environment. That simply replicates the current approach to placing those substances on the EU market, where the authorisation process makes sure that account is taken of local environmental and other factors. We will ensure that that happens where those chemicals are being placed on the market and used within Great Britain.
When the first REACH exit SI was debated in the House last year, the Government committed to keep the deadlines for submitting transitional notification and registration information to the HSE under review. We have followed up on that with very detailed discussions with a range of industry and non-governmental organisation stakeholders. The conclusions of the review have been carried forward in the SI before the Committee by the amendments to the transitional deadlines. The initial notification period for existing downstream users and distributors is being increased from 180 days to 300 days. We are replacing the deadline for submitting full registration information, which is currently two years in all cases, with a phased approach that spreads the duty over two, four and six years from the end of that initial 300-day period.
The phased policy takes a risk-based approach by requiring the submission of data on the highest tonnages and most hazardous chemicals first. In that way, companies will have more time and capability to comply with the legislation. It will enable them to reduce and spread costs, and give them more time to negotiate mutually beneficial data-sharing arrangements with other companies in the UK and the EU. That will lead to better compliance and the provision of higher quality data, leading to GB authorities having access to better data that will facilitate better decision-making. In the meantime, GB authorities will have access to significant other sources of data, so we will still be able to make robust regulatory decisions before full data is submitted to the HSE under UK REACH.
The Control of Mercury (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 make amendments to the retained EU law to ensure that legislation that manages the control of mercury is operable at the end of the transition period. In addition, it reflects the requirements of the Northern Ireland protocol. The SI revokes and replaces the Control of Mercury (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, revokes regulation 8 of the Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and also amends the Control of Mercury (Enforcement) Regulations 2017. Provisions that were included in the environment and wildlife regulations 2019 and the control of mercury regulations 2019 are now included in the new SI. The amending regulations were laid in 2019 to prepare the UK for leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement. Revoking the two SIs made back in 2019 and remaking the provisions contained in those SIs in this instrument ensures that we do not have more than one set of amending regulations. Basically, that means that the legislation is clearer for regulators and businesses.
The SI provides for the exercise by the appropriate GB authority of a number of legislative functions currently carried out by the European Commission. Those functions were previously included in regulation 8 of the Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The SI was debated in the House of Lords and the House of Commons on 12 February 2019 and 14 February 2019 respectively, and agreed by both Committees of those Houses.
Following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, the retained EU legislation, as amended by the instrument before the Committee, will continue to implement the UK’s obligations as a party to the Minamata convention, and provide a regulatory framework for management of mercury. Northern Ireland will continue to apply the EU regulation 2017/852 to manage mercury in the environment.
It has to be said that there is a minuscule, if any, trade in mercury between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, as I am sure the shadow Minister the hon. Member for Newport West is aware. However, we will be introducing new procedural requirements for the transport of elemental mercury between GB and Northern Ireland and introducing a prohibition on the transport of specified products containing mercury between GB and Northern Ireland. Currently, there are no controls on the movement of those specified products containing mercury or elemental mercury between member states. The new requirements should prevent the uncontrolled flow of elemental mercury and the specified products containing mercury from the EU into GB via Northern Ireland.
The SI meets the Government’s commitment to the Northern Ireland protocol. It also ensures continued levels of protection for human health and the environment, as well as again providing stability and continuity for businesses.
You will be excited to hear, Sir Charles, that the third SI relates to detergents. The primary aim of the Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 is to ensure that the UK meets its obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol in respect of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 on detergents—the EU Detergents Regulation. That has been done by amending the existing EU exit regulations on detergents—the Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Detergents (Safeguarding ) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
In terms of the key amendments that the SI before us makes to existing EU exit regulations, Committee members will not be surprised to learn that they are merely technical in nature. The technical changes made by the instrument will give effect to the Northern Ireland protocol by ensuring that the EU Detergents Regulation, as it has effect in EU law, continues to apply in Northern Ireland and that the amendments to the retained version of the EU Detergents Regulation extend to Great Britain only. The SI makes special provision for detergents in Northern Ireland in respect of ‘qualifying’ Northern Ireland goods, creating a category of protected imports from Northern Ireland and enabling them unfettered access into the GB market while maintaining standards of protection for the environment and human health. That is, of course, absolutely paramount.
Trade from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK should continue to take place as it does now—there will be unfettered access, as provided for by the protocol. Therefore, at the end of the transition period, businesses in Northern Ireland may continue to place their goods in any part of the UK internal market without new restrictions.
In addition to the changes to the existing EU exit regulations on detergents, the SI amends the Detergents Regulations 2010—the domestic enforcement regulations on detergents—which will ensure that the Northern Ireland enforcement authorities can continue to enforce the EU Detergents Regulation, as they have effect in EU law, while the retained version of the EU Detergents Regulation can continue to be enforced in GB.
The changes made to the 2010 regulations will also have the effect of ensuring that the competent authority functions, currently exercised by the Secretary of State under the EU Detergents Regulation, will be exercised by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland. I wish to assure Members that the overarching aim of the instrument is to provide continuity for detergent businesses, to ensure that following the end of the transition period the high standards of human health and environmental safety will continue across the UK, and to reflect the obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol.
Finally, we come to the Waste and Environmental Permitting Etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendments Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which includes a mixture of devolved and reserved content. It is a technical instrument that makes small but important changes to existing legislation so that it refers to the latest versions of the EU directives and domestic regulations, as amended by the EU circular economy package. These are small changes, but they will ensure that legislation relating to waste and environmental permitting can be properly enforced by the Environment Agency and its devolved counterparts. This instrument also makes some small technical amendments to
provisions of earlier EU exit SIs that amend domestic legislation relating to batteries, and changes the extent of amendments in an earlier EU exit SI to the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances regulations, known as the RoHS regulations, and the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations, so that they do not extend to Northern Ireland. These changes are needed to reflect the fact that the directives that those regulations implement will continue to apply in Northern Ireland, but not in Great Britain, as a virtue of the Northern Ireland protocol. In practice we have kept the GB and Northern Ireland requirements exactly the same for batteries. On the ground there will be no changes on how batteries are collected, treated and recycled. The requirements for batteries reaching market in the first place will also remain exactly the same. This instrument simply ensures that the correct references are in place depending on whether the legislation applies in GB or Northern Ireland.
The SI also transfers the European Commission’s powers related to article 7(1) of the waste framework directive. This power is being transferred to the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations. The power will allow the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations to establish their own lists of waste or amend the existing list of waste as it becomes part of retained EU law after the end of the transition period. The list of waste gives identifying codes to different categories of waste, which are used by waste management businesses, and it specifies which categories of waste are to be treated as hazardous waste. The Secretary of State will need the consent of the devolved Administrations to make amendments to the list of waste on their behalf.
The schedule to this instrument revokes some recent EU decisions or regulations. These revocations are either to tidy up our statute book or because we should no longer be bound to those decisions after the transition period ends, such as where they specify formats for reporting data to the European Commission, which the United Kingdom will cease to do at the end of the transition period.
Each of these instruments is necessary to make sure that the Northern Ireland protocol is implemented properly. They respond to the Government’s commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods and they help to make sure that we are fully prepared for the end of the transition period on 31 December.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is very good indeed to see you in the Chair, Sir Charles. May I convey to you and yours, and all the Members here, my best wishes for the festive season?
It is a pleasure to speak for Her Majesty’s Opposition this afternoon. As the Order Paper suggests, I think we are here for the long haul. Today we have four statutory instruments before us. I will speak to each in turn, and I will seek to give them the time and attention that legislation before this House deserves. We are discussing the following: the draft REACH Etc. (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, the draft Control of Mercury (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations, the draft Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the draft Waste and Environmental Permitting Etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
You don’t need me to say it, Sir Charles, but I will do so anyway: these are important pieces of legislation that are required to ensure that we are prepared not just for the end of the transition period, but for what happens after that. The Minister and other colleagues will have heard me say that I am increasingly concerned, notwithstanding the timetable, that the United Kingdom is governing by statutory instrument. Although I have been a Member of the House for just shy of two years, I know this is not how things should be done. The fact that we are approaching the end of the transition period in a little over three weeks dictates that we need to make sure that we are as prepared as possible, but that this is not how things should be done. I want the Minister to know that Her Majesty’s Opposition is willing to be a constructive and engaging partner in these days ahead, but we cannot be taken for granted. We will hold Ministers to account every step of the way; importantly, we will—like you, Sir Charles—defend the rights of this House every step of the way.
I will take the statutory instruments in turn, starting with the draft REACH Etc. (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. This is an important subject. We all know that our departure from the European Union will change how we do business, how our country functions, and how we ensure that chemicals regulation in the UK is fit for purpose in the years ahead. This might seem like a niche issue, but many people are far more concerned about it than might be thought. The Royal Society of Chemistry has been clear that
“the impact on the future of chemicals regulation in the UK must be considered, alongside the possibility of divergence from EU regulations.”
We Opposition Members echo those concerns, and ask the Government, on this and many other issues, to be wise and careful when it comes to diverging from the standards and regulations that consumers, industry and our global partners have come to expect in the United Kingdom.
The chemical manufacturing supply chains are well established, and for many products, materials cross the channel several times. If even the most minimal tariffs come our way in a few short days, and that is combined with a requirement to respond to separate regulatory regimes and produce documents to proceed through borders, it could all have a negative impact on future manufacturing supply chains and strategies in the United Kingdom.
So far, under the Government’s approach to charting our nation’s way through these difficult times—I appreciate that the negotiations are continuing—there will be no dynamic alignment with EU regulations in any new UK-EU trade deal. Ministers have indicated that divergence will feature heavily. I regret that, and so do many Opposition Members. I am particularly concerned that the Government have not indicated an intention to seek close co-operation with the European Chemicals Agency; I urge the Minister to make a case for doing so to the Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Prime Minister.
Regulatory divergence could have a severe impact on the quality and strength of public health and environmental protections. We should be levelling up, not cutting ties, and Ministers will not be forgiven for engaging our nation in a race to the bottom. It is important, as the Royal Society of Chemistry and others have said, that the Government be conscious of divergent sources of data. Harmful divergence could occur if the evidence base is not harmonised, so a new, binding legal agreement is needed that will allow authorities in the UK and the European Chemicals Agency to continue to share commercially sensitive data.
Ministers need to be careful about what their approach means for business and industry in our country. They could end up doubling the burden on them through masses of extra regulation. The EU regulation on chemicals, REACH, is a single-market measure that applies in the European economic area, which includes the EU, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The Chemical Industries Association estimates that duplicating EU REACH in the UK after the transition period will cost UK businesses £1 billion, will be without any environmental benefit, and will potentially force duplicate animal testing. We call on the Government to do all they can to avoid this sort of duplication, and to work to deliver the essential solutions required to grow the environmental, social and economic performance of our country.
I pay tribute to the Chemical Industries Association for its work on this issue. It has been very clear that securing a deal with the European Union that guarantees tariff-free trade, regulatory alignment and access to skilled people continues to be of critical importance for the chemical industry, which relies on our future relationship being as frictionless as possible.
Earlier this year, the Government confirmed that they were not seeking to participate in REACH as part of the UK’s future relationship with the EU, and would instead establish an independent chemicals regulatory regime from 1 January 2021. This regime will cover Great Britain; Northern Ireland will remain in REACH as a result of the withdrawal agreement, as the Minister has identified. Simply put, the Government and their Ministers have dropped the position of the Government led by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), which was to remain in, and aligned to, EU rules on chemicals. The Minister mentioned a light touch; I would be grateful if she could elaborate in her wind-up speech.
In advance of this debate, my team and I had very important and helpful discussions with experts and players in the chemicals field, and I am especially grateful to the CHEM Trust for its work on these issues. The CHEM Trust has set out concerns about a number of features of the future GB REACH regime—or BREACH, as it may now be called—that will be weaker than the current protective framework of EU-REACH. These include the risk of Great Britain becoming a dumping ground for chemicals and products that do not meet EU regulations. The Government have recently acknowledged that chemical dumping is a possibility and said that they are working hard to ensure that this does not happen. I say to the Minister that the only way to guarantee that is by a mechanism or commitment to ensure that the UK remains aligned with EU chemical controls. I would urge the Minister to consider that very seriously indeed.
There is a risk that the regulator will be incapacitated in its ability to regulate harmful chemicals without access to the European Chemical Agency or ECHA chemical safety database. The BREACH system, otherwise known as the Government’s plan for post 31 December, will start with an empty database that will not even contain the most basic registration data on chemicals for the first seven years; and even then, it will have much less information on chemical properties and uses than is in the REACH database. The UK has been seeking to gain access to REACH safety data in the EU-UK trade negotiations, though without making any commitment to remain aligned with EU REACH. The CHEM Trust’s analysis is that the EU will not give such access without a commitment to align with REACH controls, which seems to make perfect sense. BREACH could also all too easily become inactive, without pushes in the system for the regulator to proactively propose controls. For example, a proactive aspect of the EU system is the ability of individual member states to propose restrictions. That has been used already to propose restrictions on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, as a group of more than 4,500 highly persistent chemicals, and on intentional use of microplastics.
The lack of mechanisms in the future regulator to ensure stakeholder representation, public participation and transparent decision making is another area of concern. It will result in a more closed and less transparent system than that of the ECHA, which would be more susceptible to industry lobbying. By comparison, the committee structure within the ECHA helps to ensure that its work can be challenged and that the best information is available for these discussions, helping to avoid mistakes and to ensure that decisions are made more independently and transparently.
The fifth area of concern is regulatory capacity, including the experience and expertise of personnel in the Health and Safety Executive and their ability to replicate the functions of the European Chemicals Agency in such a complex field. The Minister is well aware—we have discussed it already, in considering the Environment Bill—that the European Chemicals Agency has an annual budget of approximately €100 million for REACH and 400 staff. There are over 22,900 substances that might be used here in the United Kingdom after the end of the transition period, and all of them have to be registered and assessed. The HSE will be expected to regulate a similar number of chemicals with a fraction of the budget—at the moment, a promised £13 million a year—and without the expertise of its workforce, whereas the ECHA additionally draws on the resources of member states for complex work such as substance evaluation.
There are a number of areas in which the future system is likely to be further weakened if the UK does not remain aligned to REACH as part of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. For instance, deregulation of the system has already begun. The Government announced an extension to the deadline by which the industry must supply safety data on registered substances from two years at the end of transition to being staggered over a period of six years from October 2021. The Government are already deregulating the system they devised only last year. Without this data, it will be difficult if not impossible for the Health and Safety Executive to regulate these chemicals. Like the CHEM Trust, the Opposition are increasingly concerned that we are likely to see further deregulation of the system to minimise burdens that could make it little more than a paper regulator. The UK already has low enforcement of the law in this area, and a weak system could result in many more products on sale containing chemicals that are banned or above legal limits in the UK.
The lack of resources for local standards teams to test goods is about to get much worse, as they lose access to the EU’s rapid alert system or RAPEX at the end of this month. Another concern is the effect on trade deals with non-EU countries. If we do not remain aligned to EU REACH, trade deals with other countries with weaker systems for regulating chemicals—which includes almost all non-European countries, including the US—could result in a weakening of our chemical protection standards, and in the import of products containing problem chemicals that are banned in the EU. That must surely be unacceptable to the Minister, and I hope that she will address that when she replies to the debate. Those are important concerns, and I hope that the Minister will address each in turn. I am also grateful to Greener UK for its work on the issues and for highlighting many of the points I have raised.
Our role as an Opposition is to scrutinise Government and make sure that the decisions they take are fit for purpose and, most importantly, that they will stand the test of time; that is why I wanted to spend so much time on this incredibly important topic. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, understood the importance of the issues and it worries me greatly that her successor appears to not have a clue.
The value of the UK chemicals industry cannot be overstated; the sector directly employs 88,000 people and is worth billions of pounds to the UK economy every year. It is vital in the supply chain to many other sectors, including pharmaceuticals and aerospace, as well as to the production of everyday items such as cleaning products and electronics. Therefore, we cannot get this wrong; it is incumbent on the Minister and this Government to get this right.
The Minister will know that the former shadow Secretary of State, my noble Friend, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is today speaking on this issue in the other place. Because of that, and the fact that the Opposition will return to these issues as the Environment Bill continues its passage through the House, we will not push for a vote this afternoon. However, I say to the Minister very, very seriously that we have grave concerns with the Government’s approach to this issue, and Her Majesty's Opposition will continue to hold them to account for the system they devise and they decisions they take.
The draft Control of Mercury (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 is, as Members will note from their Order Paper, a short and specific piece of legislation. The purpose of the instrument is to make the necessary corrections to EU regulations on mercury to enable its continued use as governed by EU retained law after the end of the transition period. It also makes amendments for purposes relating to the implementation of the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland.
For the benefit of the Committee, mercury is a naturally occurring element that is found in air, water and soil. The release of mercury into the environment mainly stems from human activities, such as the use of mercury-added products, coal-fired power generation, and the mining and processing of mercury, gold and other metals. Airborne mercury emissions can travel long distances across the globe.
Once mercury enters the environment, it can be naturally transformed into methylmercury, which accumulates in organisms and can biomagnify through food chains, often leading to human exposure through consumption of fish and shellfish. Exposure to even small amounts of mercury or methylmercury may cause serious health problems, and is a particular threat to child development in utero and in early life. As a result, mercury is considered by the World Health Organisation to be one of the top ten chemicals—or groups of chemicals—of major public health concern. It is vital that we ensure that whatever rules and regulations that are required to keep people safe and the handling of mercury safe and secure are speedily and thoroughly taken through this House.
I welcome the fact that the devolved Administrations in our country were closely consulted on the approach taken during the drafting of this instrument—as the Minister outlined earlier—and I further note that they were provided with the opportunity to propose amendments; that is helpful.
I also note that informal engagement was undertaken with stakeholders from across the United Kingdom, representing industry and trade associations, who could potentially supply, purchase, or manufacture products that contain mercury between July and September 2020. Those who have responded so far have indicated that they do not supply, purchase, use or manufacture products that contain mercury.
Analysis and engagement undertaken in 2020 demonstrates that there is very little movement of any elemental mercury or mercury-added products between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, or between the UK and EU; this is important to note as we discuss this SI, and the Minister has already mentioned that.
Her Majesty's Opposition will not oppose this regulation because of the specific and focused nature of it, but it was important to take a moment to speak to it.
Sir Charles, I would now like speak to the draft Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. This SI, like the previous two, refers to the Northern Ireland protocol and to our obligation to honour it. The instrument provides for the continued access of detergents, or surfactants for detergents, from Northern Ireland into Great Britain market. It will ensure that the necessary amendments are made to the EU exit SIs to ensure that the EU Detergents Regulation applies in Northern Ireland, as provided for by the Northern Ireland protocol, while the retained EU law version of the EU Detergents Regulation, as amended by the detergent EU exit SIs, applies in Great Britain only.
The Minister will know that under the terms of the withdrawal agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed to as a solution intended to preserve the unique relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland, and to prevent a hard border or splitting the UK customs territory. That protocol means that we have an obligation to ensure that we are ready for the end of the transition period and the changes that will come with it. As such, Her Majesty’s Opposition will not oppose the statutory instrument, but we urge strong and sensible action every step of the way.
I am grateful to hon. Members for listening to me speak at length, although I should say that I am speaking at length only because the Government have timetabled four Sis; it is not my fault. Do not blame me. Our last statutory instrument this afternoon is the draft Waste and Environmental Permitting Etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The instrument amends a number of existing EU exit statutory instruments to ensure that the legislation amended by those instruments will continue to operate effectively at the end of the transition period, and makes EU exit-related amendments to, or revokes, some recent EU legislation that will become retained direct EU law. It also makes amendments to primary and subordinate domestic legislation for similar purposes.
The changes made by the instrument will ensure that waste regulation and environmental permitting can be managed after the end of the EU exit transition period. I have touched on waste previously, not least in the Committee stages of the Environment Bill. I refer those interested to my remarks in Hansard. I am sure that a number of people will rush to Hansard after this.
We will not oppose the instruments, but I hope that the Minister has taken on board the concerns that I have raised throughout this speech and in Committee. Government by statutory instrument cannot be an attempt to secure government without scrutiny. I say to the Minister that it is vital that we start respecting this House properly, and our constituents. It is simply not acceptable to rush legislation through a Committee in groups when it will affect the lives of all the people across Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England for many years to come.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister. It is never a hardship to listen to her speaking at length. She referred to people thinking that this might be a niche issue; chemicals are far from a niche issue, and the Government have never treated them as such. We are taking this extremely seriously, which is why so much liaison and discussion has gone on with industry, businesses and, indeed, with the devolved areas over the SIs. That remains crucial. As I have pointed out, there is still much ongoing discussion with them about these issues. She criticises the SIs, but today is her opportunity to scrutinise the legislation, and we have given her ample opportunity to do so, and indeed anyone else on the Committee.
As I said at the end of my earlier speech, the instruments are necessary to ensure that the Northern Ireland protocol is implemented properly. They correct operability deficiencies, which is necessary for the implementation of the protocol, respond to the Government’s commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods, and help to ensure that we are fully prepared for the end of the transition period on 31 December. The REACH SI does not set up the UK REACH regime, about which we heard a great deal. That was done by the REACH Etc. (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which the House considered last year.
All that the present SI does is make amendments to provision for the Northern Ireland protocol to change some of the transitional provisions to extend deadlines for data submission. These instruments will also ensure that the UK continues to meet its international obligations for mercury, as a party to the Minamata convention. They will also ensure that we continue to maintain the high standards of biodegradability for detergents and surfactants. The waste instrument makes small but important changes to existing legislation, and takes powers back from the European Commission. It amends legislation relating to the restriction of hazardous substances, packaging and batteries, so that the UK complies with the Northern Ireland protocol.
I will skim through some of the queries raised. A lot of them were quite general; they were about the overall REACH regime, which is not exactly what these statutory instruments are all about, but I will touch on some of them. In particular, the hon. Member for Newport West raised the subject of associate membership of ECHA. We have gone past that now; I am sure she knows that. That would be unacceptable, because it would tie the UK to the EU’s regulatory agenda and leave us subject to the European Court of Justice.
The hon. Lady touched on animal testing. As a former chair of the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare, this is a subject dear to my heart, on which I engaged as a Back Bencher. Under EU REACH, tests on vertebrate animals must only be used as a last resort, and companies must demonstrate this. We are retaining this principle in the UK REACH. Extending the deadline would give industry more time to make sensible arrangements for access to existing data about chemicals. That is why the extension that we have talked about today for two years, four years, and six years is so helpful. The data includes information for animal studies, and it will reduce the risk of repeat animal tests.
Ruth Jones
I understand the point the Minister is making, but is she confident that when we leave the EU, animal testing will not be duplicated in the UK? The animal testing agencies are very concerned that there will be duplication, and that means duplication of animal testing.
Rebecca Pow
Potentially, I think the hon. Lady is unnecessarily scaremongering. She has heard what I have just said: we are retaining the principle in UK REACH that animal testing would be a last resort. If testing has already been done and we have got the data, no one wants to repeat that. The UK, as she knows, has always been at the forefront of opposing animal testing where alternative approaches could be used, and we will retain the last-resort principle. I hope that offers assurance.
I have touched on why we need a separate UK REACH. It would not be appropriate for us to automatically implement future EU decisions under UK REACH, because the EU will no longer consider the impact of their decisions on Great Britain. In setting up our own system, we can take the EU’s decisions into account, but we will need to consider, in every case, whether the decisions we are making are right for Great Britain.
Ruth Jones
Is the Minister confident that, as we divert from the EU, we will be able to maintain standards, and that this is not a race to the bottom, as some in the industry worry?
Rebecca Pow
Again, I would suggest that the hon. Lady is scaremongering. Does she honestly think we want to be in a race to the bottom over something as important to human health and the environment as chemicals? She sat through the Environment Bill with me, where we talked about protecting the environment. Does she really think that I as the Minister, and all the people working in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, would open up the floodgates for a race to the bottom over dangerous chemicals? One of these SIs relates to hazardous chemicals. I reiterate that we will stick to the principles that we maintain—and indeed will probably strengthen them. We have the opportunity to do that in a bespoke way now. I hope that is of some assurance.
The hon. Lady touched on costs. We are very conscious of the need to reduce costs, which is why the UK has been looking to agree an approach to data-sharing with the EU as part of the free trade agreement. She was obviously edging towards that in her conversations about remaining part of ECHA, which we will not. Our negotiations are ongoing, and the aim I have just outlined would assist us greatly in meeting the need for the data to underpin UK REACH, while also avoiding extra costs to industry. We could then significantly reduce the requirements and costs on companies, which would submit their data directly to HSE. Again, however, the extension of the time period for companies to do this will also help with all that.
Ruth Jones
The Minister is being very generous with her time. She is talking about data-sharing. The Prime Minister and his team have gone to Brussels for negotiations with the EU. Will they come back with a deal that will include the data-sharing clause?
Rebecca Pow
I am ever supportive of the Prime Minister and optimistic. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] As we all are—that was a great response, and I thank the Committee for it. The hon. Lady is pushing me, but obviously we cannot have only one plan; we cannot have only a negotiated plan A. That is why we are creating an independent chemicals regime, and we must plan for a scenario in which the EU does not agree to our preferred route of data-sharing. However, I am sure we would all want our independent regime to be robust and effective, so we should all accept the importance of industry and authorities having the information that they need to protect human health and the environment properly through the supply chain, as I have touched on before. Obviously it is not cost-free, but if we do not maintain that, we are moving away from the core principles of industry being responsible for understanding the risks of the substances it uses. Regulators must have the information that they need to provide oversight and assurance. We are sticking to our principles, but obviously we have to get the right data and keep everybody safe in our new regime.
That leads me neatly on to my next point. The hon. Lady referred to a race to the bottom and the lowering of standards, but I can assure her that we are definitely taking a risk-based approach to phasing the submission of registration data by requiring, as I touched on earlier, that companies producing the highest tonnage of chemicals and the most hazardous chemicals have to provide their data first, two years after the 300 days. Companies producing lower tonnages and lower-risk chemicals will follow after that. Taking such an approach should facilitate the submission of better-quality data for the risky products first, and then companies can have bit longer to submit their data on less concerning risky products. HSE will be able to look at a variety of sources to inform its decisions, which will also include using its years of experience on chemical regulation within EU REACH and the new substance regime that ran prior to it.
Ruth Jones
The Minister mentioned HSE, its powers of enforcement and its legislative ability to regulate. Is she confident that there will be enough members of staff and funding, given that HSE’s budget has been stripped out of all proportion over the last 10 years?
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Lady touched on that in her earlier contribution. I would say that HSE is very well placed to be a great success in this role—it has been stressed many times. Working in conjunction with the Environment Agency, HSE has already played a really active role in EU REACH for many years, and it has had to take on some really complex issues and dossiers. On the issue of staffing, that is all under way. DEFRA has put significant resources into building up not only UK REACH, but the regulation side of it. HSE is recruiting heavily for people to work in this area, although it is not absolutely necessary to have it fully staffed for day one, because companies will not rush out on 1 January, suddenly get their hands on all the data and fire it into HSE. HSE has plenty of time to train and build up the staff that it needs. Obviously it has made a really good start, but it also needs to make sure that it is absolutely tailored to the new system that we are developing.
I give the hon. Lady assurances that the IT system has already been developed. We are apparently ready to press the button at midnight on 31 December. The system has been trialled, and I am told it is working well. That is all part and parcel of the new regime.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
I did not intend to speak but I have listened closely to the shadow Minister’s interrogation of the Minister on REACH regulations. Would my hon. Friend agree with me that as a founder member of REACH, and having paid and made substantial contributions to REACH, it would look miserly of the European Union not to share information with the UK Government, specifically on chemicals regulations and animal testing? We could work closely on such a good project. Does she agree that the EU would look miserly were it not to share that particular information?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall—a wonderful part of the world—for making that point. I would not want to describe the EU as miserly, as they will continue to be our friends and we will need to work closely with them, but he makes the good point that the UK itself was incredibly influential in the development of the EU REACH system. The EU regard us as having played that important role. Negotiations are still underway and, as I outlined earlier, we are hoping for some joint and mutual recognition that may potentially result in what my hon. Friend recommends.
The shadow Minister touched upon the fact that Northern Ireland, in terms of protocol, will remain subject to the EU REACH, which means that the UK REACH regulations will not apply to the Northern Ireland market. There will be a streamlined process for Northern Ireland chemicals, however, that are part of what we call ‘qualifying’ Northern Ireland goods to access the GB market, and there is a list of those qualifying goods. The full registration requirements will be replaced with a light-touch notification process. The hon. Lady pressed me on the light touch, and it will be just that. We already know what chemicals they are using in Northern Ireland, so we are starting on a level playing field. It is important and key to remember that Northern Ireland will have a direct link and access to HSE. That is a good position for Northern Ireland in terms of accessing the right place for discussions and advice, because it will be able to access HSE. Northern Ireland businesses will be able to fulfil the notification requirement, should they wish to do so, instead of their GB customer. That has been fully thought through, and much debated and discussed. I hope that puts the shadow Minister’s mind at rest.
That brings me to end of the hon. Lady’s questions and queries. I can write to her should she believe that she would like further information. We have had no come back in terms of concerns about the mercury and the detergents. I think she agrees with that, so I thank her for that.
To sum up, the contents of all four instruments are technical and they are all essential to fulfil our obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. They all contribute in their own way to the effective functioning of the internal UK market and to the Government’s continued commitment to environmental protection.
I thank the Committee members for being here today and for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall. I hope that the debate has been useful. I thank the shadow Minister for her scrutiny, as ever. I am confident that these regulations are fit for purpose and represent another marker in the Government’s commitment to ensuring continued levels of protection for human health and the environment, which is so important, and to providing the stability and continuity that our businesses need.
I wish everyone all the best for the festive season, including you, Sir Charles, and I thank you for chairing the Committee today. I commend the SIs to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft REACH Etc. (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
DRAFT CONTROL OF MERCURY (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Control of Mercury (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.—(Rebecca Pow.)
DRAFT DETERGENTS (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.—(Rebecca Pow.)
DRAFT WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING ETC. (LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS AND AMENDMENT ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Waste and Environmental Permitting Etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vicky Ford
Currently, at least 80% of early years settings are open, and attendance has been consistently increasing during the autumn term. We estimate that, last week, 826,000 children attended an early years setting.
[Official Report, 3 December 2020, Vol. 685, c. 256WH.]
Letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford):
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct response should have been:
Vicky Ford
Currently, at least 80% of early years settings are open, and attendance has been consistently increasing during the autumn term. We estimate that, last week, 806,000 children attended an early years setting.
Petitions
Closure of Partick branch of TSB bank in Glasgow
Universal Credit uplift
National Security and Investment Bill (Tenth sitting)
Tuesday 8th December 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 View all National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 December 2020 - (8 Dec 2020)
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: † Sir Graham Brady, Derek Twigg
† Aiken, Nickie (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
† Baynes, Simon (Clwyd South) (Con)
† Bowie, Andrew (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
† Fletcher, Katherine (South Ribble) (Con)
† Flynn, Stephen (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
† Garnier, Mark (Wyre Forest) (Con)
† Gideon, Jo (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Grant, Peter (Glenrothes) (SNP)
† Griffith, Andrew (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Kinnock, Stephen (Aberavon) (Lab)
† Onwurah, Chi (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
† Tarry, Sam (Ilford South) (Lab)
† Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Western, Matt (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
† Whitehead, Dr Alan (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
† Wild, James (North West Norfolk) (Con)
† Zahawi, Nadhim (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)
Rob Page, Yohanna Sallberg, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Tuesday 8 December 2020
Afternoon
[Sir Graham Brady in the Chair]
National Security and Investment Bill
The Chair
Before we adjourned, the Committee was considering amendment 27 to clause 29, and I believe that Chi Onwurah was in the process of concluding her remarks.
Clause 29
Publication of notice of final order
Amendment proposed this day: 27, in clause 29, page 19, line 39, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person and where the publication would not be in the public interest, or”—(Sam Tarry.)
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from redacting notices of final order (and information within them) on commercial grounds if redacting is contrary to the public interest.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I had been just about to conclude by saying that a key reason for the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South is that it asserts and requires the supremacy of the public interest over commercial interest in the Secretary of State’s actions in reporting on final notices. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
With your permission, Sir Graham, I will speak to clause 29 stand part before turning to the amendment. The Committee has heard about the careful balance that the Government are striking in this regime by allowing for a discreet and commercially sensitive screening process wherever possible, while requiring transparency at key junctures where not to do so could disadvantage third parties.
Clause 29 is a key clause, the purpose of which is to deliver that essential but carefully chosen transparency. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a notice of the fact that a final order has been made, varied or revoked. The main purpose of publishing notice of those facts is to ensure that third parties who may have a financial interest in a trigger event are not disadvantaged by the provision of information only to the parties involved. Examples of relevant third parties might include shareholders, suppliers or customers of the target entity, and other investors who may be considering investing.
The clause will provide important reassurance to the business community and the wider public about the circumstances in which final orders are made, varied and revoked. It specifies what information must appear in a notice, including, crucially, a summary of the order, revocation or variation, its effect, and the reasons for it. Similarly to the approach on orders, subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to exclude information from the notice when he considers it commercially sensitive or national security sensitive. The clause is complemented by the requirement in clause 61 for the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the use of the powers in the Bill. Clause 61(2) sets out an extensive list of the aggregate data that the annual report must include. Together, those provisions will help investors and businesses to understand the regime, and will ensure that Parliament can hold the Government to account on their operation at both individual and aggregate levels.
I will now turn to amendment 27 to clause 29. I remind the Committee that the clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a notice when a final order has been made, varied or revoked. As drafted, subsection (3)(a) provides that the Secretary of State may exclude from that public notice anything that he considers likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person. The amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from excluding such information, unless he considers that publishing it would not be in the public interest.
The Committee has heard about the careful balance that the Government are seeking to strike in this regime, to allow, as I mentioned earlier, for a discreet and commercially sensitive screening process wherever possible, while requiring transparency at key junctures when not to do so may disadvantage third parties. As I set out, this is a key clause, the purpose of which is to deliver that carefully balanced transparency. Inherent in the clause is the degree of flexibility afforded to the Secretary of State to redact information when he judges that to be appropriate, whether for commercial or national security reasons. I hesitate slightly to return to a somewhat recurring theme—the difference between “may” and “shall”—but the fact that the Secretary of State “may” redact information provides him with the flexibility to decide case by case whether that is the right thing to do.
The hon. Member for Ilford South seeks to ensure with this amendment that the Secretary of State will not disregard the public interest when using the flexibility on deciding whether to redact information. The hon. Gentleman need not worry; that is my message to him. The Secretary of State will always seek to serve the public interest in this Bill and in all that he does. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State will carefully consider any redactions made and that he will not take the decision to exclude information lightly.
Nadhim Zahawi
I suspect that the hon. Member for Ilford South may wonder why, if it makes so little difference, we do not include his amendment and formalise the importance of considering the public interest. I suspect that that is also the point on which the hon. Lady wishes to intervene.
Chi Onwurah
The Committee recognises the importance of giving the powers in the Bill to the Secretary of State in the interests of national security. The powers of redaction are, or could be, in the interests of commercial sensitivity. Does the Minister agree that national security and the public interest should be supreme over commercial sensitivity? Why will he not make that clear?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thought I had made that clear. The Bill strikes that balance between commercial sensitivity and national security.
I return to my reassurance on the importance of considering the public interest. In addition to the general principle that one should avoid amending clauses that, essentially, fulfil their objectives—if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it—I suggest that the Bill is not the place to begin adding references to the public interest. While the Secretary of State cares profoundly about the public interest, this specific regime is intentionally and carefully focused on national security. Although it may be an attractive proposition to certain hon. Members, my strong view is that by introducing ideas of wider public interest into the Bill, we would risk confusing and stretching its scope beyond its carefully crafted calibration. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy with what hon. Members seek to achieve with the amendment but, for the reasons I have set out, I must ask that the hon. Gentleman withdraws it.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham, in these temperatures, which are positively balmy compared with the Siberian ones that we experienced this morning.
I thank the Minister for his comments, but I would say that there is no stretch too far on national security. It is positive to hear that the Minister agrees that the focus on national security is crucial, and that we are driving at the interests of national security in our amendment.
Chi Onwurah
Was my hon. Friend as confused as I was when the Minister spoke about this Bill not being the place to introduce public interest? The Government, however, have introduced commercial sensitivity. We are not seeking to modify national security; it is the introduction of commercial sensitivity that requires the introduction of public interest. We are talking about modifying the importance of commercial sensitivity, not national security. Will my hon. Friend join me in rejecting the Minister’s assertion?
Sam Tarry
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. We have been clear that the amendment is simply about preventing the Secretary of State from redacting notices of final order on commercial grounds, if redaction is contrary to the public interest. The whole point of this Bill is to together public interest, national security and commercial interest because they are one and the same. National security is our highest priority, but in the post-Brexit scenario we want to be a country that is as open and positive as possible towards investment from international partners if they share our values and our objectives of supporting and building Britain. It feels as though the Minister is agreeing with us in part, but he is not prepared to accept this amendment. For that reason, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Financial assistance
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 30, page 19, line 44, leave out
“making of a final order”
and insert
“making of an interim or a final order”.
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to give financial assistance in consequence of the making of an interim order.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in clause 30, page 20, line 3, after “period” insert “or any calendar year,”.
This amendment would make it mandatory for the Government to inform Parliament if financial assistance given in any financial year, or in any calendar year, exceeds £100 million.
Clause stand part.
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friends and I have set out how we are seeking to provide constructive support and improvement for this Bill. I am disappointed that the Minister seems to feel that no improvement is possible, but I hope to persuade him otherwise with amendment 24. It is not a probing amendment; it brings a much-needed improvement to what I consider to be an incomprehensible omission in clause 30.
Clause 30 provides that the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, give financial assistance to, or in respect of, an entity through a loan guarantee or indemnity, or any other form of financial assistance. The financial assistance must be given as a consequence of him making a final order. That is a key point that I will return to.
Clause 30 further states that during any financial year, if the amount given under the clause totals £100 million or more, the Secretary of State must lay a report of the amount before the House of Commons. It states that during any financial year in which a report has been laid before Parliament, if the Secretary of State provides any further financial assistance under this clause, he must lay before the House a report of the amount.
I set that out to indicate that, as I understand it, the amount of financial assistance that can be provided is not limited. A report must be provided when the amount given under this clause totals £100 million or more, but there is no limit on the amount which can be provided. One would expect the Treasury to provide a limit in any year, but the Bill does not set any limit on the amount of financial assistance that the Secretary of State can make available. It does not, however, provide for any financial assistance in the case of an interim order. The provision applies only to a final order, specifically in clause 30, on page 19, in line 44. That is why we seek simply to change that to include interim orders under the scope of the financial assistance clause.
The theme of the Opposition amendments is that we wish to protect our national security, and we think that the measures could have been taken earlier. Part of the social contract is that that should be done in a way that is fair, clear and certain for businesses, so that they understand the legislative framework as far as possible, and so that they feel that it is fair and in the interests of our national security and, as part of that, our national prosperity.
Given the broad powers that the Bill gives the Secretary of State, about which we have had some back and forth, it is all the more important that the appropriate support should be there for affected businesses. I will not trespass on your good nature by drawing too many parallels, Sir Graham, but we see in the pandemic under which we are suffering that public confidence in the ability of the Government depends on the right amount of support being available for those who are adversely affected. Clearly, one aspect of that is the Government’s ability to provide financial assistance to an entity where Government intervention creates a position of loss for the entity.
We discussed in relation to clauses 24 to 26 the level of remedies, in terms of an interim or final notification and how they may affect an entity. Let us consider the example of a British start-up in some very important area—artificial intelligence, let us say—that has an investor lined up and is looking forward to expanding its work because of that investor. As a consequence of the measures in the Bill, however, a final order prevents the investor from investing in this fantastic start-up.
Let us say for the purposes of argument that this start-up is based in Newcastle—an excellent area for start-ups and innovation to come from. I should say that a fantastic small business in Newcastle will already have greater challenges in finding finance and investors, because unfortunately many potential investors are apparently put off by a short train ride from King’s Cross. Once the start-up has found a potential investor, under the provisions of the Bill it is identified that such an investment would form some present or future threat to our national security, so the start-up is prevented from raising funding as a direct consequence of the new national security screening regime. We can all imagine—in fact, it does not require imagination; we can simply anticipate––the huge financial challenges that that might create for small, innovative start-ups. Financial assistance is a critical part of making the new regime effective. A key question is why the Government are only creating the power to provide such assistance in the making of final orders, not interim orders.
I asked earlier what the maximum period for an interim order should be, because with the provisions in clause 23 for an initial period, an additional period, a voluntary period and an additional voluntary period, an interim order could last for a considerable time. I asked the Minister whether there was a maximum time for an interim order. Regardless, an interim order could impose major costs on a British start-up or prevent an acquirer from acquiring or investing in one should it increase its level of influence in an unacceptable way. That could cause the loss of business-critical investment. Does the Minister consider that it would be appropriate to be able to provide financial assistance in the case of interim orders as in the case of final notices?
A similar concern applies to more general instances where financial assistance will be critical in securing national security. Has the Minister considered a wider power of financial assistance that would allow the Government to intervene pre-emptively in cases where Government investment could secure strategic assets for the UK, even if a precise trigger event has not occurred? The clause provides for financial assistance when a final order has been made, but has he considered provision for financial assistance before a final order has been made or an event has been called in? I have in mind cases such as OneWeb satellite, where the Government made a major investment just a few months ago to secure, as we are told, strategic assets, yet that was outside trigger events or a case such as bankruptcy proceedings. Does the Minister consider that existing statutory powers are sufficient, and clear enough in law, to provide for such pre-emptive investment? In the case of OneWeb, there certainly was not sufficient clarity about whether the investment was being made for national security reasons or to replace existing investments. There was not sufficient clarity or accountability. Would it not be better to place such investments, which are made in the interests of national security, within the context of the Bill? Would there be a benefit from placing such powers in statute?
Beyond specific events where the amendment would put interim orders in scope, there is a question about the toolkit available to Government for appropriate financial assistance. Clause 30(2) says that financial assistance
“means loans, guarantees or indemnities, or any other kind of financial assistance (actual or contingent).”
That is slightly circular. Will the Minister clarify whether equity investments come under
“any other kind of financial assistance.”?
The Minister is nodding—I am not sure whether that means that he will clarify or that the equity investment is financial assistance—but can he say if it is included in the scope of the Bill or, if not, if it should be. The stakeholders within the artificial intelligence sector have specifically asked me to raise that point.
Where a small business is unable to raise equity investments because of a Government final order, giving it further debt funding might not be any help if the business’s future inability to make loan payments is threatened. Again, in the crisis in which we find ourselves we see the reluctance of business to take on further debt. In those circumstances, loans may not be considered financial assistance. The Government and the Minister need to clarify whether equity investments are part of financial assistance.
The Minister needs to accept our amendment with regard to interim orders or explain why interim orders do not raise the need for financial assistance in the same way as final orders. That is a critical question so that the Government have the powers they need to act decisively and effectively to protect national security, and to do so in a way that is fair to our small businesses.
I point to some of the evidence we heard in the evidence sessions. Christian Boney from Slaughter and May said:
“I think you make a very valid point in the context of start-up and early-stage companies. The concern I would have principally is with those companies that are in that phase of their corporate life…For them, this regime is going to make the process of getting investment more time-consuming and more complex.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2020; c. 70, Q80.]
Will the Minister consider whether the Bill, as it stands, addresses that?
Similarly, Michael Leiter said:
“The place where I think this is more problematic…is in smaller-scale, early-stage venture investments. That is where deals can go signed to close within hours or days, and having that longer period could be quite disruptive.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 24 November 2020; c. 46, Q52.]
We understand that interim orders and assessments can be extended. It is crucial that the Government respond to those points and think hard about how to put into statute more general powers than this equity funding, especially for cutting-edge start-ups with strategic assets.
We share the aim of the Bill to secure our national security and to ensure that assets that are critical to our national security do not fall under the influence of hostile actors. If in so doing we undermine those assets to the extent where they can no longer contribute to our national security, that is effectively an own goal. I fail to see how the provisions of this clause avoid such an own goal. It would be much to the improvement of the Bill and of confidence in small businesses, particularly start-ups in the sectors affected, if the appropriate form of support could be clearly made available.
We are considering clause stand part, too. We recognise the importance of giving financial assistance, which is what the clause sets out to do. With regard to reporting, I would be interested to understand why the sum of £100 million has been chosen. I am not saying I have another sum to suggest, but why that sum has been chosen is something to understand.
I think the impact assessment is cited more for what it does not include than what it does, but again, it includes no estimates of financial assistance that the Government might have to provide and the associated costs that would be incurred. Will the Minister say why the sum of £100 million was chosen?
The clause also says that,
“the Secretary of State must as soon as practicable lay a report of the amount”.
I imagine that a report of the amount could be a very short one—“£100 million”—but I think all of us who have worked in start-ups and in the tech sector are quite aware that although the financial assistance provided is very important, it also very important to monitor its impact. For example, if it is a loan, in what ways will it be repaid and over what time period, and is the investment effective? I may be mistaken, but I do not see anything in the clause that sets out any need to report anything other than the amount. That is not what I would consider accountability. More generally, for a Government who I hope wish to show good practice on investment and taxpayer value for money, having more information on the amount—but also on how it was used, monitored, how it is to be repaid if it is a loan, and its impact—would also be desirable. On that basis, we support the intention of the clause, but we feel it is in need of some significant improvement.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I think it was Cicero who said:
“Brevity is a great charm of eloquence.”
In that regard, I will keep my remarks brief. Obviously, what we propose here is incredibly straightforward. It would expand the scope from a financial year to a calendar year. I would not wish to imply that I do not necessarily have complete and utter confidence in the UK Government at all times, and that they might wish, perhaps, to stay away from and overcome any form of scrutiny by making some sort of payment at a certain point in time where the overlap is with a financial year. An amendment such as this, which is succinct and clear, would allow for everyone to be quite happy that where there is a need for the UK Government to put in place a financial assistance level of £100 million, irrespective of whether it is a financial year or a calendar year, Members are fully apprised of that spend.
Nadhim Zahawi
For the benefit of the Committee, I will begin with clause 30 stand part, which makes provision for financial assistance. I will then turn to amendment 24, and amendment 28 from the hon. Member for Aberdeen South.
The Government recognise that final orders, in exceptional cases—and I have to stress in exceptional cases, when we are administering taxpayers’ money—may bring about financial difficulty for the affected parties. This clause therefore gives the Secretary of State the legal authority to provide financial assistance to, or in relation to, entities in consequence of the making of a final order, to mitigate the impacts of a final order, for example. It might also be used where the consequence of a final order in itself might otherwise impact the country’s national security interests.
Hon. Members will know that such clauses are required to provide parliamentary authority for spending by Government in pursuit of policy objectives where no existing statutory authority for such expenditure already exists. I am confident that such assistance would be given only in exceptional circumstances when no alternative was available. For example, the Secretary of State could impose a final order blocking an acquisition of an entity that is an irreplaceable supplier to Government, subsequently putting the financial viability of the entity in doubt. In such a situation, the Secretary of State could provide financial assistance to the entity to ensure that the supplier could continue operating while an alternative buyer was found.
Such spending would of course be subject to the existing duty of managing public money—the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central asked what checks and balances are in place—and compliant with any other legal obligations concerning the use of Government funds. To provide further explicit reassurance regarding the use of the power, subsection (1) specifies that any financial assistance may be given only with the consent of the Treasury.
The clause also covers reporting to the House when financial assistance is given under the clause. I will speak to that further when I turn to the amendments. I am sure that hon. Members will see the clause as necessary and appropriate, and have confidence that our Government, and future Governments, will have only limited, but sufficient, freedom to provide financial support under the regime as a result.
Amendment 24 would permit the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance in consequence of making an interim order, which was the hon. Lady’s point. As she will know, the Government take the management of our country’s finances very seriously, and such a power naturally requires appropriate safeguards to ensure that public money is spent appropriately. Restricting the power to final orders ensures that the Secretary of State may use it only to assist entities once a national security assessment has been completed and final remedies have been imposed—for example, to mitigate the impact of a final order on a company. It would not be appropriate to use the power to provide aid to an entity that is only temporarily affected by an interim order, which will last only for a period of review, likely to take 30 working days and, at most, 75.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his comments. When he says that an interim order can be in place for at most 75 days, I think he is adding 30 days, which is the initial period, to 45 days, which is the additional period. I am afraid that he is forgetting the voluntary periods.
Nadhim Zahawi
Yes, but the point remains that no final order has been made, and public money will be spent only in very limited circumstances, as I mentioned, in consequence of a final order. Any expenditure will be subject to appropriate safeguards.
Amendment 28, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South, would require the Secretary of State to inform Parliament if financial assistance given under clause 30 in any financial year, or any calendar year, exceeds £100 million. If during any financial year the assistance given under the clause totals £100 million or more, subsection (3) as drafted requires the Secretary of State to lay a report of the amount before the House.
If, during any financial year in which such a report has been laid, the Secretary of State provides any further financial assistance under the clause, subsection (4) requires that he lay a further report of the amount, so if he makes a report before the end of the year and then spends more money, which was the hon. Gentleman’s point, the Secretary of State will need to update the report. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, the Government are committed to providing as much transparency as is reasonably possible when it comes to the use of the new investment screening regime provided for in the Bill.
The amendment would effectively mean that the Secretary of State must stand before Parliament twice—likely, once at the end of the calendar year and again at the end of the financial year, a few months later—to lay what is likely to be a rather similar report of the amount given in financial assistance grants under the clause. Although the Secretary of State would be flattered by his popularity, I am sure the hon. Member for Aberdeen South would agree that seeing him for that purpose twice in such a short time would be a case of duplication, and the Secretary of State would not want to take up his valuable time unnecessarily. I can assure him that the Secretary of State is fully committed to transparency and will ensure that Parliament has the information that it needs to track the use of the powers in the regime.
For those reasons, I am unable to accept the amendments, and I hope that hon. Members will not press them.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his comments, but I am disappointed that he seems determined merely to respond from his notes, regardless of the validity of the points put to him. On why it is inappropriate for financial assistance to be provided in the case of interim orders, his reason—as far as I can understand it—was purely that interim orders were too short to make any difference. Although he cannot say how long an interim order will last—he can say how long he thinks it may last—it could go on indefinitely, because I cannot see in clause 26 a limit on the number or length of voluntary periods that may be agreed for the assessment. On that basis, the assessment could last a significant time.
In any case, I hope that he, as the Minister for Business and Industry, is aware of how fast-paced the technology sector, in particular, can be. The inability to raise finance at a critical moment or to sell to a particular customer, for example, may cause significant financial and commercial damage to a small business or a start-up. I did not hear the Minister reject that point, yet he has rejected the need for any support during the period of an interim order. As I have shown, that is a mistake, and that is why we will press the amendment to a vote.
The Minister also made no response to my question about equity.
Nadhim Zahawi
I apologise—I should have responded to that, and it was remiss of me not to. We will consider all forms of financial assistance, including equity.
To respond to the point the hon. Lady has just made about companies that may have IP or a product in its early, nascent stage of growth, that are struggling and that are fast-moving in terms of raising funds, we at BEIS talk to many companies like that, outside the remit of the Bill, and we look to support them in a variety of ways.
Chi Onwurah
I genuinely thank the Minister for the clarification that equity investments will be included in this bit of the Bill.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
We are focusing greatly on small and medium-sized businesses, but this can also happen to slightly larger organisations, which might be outside the commonly used definition of an SME. When a larger business is distressed because it has lost a major customer and finds itself in financial difficulty, it needs that cash injection, so that sort of assurance is important.
Chi Onwurah
As always, my hon. Friend makes a really important point, and one that I had not thought of. The point about this being applicable to medium-sized businesses is absolutely right. In some ways, medium-sized businesses can often be at a critical point; cash flow is so important, and they could suddenly become very distressed, but with the right cash flow or the right injection of capital, they could expand greatly.
Will the Minister consider this? During the pandemic, when certain innovations have become incredibly important, and cash and support are needed to significantly increase the volume of production—of a vaccine, shall we say, with which the Minister is intimately concerned—a delay of 30, 70 or whatever days will create a huge problem for a medium-sized or growing business, as well as for small businesses.
Nadhim Zahawi
In response to a point made by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington about a company being in distress because it has lost a client, irrespective of the national security and investment regime we talk to such companies all the time. Whether they are small, nascent, medium-sized or large, we have other avenues of assistance to help those companies. That is the point I was making.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for that, which brings me to the point that I wanted to make in response to him. I discerned that that seemed to be his point—that the Bill may cause harm to companies, but that rather than seeking redress under the Bill, or this clause in particular, they should seek redress or some kind of compensation through the well-oiled machinery of Government that provides support for small and growing businesses. I am afraid that that response will be met with undiluted cynicism among the many small and medium-sized businesses that have dealt with Government.
Again, we are talking about a fast-moving situation. Perhaps the Minister will provide examples of where, on such timescales, support has been provided. More importantly, if that is a consequence of the Bill, why would it not be addressed in the Bill, especially as we have a clause that seeks to address this issue in the case of notices of final order. I gave the example of OneWeb satellites, which was a major investment that took some time to come about, and we were not clear whether it was a strategic asset or national security. Clarity is critical.
Matt Western
This is important. I take on board exactly what the Minister is saying, but I am sure he can assure me on this. To give one specific example, Imagination Technologies is a fantastic company, which lost its major customer, which was Apple. Chinese-backed investment—private equity—then came in. The US refused the company the chance to buy into a US business in 2017. I would love to think that whoever was in BEIS in 2017 looked at it closely and offered support. This might be beyond our remit, but it is important that such businesses are reached out to. Will someone in the Minister’s team confirm that the Government tried to support Imagination Technologies?
Chi Onwurah
I very much hope that the Minister or his Department will respond to that. My hon. Friend gave an example of an innovative company in need of support from the Department. Presumably it was similar to the cases we are discussing now, and that support was offered. If confirmation is not forthcoming, we should perhaps look for it via a parliamentary question, which might help us.
I want to say one word about amendment 28, which seeks to ensure that the term of the reporting does not undermine what is reported or its effectiveness. The Minister said that if the £100 million barrier was crossed, another report would have to be made on any further expenditure. However, the amendment concerns a small amount of expenditure in a given period, followed by a larger amount, and whether the periods in which the expenditure was made might mean that a report did not have to be made. The Minister also did not address the question of why £100 million was the right threshold for making a report. On that basis, I wish to press the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Interaction with CMA functions under Part 3 of Enterprise Act 2002
Sam Tarry
I beg to move amendment 25, in page 20, line 27, leave out from “in” until end of line 28 and insert
“setting out the reasons for such direction and an assessment of the impacts on grounds for action that may have arisen under Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out reasons, and an assessment of the likely impacts, when publishing directions under this section.
Sam Tarry
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out the reasons for and an assessment of the likely impacts of published directions under the provisions regarding the Enterprise Act 2002. That is incredibly important because, in one respect, the Bill creates a radical shift by taking the merger control process, which is currently located primarily in the Competition and Markets Authority, and creating an alternative centre for merger control in the new investment security unit in BEIS. That is a big shift. We are trying to focus on setting out the reasons, and an assessment of the likely impacts, when directions come out of the new unit.
I want to expand a little on this. We have a series of reasons for intervention in investment and merger scenarios, such as national security, competition, financial stability, media plurality, public health—the list goes on. Having a single centre for merger control in the CMA helped ensure, partially, that the different reasons for intervention were considered coherently. At the very least, they were coherent as a package, ensuring that where, for example, national security demanded one solution, competition remedies did not force another. The multiple centres that the Bill creates make coherence more challenging. This is about ensuring that the process is as smooth as possible.
The Government must clarify how they intend the CMA’s merger control process to align with their new national security screening and approval process. That is particularly important when we reflect that the Government consultation process currently indicates that national security reviews will be run in parallel with CMA assessments and that the Government will cover interaction between the CMA regime and the new national security regime in a memorandum of understanding. Unfortunately, there is no specific indication of when this will happen. The amendment pushes for clarity now and for statutory accountability when a Secretary of State could otherwise undermine the CMA or take a decision that is contrary to something it will bring forward.
In relation to the Enterprise Act 2002, public interest intervention notice regimes allow the Secretary of State to direct the CMA to ensure that it does not inadvertently undermine the Secretary of State’s decision on national security in addressing competition concerns. The power to undermine the CMA is not in itself a problem, but it is about the accountability—that is what we are trying to drive at here. In the face of a vastly extended set of powers for the Secretary of State, the amendment would provide important clarification.
Previously, the CMA had a good reputation with business for independence and for reasons and rules-based decision making. We are really keen that that is continued, and that is what the driving force for this amendment is. For that reason, we seek greater accountability from the Secretary of State. The amendment would require that whenever the Secretary of State subordinates the CMA’s decision-making process, the reasons for doing so are published alongside an assessment of the impact in terms of whatever reasons the CMA would have had to act under its part 3 powers, whether that be competition, media plurality or quality, financial stability or, as I mentioned earlier, public health.
This is about the smooth and rational alignment of the merger control process. That is important for the integrity and impartiality of our national merger control processes and so that business can have certainty that these will be fully aligned. The question I would really like the Minister to answer is about the assurances the Government can give on providing specific, timely guidance on how many different parts of the merger control process will now work. How will the combination of the new unit and the pre-existing regime produce the guidance, and be driven by Government to do so, in a timely fashion? One thing that businesses are certainly seeking at the moment is assurances that things are set out as early and as clearly as possible. If that happens, it will allow businesses to plan in a much better way. For those reasons, I would like to hear how the Government plan to bring those two elements together.
Nadhim Zahawi
With your permission, Sir Graham, I will speak initially to clause 31 stand part, before turning to amendment 25. As the Bill separates out national security screening from the competition-focused merger control regime, we must, I am sure colleagues agree, ensure that the two regimes interact effectively, while also maintaining the CMA’s operational independence in relation to its merger investigations.
A trigger event under the Bill which is also a merger under the Enterprise Act may raise both national security and competition issues. Not having a power to avoid conflict between the two regimes raises an unacceptable risk for businesses’ operations and, of course, the Government’s reputation. The United Kingdom has a deserved and hard-earned reputation for being a dependable place in which to do business. Transparent regimes are fundamental to building and maintaining this reputation and fostering trust between Government and business.
Currently, under the Enterprise Act 2002, if both national security and competition concerns are raised, the CMA provides a report to the Secretary of State, who would then have the final say on how best to balance national security and competition concerns. This clause will ensure that the Secretary of State continues in his vital role of balancing national security and competition concerns. We will be able to avoid the risk of undue regime interference by maintaining regular and open channels of communication with the CMA.
There may, however, still be a risk that parallel investigations for national security and competition reasons reach conflicting conclusions. That may be particularly true in terms of the remedies required to address national security risks and competition concerns respectively. To remedy that issue, the clause enables the Secretary of State to direct the CMA to take, or not take, a particular course of action. The obligation on the Secretary of State to publish any direction given ensures that the decisions will be transparent, and provides certainty for all parties.
As directing the CMA interferes with its independence, we have drafted the clause so as to allow the Secretary of State to give a direction only where he reasonably considers that it is necessary and proportionate to prevent, remedy or mitigate a risk to national security. Furthermore, the power may be used only when a final order under the Bill is in force, or a final notification that no further action will be taken in relation to a trigger event under the Bill has been given. The clause also requires the Secretary of State to consult the CMA before giving a direction.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford South would require the Secretary of State, when publishing a direction given to the CMA under the clause, to set out the reasons for the direction and provide an assessment of its impact on any grounds for action by the CMA in relation to the merger. Let me reassure the Committee that I expect the use of such directions to be rare. Most mergers are unlikely to trigger both competition and national security concerns, and for those that do, the separate processes of the CMA and the Secretary of State will be able to take place smoothly in parallel with each other.
Chi Onwurah
The Minister says that it is unlikely that investigations would trigger concerns on both national security and competition grounds. However, the position that we are in right now with regard to Huawei is one in which the desire for more competition in our telecoms supply chain—that is, to have three vendors as opposed to two—led to a national security impact, which is why we are now in the process of ripping Huawei out of our network. Does he recognise that such examples may happen?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but the difference is that I was referring to mergers. Such mergers would be rare. I do not think that anyone is merging with Huawei, or will in the future.
Chi Onwurah
It is quite clear that the acquisition of a vendor in our telecoms network by another country would have almost exactly the same outcome, so it may well apply.
Nadhim Zahawi
I was merely pointing out that there was no merger. The hon. Lady will forgive me: she is correct, but I did say that it is a rare occurrence. That is the point that I was making to the Committee.
The amendment seeks to impose a requirement to publish the reasons for giving a direction. We do not think that that is necessary. The clause already requires the Secretary of State to publish a direction in the manner that he considers appropriate. I do not think that I would be disclosing too many state secrets were I to speculate that that would be published on gov.uk. That is a reasonable bet. In many cases, I envisage that it is likely to be accompanied by a high-level explanation, but it is right that the Secretary of State should be able to decide what is appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
The amendment also seeks to require publication of an assessment of the direction’s impact on any grounds for action under part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002. I have two points to make to the hon. Member for Ilford South. First, such a duty would not be appropriate in all cases—for example, where a direction simply required the CMA not to make a decision on competition remedies until a national security assessment had been concluded. The amendment as drafted would still require an assessment to be published in those circumstances.
Secondly, the predominant impact on grounds for action will of course relate to competition. The CMA is the independent expert competition authority, and nothing in the clause as drafted would prevent it from publishing its own assessment of the impact of a Secretary of State direction on the possible competition issues of a case. The clause also requires the Secretary of State to consult the CMA before giving a direction, so it will be able to inform him of the likely impact and he can factor that into his decision whether to give the direction. I believe that is the right approach and while I understand the hon. Member’s motivations in tabling the amendment, I urge him to withdraw it.
Sam Tarry
One of the questions that sprang to mind while listening to the Minister’s answer was: if there are conflicting remedies, which of security and economic competitiveness would the Secretary of State decide had primacy? In drawing the matter out as clearly as possible, we have seen that one of the issues with telecoms and Huawei was that the primacy of economic competitiveness was viewed as paramount over security. The Bill is not clear about the framework for assessing primacy when it comes to security. We have argued throughout that security needs to be the primary focus, and sometimes that will mean economic competitiveness taking a slight hit. However, we think this is about protecting our long-term economic interest.
Nadhim Zahawi
I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman. He asks whether the Secretary of State can override the CMA’s assessment. To give him some clarity, the power to direct may be used only if a trigger event has been called in for assessment under NSI and either a final order has been enforced or a final notification of no further action has been given. That is stage 1. To direct the CMA without a trigger event having first been called in and assessed would not be either reasonable or proportionate, in the Government’s view. However, if a merger is considered to be crucial in the interests of national security after an assessment, no competition concerns should be allowed to prevent it from continuing or remaining in place. I hope that offers him that reassurance.
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Offence of completing notifiable acquisition without approval
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi
It is important to ensure that we are able to enforce the regime. If hostile actors realise that there is a gap in enforcement capability, that could serve to undermine the deterrent effect of the regime, and therefore compliance with it, and could cause reputational damage to the United Kingdom’s screening regime. Clauses 32 to 36 focus on enforcement and appeal. I will run through them at a relatively high level, but I am happy to discuss them in more detail if that would be of interest to hon. Members.
Clause 32 establishes the offence of completing without reasonable excuse a notifiable acquisition without approval from the Secretary of State. Completing a notifiable acquisition without approval could put national security at risk. In particular, the risk that hostile actors might seek to immediately extract sensitive intellectual property and transport it to far-flung corners of the world, may already have crystallised. Intervention after the event in such circumstances would too often be irrelevant, as that could not undo the damage done to our national security. I am confident that hon. Members will agree that this offence reflects the severe consequences that might result from completing a notifiable acquisition without approval of the Secretary of State in one of the ways set out in clause 13.
Clause 33 makes it an offence for a person to breach an interim order or a final order without reasonable excuse. Under the regime, interim orders and final orders are the mechanisms whereby the Secretary of State imposes revenues for the purposes of safeguarding the assessment and process of national security respectively. They are, therefore, vital components of the legislation. Given that a breach of an interim order or a final order could undermine the assessment process or put national security at risk, it is right that breaches of such orders carry a clear deterrent. I am confident that hon. Members will agree that it is essential to have robust measures in place to ensure effective compliance with any interim orders or final orders imposed by the Secretary of State.
I will move on to clause 34. It is vital that parties comply with information notices and attendance notices, and that parties do not provide materially false or misleading information to the Secretary of State.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
On how all this will be policed, the Minister is talking about an incredibly important issue that is crucial to the Bill, but it is a bit like the tax evasion problem, in that a tax evader can be prosecuted only when they have been caught. What policing measures are in place to get to the point of imposing sanctions on those who infringe the measure?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Part of it is the screening process and, obviously, the security agencies play a major role in that.
Under clause 35(2), it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this clause to prove that they reasonably believe that the use or disclosure was lawful, or that the information had already and lawfully been made available to the public. I hope that hon. Members are reassured that Government are committed to the safeguarding of information collected by the regime.
Finally, clause 36 ensures that persons in authority in bodies—for example, a body corporate, such as a company, or an unincorporated body, such as a partnership—can be prosecuted under the legislation where they are responsible for an offence committed by their body. This clause therefore ensures that individuals who are responsible for offences committed by their bodies cannot simply hide behind those bodies and escape responsibility. Instead, they too will have committed an offence and can be punished for it. If you will forgive the pun, Sir Graham, if there are skeletons in the cupboard—or filing cabinets, I suppose—it is not just the bodies that can be held responsible. I hope hon. Members will agree that these clauses are both necessary and proportionate.
The Chair
There is no guidance in my script on what I do if I do not forgive the pun.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Prosecution
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi
The Secretary of State makes decisions under the regime and has the power to impose enforceable interim and final orders. However, the institution of criminal proceedings for offences under the Bill is a matter for the appropriate prosecutor. Clause 37 therefore makes clear who may bring proceedings for an offence under the Bill.
Turning to clause 38, the Government consider it important that persons who have committed an offence under the Bill should be held accountable, particularly partnerships and other unincorporated associations. For example, clause 7 provides that partnerships and unincorporated associations are qualifying entities under the regime. Clause 38 therefore provides that proceedings for offences under the Bill may be brought against partnerships and other types of unincorporated association. I stress that the commencement of criminal proceedings in relation to this regime will likely be very rare indeed but it is nevertheless important that a full spectrum of possible offending is covered.
Clause 39 sets out the criminal penalties available on conviction for offences committed under the Bill. It is crucial that the regime carries a sufficiently robust deterrent to ensure compliance. Given the seriousness of the harm that a breach of the legislation might cause, it is right that these offences carry significant criminal penalties. I do not plan to set out all the penalties available but would be happy to discuss them in more detail if it would be of interest. I hope that hon. Members agree that it is clear who can bring prosecutions under the regime, that it should be possible to prosecute partnerships and unincorporated associations, and that penalties should be sufficiently strong for those convicted of breaking this law.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Power to impose monetary penalties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi
Clauses 40 to 47 cover the civil sanctions under the Bill. I will cover them fairly briefly but I am happy to discuss them in more detail if it would be of interest to the Committee.
It is vital that the Secretary of State has appropriate powers to punish and deter non-compliance with the regime. Should a person breach an order under the regime or fail to provide information or evidence where required, it is vital that the Secretary of State has the power to bring the offender into compliance as quickly as possible to ensure the efficacy of the regime.
Clause 40 provides the Secretary of State with the powers to impose monetary penalties on a person where he is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has committed an offence under clauses 32 to 34. Clause 40(6) requires the Secretary of State to consider the amount of a monetary penalty to be appropriate before imposing it and it must not exceed the relevant maximum set out in clause 41. The power to impose monetary penalties instead of pursuing criminal proceedings will contribute to ensuring that the Secretary of State has a number of enforcement options to tailor to the situation.
The Secretary of State will not take the power to impose monetary penalties lightly and is required by clause 40(7) to take into account a number of factors, including the seriousness of the offence and any steps taken by the person to remedy the offence in question. I am confident that hon. Members will agree that the clause is valuable in ensuring that the Secretary of State has the appropriate enforcement mechanism to secure compliance with the new regime.
Clause 41 sets out the maximum fixed penalty and, where applicable, the maximum daily rate penalty that may be imposed. The penalties set out here are substantive, and I recognise that they may seem draconian, but they may have to be issued against companies that have significant financial incentive to disregard legal requirements under the regime and put national security at risk by going ahead with an acquisition, so the penalties need to be an effective incentive to comply. I also remind Members that these are maximum penalties; the Secretary of State will have a duty to ensure that any penalty imposed is reasonable and proportionate.
The clause also enables the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying how the maximum penalties applicable to businesses should be calculated and to amend the maximum penalty amounts or percentage rates. It is important that we can adjust any penalties over time, to ensure that they are a sufficient deterrent against non-compliance.
Clause 42 requires the Secretary of State to keep all monetary penalties imposed under review. It also provides a power to vary or revoke penalty notices as appropriate in the light of changing circumstances. Importantly, under the clause, where new evidence comes to light about a breach, it can be taken into account by the Secretary of State, and the penalty notice can be increased, decreased or revoked as appropriate. In all variations, there is, of course, a right of appeal, which is provided for by clause 50.
It is important that both criminal and civil sanctions should be available against offences committed under the Bill, but it would not be appropriate for them to be used in tandem. Clause 43 ensures that parties cannot be subject to both criminal and civil sanctions for the same offence. The clause is vital in giving businesses and other parties certainty and assurance that they will not be penalised in two separate ways for the same offence, which would clearly be unfair.
Clause 44 gives the Secretary of State the power to enforce monetary penalties by making unpaid penalties recoverable, as if they were payable under a court. Failure to comply with a penalty notice would be enforced in the same way as a court order to recover unpaid debts. It also provides for interest to be charged on unpaid penalties that are due.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for setting out the provisions of these clauses. Perhaps this is my ignorance, but what will happen to the moneys recouped through the penalties?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am very happy to write to the hon. Lady on that, but I suppose the money goes back to the Treasury.
Chi Onwurah
That was my assumption, but I know that in certain cases penalties can be used to offset the expenses incurred in creating the regulatory regime, or in supporting companies that are adversely affected, as we discussed earlier.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am very happy to come back to the hon. Lady on that point.
Clause 45 ensures that the Government are not unduly burdened with costs relating to the imposition of monetary penalties, which can be expensive. The clause enables the Secretary of State to recover the associated costs from those who are issued with a penalty notice. The amount demanded will depend on the circumstances of each case, but the Secretary of State will need to comply with public law duties in imposing the requirements and in fixing the amount. In particular, the amount will need to be proportionate.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Pursuant to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, will the Minister and his Department not only think about, but make a positive decision on, where the penalties go? I have in mind, as he will know, penalties relating to misdemeanours by electricity supply companies.
Those are routinely collected and distributed for good purposes—to keep people’s electricity bills down, among other things. Maybe the Minister will have a similar scheme that could be a good home for those penalties, so that they are turned around and put to good use.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am quite rightly grateful to my brilliant Whip for reminding me that the Bill contains the provision that the moneys be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
Clause 46 requires the Secretary of State to keep cost recovery notices under review and provides him with the power to vary or revoke a cost recovery notice as he considers appropriate. That will reassure businesses and other persons that cost recovery notices remain appropriate. Finally, it is important that the Secretary of State be able to recover the associated costs from those who are issued penalty notices. Clause 47 therefore provides for an effective range of consequences for non-compliance with a cost recovery notice, including the charging of interest, and acts as another important tool in the Secretary of State’s enforcement powers. I hope that the Committee will appreciate the rationale for clauses 40 to 47, which are essential for the effectiveness of the regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 41 to 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48
Enforcement through civil proceedings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi
The regime relies on parties complying with information notices and attendance notices, and with interim orders and final orders. Those are crucial levers that the Secretary of State will use to identify, assess and address national security risks, so it is vital that he has appropriate powers to ensure that a person who is given such an order or notice complies with the requirements as set out.
The clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to bring civil proceedings for an injunction or other remedy to require compliance. The power applies whether or not the person is in the UK. Failure to comply with an order made by the court in those circumstances is likely to be considered contempt of court. We should not forget that any failure to obey an information notice or attendance notice, for example, could result in the Secretary of State having insufficient information to decide whether to call in an acquisition or carry out an effective national security assessment. Breaching the requirements of an interim order or final order may undermine the assessment process or harm national security.
Above all, I hope that the Committee will agree that the clause further strengthens the Secretary of State’s enforcement powers, playing a key role in ensuring the efficacy of the regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49
Procedure for judicial review of certain decisions
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 49, page 30, line 31, leave out “28 days” and insert “three months”
This amendment would extend the period within which applications for judicial review may be made from 28 days to three months.
Dr Whitehead
I have not spoken other than to intervene, so the amendment gives me a brief opportunity to commend the heroism of my fellow Committee members for carrying on proceedings when most of them wish they were somewhere else because they are too cold. I hope that the authorities will consider ameliorative steps so that we can be a little warmer when the Committee meets on Thursday. Alternatively, Sir Graham, we may need to invent a new Standing Order by which the Chair can rule on whether Members have permission to remove their coats, rather than the customary jackets, before the beginning of proceedings. I am sure that would not be necessary if reasonable action were taken.
The amendment concerns what is referred to in the clause title: the procedure for judicial review of certain decisions. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified what the clause means for other decisions that are set out in the Bill but not included in the provisions for judicial review set out in this clause.
The procedures in subsection (2) relate to judicial review of a “relevant decision”. Relevant decisions are specified in various clauses, and include the power to require information, the power to require the attendance of witnesses, the power to require the attendance of witnesses outside the UK, the discharge of information, data protection, CMA information, and so on. That means that a number of other decisions in the Bill are not covered by this clause, including, for example, decisions to call in a transaction.
My initial question to the Minister—I would be grateful if he intervened on me—is whether those other areas of decision, which are in the Bill but not covered by this clause, are covered by standard judicial review procedures, not covered by judicial review procedures at all, or covered by reference to the Enterprise Act 2002, which has procedures within it that do not appear to refer directly to some of the other decisions in the Bill that are not covered by this clause. Can he clarify what happens to those decisions in the Bill—I have mentioned one: the call-in notice—that are not covered in subsection (2) on what a relevant decisions means? Does he have any guidance that he can give the Committee on that?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on that, but my understanding is that individuals or entities that feel that they have been wronged by the actions of the Secretary of State can JR the Secretary of State.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for that clarification, which appears to suggest that the whole of the Bill, or the decisions in it, are in principle covered by the ability to bring a judicial review. He will know that under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 there is some pretty clear guidance about the time limits for judicial reviews. Indeed, the CPRs state that claims must be lodged promptly and, in any event, no later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose, unless the court exercises its discretion to extend. The judicial review rules are pretty much governed by that three-month time limit.
In the clause, the framers of the Bill have taken out certain elements of the Bill. I mentioned some of them, including the attendance of witnesses and the power to require information. They have said that, while no new procedure has been put in place for reviewing certain decisions—that is, the normal rules of judicial review apply—the big difference is that any action must be brought within 28 days of the event, and not within three months, as is the case in the standard judicial review arrangements.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent points that he is making, which give cause for concern and thought. Given the Minister’s earlier assertion that there was no need for a complaints procedure with regard to the provisions of the Bill, does my hon. Friend agree that neither the reporting requirement, which we have identified will not mean reporting on everything, nor the judicial review provisions, which we have now identified are not reviewable in the normal timescales for everything, will be sufficient to address the concerns of small and medium-sized enterprises? Does he also agree that that will clearly not be the case given the complexities that he has outlined?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the extent to which justice in such circumstances might be like the Ritz: open to everybody, but not necessarily quite as open to some as to others.
Certainly, that is the case with the time reduction applied to those particular things in the clause. Nevertheless, that reduction has to fit in with judicial review rules for everything else. That is, no new procedure is set out in the Bill, which is otherwise reliant on the standard judicial review procedures.
Hon. Members will see that elsewhere the civil procedure rules refer to the provision of skeleton arguments before a judicial review can be heard. Under those rules, such arguments must be undertaken within 21 working days of a hearing, which in practice means close to the 28 days in the clause, which are not as working days. Given the adherence to the rest of the judicial review rules, therefore, the 28 days can conceivably reduce to virtually nothing the period in which a person may apply for a claim to judicial review under the Bill.
Furthermore—this is what I think my hon. Friend was alluding to—given that brief timescale, it is important and I would say necessary to have a clear idea of when the event that caused the 28-day timescale to come in took place. I turned up an interesting article, one of Weightmans’ “Insights”, from October 2013, entitled “Is the clock ticking? The importance of time limits in judicial review”. The point made in that article is that getting the point at which the clock started ticking absolutely right is important.
I am not certain whether all the events specified in the clause have identical starting points. That is, is the starting point a trigger mechanism? Is the starting point the issuing of a notice? Is the starting point the receipt of a notice? If the receipt of a notice is delayed—and the judicial review procedure very much hinges on the actions of the Secretary of State in issuing notices—my hon. Friend can imagine that, for a small business, that could be very confusing and possibly difficult to adhere to. If it turns out that the point at which the 28-day clock starts to tick varies according to different provisions of the clause, descibed as the particular provisions that the Secretary of State has reserved for the 28-day reduction in judicial review, that will be pretty difficult for people to adhere to properly.
Judicial review is a very important part of the process; not that it would often be used, but it is important that it is there in the Bill. It is also important that the people affected by the arrangements have access to the judicial review process. The Government obviously recognise that by putting it into legislation. I am concerned not about the fact that it is in the legislation—it should be—but about whether placing certain areas of concern in the Bill under that 28-day heading has been completely thought out. If it has been completely thought out, why has it been thought out in that particular way? What is it about those things that requires the normal rules of judicial review to be reduced from three months to 28 days?
Chi Onwurah
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend while he is in full flow, and I am immensely grateful for what I am learning about the intricacies of the judicial review process and the importance of understanding the initial timing and what the trigger event was. He mentioned that skeleton hearings must take place within 21 working days. Can he say a little bit more, for my understanding, about how those skeleton hearings affect the following timetables in the process?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend somehow suggests that I have knowledge and expertise beyond my calling. I should say that I am not a lawyer, so I have only limited guidance to give her on this. However, from my reading of civil procedure rules, there are certainly elements, which I think relate to working days in some instances and to simple time in others, that are sub-time limits within the overall limit for judicial review. Civil procedure rules give those sub-limits as working practices for the operation of judicial review overall. The skeleton argument rule requires skeleton arguments to be put to the court within a certain period before the hearing takes place. If the hearing is delayed for a long time after the initial event, the 21 days apply before the court hearing. However, if the court hearing is close to the event, those sub-rules within the overall judicial review rules could affect quite substantially an individual’s remaining time to get their case together prior to the hearing.
Under our current constrained court arrangements, there is no danger of that because court cases are in a serious logjam. However, It serves to put a question mark against how and why the 28-day period was decided upon. Why were these things in particular pulled out and put into the 28 days when other sections of the Bill do not come within 28 days but within three months? What is the rationale behind that?
The amendment suggests that this is probably not a good idea. While it might be seen as redundant in that it says that these sections should not be pulled up and put in a 28-day box, it is probably better for the general principle of upholding judicial review as a reasonable defensive remedy in respect of some of the Bill’s elements to put them back to the standard three-month period. That of course arises because that is what the Government have chosen to do with the Bill. They have chosen to go with standard judicial review proceedings. It would have been possible to write a different form of proceedings into the Bill.
The Enterprise Act 2002 provides for an appeal to a tribunal, which then proceeds along standard judicial review rules but is not the standard judicial review procedure. The Government have not decided to do that, but to do something else. My question to the Minister is why. The question that follows if there is no good answer, is why not just leave it as it is? Why not leave it to the judicial review procedure with three months? That would not cause anyone any real problems but, on the contrary, might ensure that smaller businesses and organisations have a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves and pursue judicial review in the knowledge that they have more than a very small amount of time to get the judicial review procedures together when they wish to mount them.
As I have said, I am sure that it will be a pretty rare procedure, but it is nevertheless important to maintain it in the Bill. I am sure we all agree that it is an important part of UK law that that should be a remedy open to everyone to undertake, as the Minister mentioned. I hope that I will get a compelling argument from him about why this has been done in this way and what advantages outweigh the disadvantages that I have outlined. If he can do that, I hope that it will not be necessary to divide the Committee this afternoon, but I fear that it might be if the argument that comes forward proves on examination not to be as compelling as I am hoping.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reasoned and thoughtful remarks. As I said in my intervention, all decisions in the Bill are subject to judicial review. Clause 49 does not apply to information sharing post screening or enforcement decisions. The exception to JR is monetary penalties and cost recovery, which have a bespoke appeals process, as he probably knows.
Clause 49 concerns the procedure for judicial review of certain decisions. The clause provides that any claim for judicial review of certain decisions, which are set out in the clause, must be no more than 28 days after the day on which the grounds for the claim first arose, unless the court considers that there are exceptional circumstances. That period is shorter than the usual period in which a judicial review may be sought, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. Generally, judicial reviews must be sought within three months in England and Wales, but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland, where they must also be sought promptly.
I will set out why that is the case shortly when I turn to amendment 26, but I believe that the shortened time limit strikes the right balance for the regime, enabling sufficient time for a claim to be lodged while providing for timely certainty about the effect of relevant decisions made under the Bill. I should also note that the court may entertain proceedings that are sought after the 28-day limit if it considers that exceptional circumstances apply. The usual route to challenge a decision made by the Secretary of State is via judicial review, and this is entirely appropriate for decisions made under the Bill. However, it is vital that this route does not result in prolonged uncertainty over decisions relating to screening.
I now turn to amendment 26, which seeks to extend the period within which applications for judicial review may be made from 28 days to three months. As I have set out, the Bill’s 28-day period in which claims for judicial review of certain decisions made under the Bill generally must be filed is shorter than the usual period in which judicial review may be sought. Again, it is entirely right that the hon. Gentleman wishes to probe us on why that is the case as judicial review plays a key role, which he clearly agrees with, in ensuring that the Government, and the Secretary of State in the case of this regime, act within the limits of the law. We have thought carefully about that while developing the Bill, and I welcome this discussion.
Why the shorter period? It is undeniably important that the Secretary of State is held independently accountable for his decisions under the regime. That must, however, be balanced—this is the important thing—against the need to avoid prolonged uncertainty over the status of screened acquisitions or the general functioning of the screening regime, which may have a chilling effect on investment, leaving the types of questions that a judicial review would answer, such as whether a decision to clear a transaction was unlawful, potentially still open for three months before it is clear that a judicial review is not going to be sought, which could make it extremely difficult for the various parties affected to plan and adjust following such a decision. Any party with a sufficient interest could seek a judicial review and all parties affected could be impacted. That is why we have come to this decision.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for the points he is making, which I am seeking to understand. Clause 49(2) mentions “relevant decisions”. Why would “section 19”, “section 20” and “section 21” that deal with the powers to require information and so on cause uncertainty, and not other provisions in the Bill?
Nadhim Zahawi
The point I was trying to make is that the uncertainty in any of those sections means that any party to a transaction can, if they feel they could frustrate the process because the outcome might not be advantageous to them, use the judicial review process to add to the uncertainty of a transaction. In addition, there is also a public interest in timely certainty and finality about decisions made under the regime that are, after all, imposed for the purpose of safeguarding national security. The 28-day limit is also in line with the current merger screening regime that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test asked about, where applications for the competitions appeal tribunal made under the Enterprise Act 2002 to review a merger decision must be made within four weeks, a time period chosen after public consultation. There may be some situations where, for legitimate reasons, 28 days is simply not enough. It is therefore important to remember that this Bill provides that the court may “entertain proceedings” that are sought after the 28-day limit, if it is considered that exceptional circumstances apply.
This shortened time limit and flexibility is for the courts to deal with exceptional circumstances. It strikes the right balance for this regime, in my view. It allows sufficient time for parties to obtain legal advice and mount a challenge, while also providing timely certainty about the effect of the relevant decision made under the Bill. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I have to be honest, I did not think that was very good. Let us start with who is shortening and who is not shortening. The Minister said that the Opposition seek to lengthen the period; no, the Opposition are not seeking to lengthen the period. The Government are seeking to shorten the period that is standard in the UK justice system as far as judicial reviews overall are concerned.
That is a very important point, because the Opposition are not trying to do something that is not an ordinary principle of British justice; the Government are trying to that. The Minister’s remarks could have applied to a lot of other areas, where it might be a bit inconvenient to have a judicial review being tenable for a three-month period after an event had occurred. However, it is not a question of inconvenience. Is a matter so important to national security that the 28 days can be justified under those terms?
The Minister has sought to justify the 28 days under the terms that there may be some uncertainty if there is a longer period for judicial review to be undertaken. He is potentially right about that, but not right as far as this Bill is concerned. He is right potentially as far as any application for judicial review is concerned, in all sorts of areas in this country. That is the problem of judicial review for the Administration, under any circumstances. When someone comes along and says, “I’m going to JR this,” a lot of people clap their hands and say, “That’s very inconvenient. It really does foul things up, because we would like to do this, that and next thing, but because we have been judicially reviewed, we have to carry out the procedure that is there.”
As several people have said in a number of different circumstances, the fact that the JR procedure is there and that often ordinary people have a reasonable amount of time to get their case together to undertake the JR process, is an important principle of the British justice system. The Minister has made no serious case for why these things should be so special under these circumstances. Interestingly, the consultation document did not make any case at all for the 28 days, other than to note that it was a shorter period. I am sorry to say that this appears to be a shortened period simply for administrative convenience.
Chi Onwurah
Does my hon. Friend think that shortening the JR period for administrative reasons is especially contentious, given that the judicial review process would be the only option for small and medium enterprises to complain about the way in which they are being treated under this process? The Minister says that their only option to make a complaint is effectively to JR it, yet they are given less time to JR it.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. In many circumstances, we are not talking about the sort of JRs that we hear about in the press, where a big corporation has been judicially reviewed on some subject by another large corporation, or some big body has judicially reviewed someone else about a planning decision.
Firms that employ very small numbers of people often find themselves tied up in this process. They need to have this remedy available to them in a way that they can genuinely use, so that they are not constrained by the imposition of what is, as I said, essentially an administratively convenient reduced timescale. I do not think that that ought to be in the Bill. For that reason, we need to press the amendment to a Division, to see whether we can restore to the Bill the three-month period in which people can exercise their right to JR.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50
Appeals against monetary penalties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi
With permission, Sir Graham, I will speak to clauses 50, 51 and 52 together. Clause 50 concerns appeals against penalty notices or variation notices. It is only right that parties have the opportunity to appeal decisions made by the Secretary of State in relation to monetary penalties imposed. Clause 50 provides a person who has received a penalty notice or a variation notice with the right to appeal to the court within 28 days, starting from the day after the notice is served.
On an appeal against a penalty notice, the clause provides that the court may confirm or quash the decision to impose a monetary penalty, confirm or reduce the amount of a penalty, and confirm or vary the period in which the penalty must be paid. It may not increase the amount of the monetary penalty. Where the appeal is against a variation notice, the court may confirm, vary or quash the variation, but again it may not increase the amount of the monetary penalty.
Clause 51 provides a right of appeal against decisions made by the Secretary of State related to requirements to pay costs associated with monetary penalties. Clause 52 concerns extraterritorial application and jurisdiction to try offences under the regime. Let me briefly turn back to clauses 32 to 35, which create the offences of the regime. We would normally expect that if those offences occurred, they would happen in the UK. That will not, however, always be the case, and offences will not always involve UK nationals or bodies.
As befits a regime that concerns the actions of international actors in relation to the United Kingdom, the Bill has some application beyond the shores of the UK. For example, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to issue final orders on conduct outside the UK by certain categories of person with a connection to the UK, including UK nationals and companies incorporated here. Therefore, clause 52 provides for the offences in clauses 32 to 35 to have extraterritorial effect, including in relation to non-UK nationals and bodies. That means that conduct abroad that amounts to an offence can be prosecuted and it also enables the Secretary of State to impose monetary penalties in relation to offences committed outside the UK. That ensures that regime obligations are not unenforceable simply because they concern conduct abroad. I hope that hon. Members will agree that, in a globalised world where transactions routinely take place across borders, it is important for enforcement to be able to react with equal agility. I therefore submit that the appeals process set out in the clauses should be adopted and that, in a globalised world, it is necessary for extraterritorial regime breaches to be enforceable.
Chi Onwurah
It is a pleasure to respond in this debate and observe how quickly we have galloped throughs parts 2 and 3. I wonder if that may in part relate to the descending temperatures that we are enjoying. While I know that the Committee shares my fascination with the various procedural and judicial issues with which we were wrestling, the temperature gave no scope for anyone to get comfortable enough to fail to pay attention. I recognise that we on this side of the Committee are in an advantageous position in that we are furthest from the open windows.
We recognise the importance of clauses 50 to 52 in terms of appeals against monetary penalties, of appeals against costs and of having extraterritorial application and jurisdiction to try offences. The Minister set out the reasons for that. To return to an intervention from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, I am concerned about whether the provisions will be enforceable and useable in having extraterritorial application and jurisdiction over those who are not British and where the offence does not take place in the UK. Do the Government envisage––the impact assessment is, once again, remarkably silent on this––issuing international warrants to get access to those thought to have committed offences but who are not in the UK? Will the measures be pursued and enforced actively or are they there to deal with exceptional circumstances? I would be happy for the Minister to intervene.
Nadhim Zahawi
I think that the hon. Lady’s question is whether the Government will genuinely be able to punish offences committed overseas. Clearly, in a globalised world where transactions routinely take place across borders, it is important that we have the ability to punish offences and be as agile as those who wish to do us harm. It is therefore right that these offences have extraterritorial reach. We will work with overseas public authorities to ensure that offenders face justice where appropriate.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for that intervention. I am reluctant to test his tolerance by bringing Brexit into this, but I hope that we will continue to have the means to engage with overseas jurisdictions in order to pursue those who break UK law, here or abroad. We will not oppose the clauses, and I congratulate the Committee on making such speedy progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 51 and 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill,.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. ––(Michael Tomlinson.)
Adjourned till Thursday 10 December at half-past Eleven o’clock.
Written evidence reported to the House
NSIB03 Joint Working Party of the Company Law Committees of the City of London Law Society and the Law Society of England and Wales
National Security and Investment Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 8th December 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 View all National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 December 2020 - (8 Dec 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind colleagues of the importance of social distancing. Please switch electronic devices to silent. The Hansard reporters would be very grateful if Members could email any electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 22
False or misleading information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
Clause 22 makes provision for circumstances in which false or misleading information is provided to the Secretary of State. Hon. Members will agree that a regime that protects our national security must take appropriate account of those who would wish to mislead us. It is not often that hostile actors offer up honest answers to difficult questions. In addition to the penalties that are provided for in clause 40 and elsewhere, the clause ensures that any decision that is taken on the basis of false or misleading information, and which is materially affected by the false or misleading information, may be reconsidered by the Secretary of State. Following reconsideration, the Secretary of State is then free to affirm, vary or revoke any such decision.
That may, for example, involve calling in a trigger event after an initial decision not to do so, if, for instance, it is discovered that false or misleading information was provided in the notification form. That might ultimately lead to remedies being imposed on the trigger event, including blocking or unwinding it where that is necessary and proportionate for the purpose of safeguarding national security. The Secretary of State is required under subsection (5) to give any call-in notice within six months of discovering that the information was false or misleading.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his comments on clause 22. This possibly shows a lack of understanding on my part, but could he say a little about how the Secretary of State will ascertain, decide or judge that information has been false or misleading?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. The Secretary of State has a number of tools available to him, including our security and intelligence services. Of course, if the information is deemed to be false or misleading, he will be able to take appropriate action.
There is otherwise no time limit to revising a decision. The time limits under subsections (2) and (4) of clause 2 for calling in trigger events that have already taken place do not apply. We judge that this is an important signal to send. If people provide us with false or misleading information in relation to a trigger event, the Secretary of State may still call in the event for consideration whenever the false or misleading information comes to light, even if the event has long since completed. If truthful information is provided, the time limits in subsections (2) and (4) of clause 2 apply. If people provide us with the right information, they will have certainty. If they provide us with false or misleading information, we may revisit the trigger event whenever the false or misleading information comes to light.
Without the clause, parties could, in theory, deliberately provide false information to ease the passage of their trigger event. The Secretary of State would then be powerless to reopen the investigation into the event and impose national security remedies on it. I stress that I expect cases involving the provision of false or misleading information to be few and far between, but the Government must take steps to mitigate such risks.
Hon. Members may have some concern that the Secretary of State’s ability to reconsider previous decisions chips away at businesses’ confidence to invest. To those hon. Members, I say that the provision applies only to materially false or misleading information, and even if such information is provided unintentionally, it is essential that the Secretary of State has the power to consider the case one more. Moreover, it may be the case that false or misleading information is provided deliberately by a hostile actor. I hope hon. Members will agree that as well as providing slick and efficient processes for business, the Bill must not leave any loophole to be exploited.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Meaning of “assessment period”
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 23, page 15, line 15, leave out from “as” until end of line 16 and insert
“as agreed by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (9)”.
This amendment seeks to limit the flexibility of extending the assessment period to the conditions set out in subsection (9), and to remove the need for the approval of the acquirer.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New Clause 4—Complaints procedure—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations set up a formal complaints procedure through which acquirers may raise complaints about the procedures followed during the course of an assessment under this Act.
(2) Complaints as set out in subsection (1) may be made to a Procedural Officer, who—
(a) must not have been involved in the assessment and who is to consider significant procedural complaints relating to this section or another part of this Act; and
(b) may determine or settle complaints in accordance with regulations to be published by the Secretary of State within 3 months of this Bill becoming an Act.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a formal complaints procedure for acquirers.
Chi Onwurah
I rise to speak to amendment 22, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friends, and to new clause 4. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Mr Twigg, and to find the Committee reconvened for the perusal of the rest of this important Bill. I thank the Minister for the letters that he has sent to me and my hon. Friends, and to the Intelligence and Security Committee, to address some of the questions that arose in previous sittings.
I am glad that, with this amendment, we move on to part 2 of the Bill, which deals with the process of addressing our national security concerns as part of the Bill’s implementation. In clause 23, we are particularly looking at the assessment period. As I have indicated, we support the intention and, indeed, the objectives of the Bill, and we would have welcomed such a Bill some years ago. Our intention, as we have shown, is to be a constructive Opposition and to make constructive proposals, so I will say at the outset that amendment 22 is a probing amendment that seeks to clarify how the Minister thinks the clause will work in practice. The amendment seeks to limit the significant flexibility of extending the assessment period to the conditions set out in subsection (9), and to remove the need for the approval of the acquirer.
As we have said, the Bill marks a radical shift in our nation’s approach to takeovers and investments. It has been labelled a “seismic shift” and a “total transformation”. We want that radical shift to give the Government the powers they need to protect our national security, as we have made clear. To be effective in doing that, the Bill needs to ensure clarity, certainty and competence—competence is a key word—for our businesses. As we have said on a number of occasions, we are particularly concerned about the impact on our small and medium-sized enterprises, which will bear the bulk of the compliance requirements and which do not have the resources that are at the disposal of many of our larger companies.
We want the Minister to provide clarity on the parts of the assessment period that we find uncertain. Specifically, the Government have set out an assessment period timeline of up to 15 weeks, which is 30 working days for an initial period and 45 working days for an additional period. Clause 23 sets out that the initial period may be extended by the Secretary of State for a further 45 working days if he
“ reasonably believes that…a risk to national security has arisen from the trigger event or would arise from the trigger event if carried into effect, and…reasonably considers that the additional period is required to assess the trigger event further.”
An extension beyond 75 working days—the initial 30-day period plus 45 days—may be agreed between the acquirer and the Secretary of State, if the Secretary of State
“is satisfied…a risk to national security has arisen from the trigger event or would arise from the trigger event if carried into effect, and…reasonably considers that the period is required to consider whether to make a final order”.
That is described as the “voluntary period”.
Our concern is that the clause offers the potential for unlimited expansion of the timeline—currently labelled, as I said, a “voluntary period” extension. That creates uncertainty for businesses and, indeed, for Government. Subsection (3)(c) suggests that a voluntary period extension
“may be agreed in writing between the Secretary of State and the acquirer”,
and yet subsection (9) sets out the ways in which the Secretary of State might agree a voluntary period where they are satisfied of the need for it. Is it a voluntary period for both parties? Will the voluntary period truly be voluntary for businesses?
According to subsection (9), the decision seems to be for the Secretary of State. Subsection (9) sets out a number of considerations
“on the balance of probabilities”,
but subsection (3)(c) implies that the period is at the agreement of the acquirer. What is the process by which an acquirer can deny the extension and what, if any, is the limit on voluntary period extensions? Businesses up and down the country and international investors in Britain’s high-value start-ups will be looking to the Government for greater clarity. We heard numerous calls for greater clarity during the evidence sessions.
The Bill presents uncertainty for not just businesses but the Government. If a business can deny agreement to extensions under subsection (3)(c), where do the Government go then? The Bill creates a 15-week assessment period, but our existing merger control process can last for 32 weeks with a full phase 1 and phase 2 review. Does the Minister concede that it is possible, especially given the likely resourcing clashes—we have already talked about potential conflicts of interest—that the voluntary period extensions will soon become default period extensions? Have the Government given themselves sufficient powers to trigger extensions, or is the current situation uncertain for businesses and for Government?
That concern is especially important because of the evidential thresholds that are required for the voluntary period extension. The Government have set a bar of reasonable suspicion—that is quite common—for a trigger event to be called in, in clause 1(1). Then there is a separate bar of reasonable belief for the Secretary of State to order an additional period, in clause 23(8), and a third bar of being
“satisfied, on the balance of probabilities”
to get a voluntary period extension. What is the difference between the three standards of reasonable suspicion, reasonable belief, and being satisfied on the balance of probabilities? I am sure that there were specific reasons for drafting those three separate standards. Could the Minister share them with us? Is he confident that this tighter approach for each step will allow the Government sufficient room to ensure that there are robust reviews and to protect our national security, especially given that the regime will be an entirely new one, with an entirely new investment security unit interpreting those three separate bars?
I note that the Government’s impact assessment contains no estimate of how many transactions are expected to require additional and voluntary period extensions. We are about to embark on a vast shift in merger control, with far more engagement and intervention by the Government in our mergers and acquisitions landscape. We seek clarity with this amendment, to give confidence to our small and medium-sized enterprises and to ensure that there is confidence in our national security. We seek to ensure that the Government have a plan and a detailed understanding of it will work to deliver on the Bill’s proposals.
As I mentioned earlier, during our evidence sessions, there was significant demand from experts to ensure the Bill delivers greater certainty. Will Jackson-Moore of PwC said,
“it is about the application of the legislation, in particular the process, the ability to pre-clear and the timelines actually being met. To understand some of these technologies is not going to be straightforward.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2020; c. 115-116, Q152.]
Lisa Wright from Slaughter and May said that
“for people doing deals around the world who have already experienced those other regimes, it ought not to have any real negative impact at all, provided that BEIS can deliver on the aspiration set out of a slick and efficient regime, turning around notifications within sensible deal timeframes and providing the kind of informal advice and early engagement promised. That will be critical, particularly in the early stages of the regime.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2020; c. 76, Q91.]
I ask the Minister to consider whether the clause provides that. This amendment, which sets out to limit the flexibility of extending the assessment period to the condition set out in subsection (9) and to remove the need for the approval of the inquirer, is intended to probe and highlight that.
The intention behind new clause 4 is to ensure greater clarity about the apparent omission of any formal complaints procedure for acquirers. We are concerned that it seems as though the Government have not reflected on the scale of the change that our mergers and acquisitions regime is going through in their appreciation of the operational shift needed to deliver on it.
In a sort of a mathematical trick that I fail to follow, the Government’s impact assessment talks only of an additional 18% of cases relative to the regime under the Enterprise Act 2002, but also states that there will be an increase from 12 reviews in 20 years—that is the figure under the current regime—to nearly 2,000 under this regime.
Nadhim Zahawi
With your indulgence, Mr Twigg, I intend to speak first to clause 23 stand part, then to amendment 22 and new clause 4.
We are committed to the regime providing as much clarity, certainty and predictability as possible for businesses and investors. It is therefore right that we are setting out how long the Secretary of State may take to carry out a full national security assessment and make a final decision on a trigger event following a call-in notice.
Subsection (3)(a) provides for an initial assessment period of 30 working days. The Government have taken advice from the security community, and we consider that in the majority of cases 30 working days will allow for a full national security assessment and for the Secretary of State to decide whether to clear the trigger event outright or to impose final remedies on it.
More complex cases are possible, however, and it is important that a longer period is available for the Secretary of State to consider them. The clause therefore enables the Secretary of State to issue a notice to extend the assessment by 45 working days to assess the trigger event further, for example to determine the extent of the national security risk or to decide on appropriate remedies. That is referred to as the “additional period” under subsection (3)(b). The clause also provides for the assessment period to be further extended beyond the additional period, but only with the written consent of the acquirer. That is termed a “voluntary period” under subsection (3)(c).
The Government are clear that extensions should not be used lightly. The clause therefore includes specific legal tests for their use. To extend the assessment into the additional period, the Secretary of State must reasonably believe, as the hon. Lady referred to, that a trigger event has taken place, or is in progress or contemplation, and that this has given or would give rise to a national security risk. The Secretary of State must also reasonably consider that the additional time is required to assess the trigger event further.
To agree a voluntary period extension with the acquirer, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, a trigger event has taken place, or is in progress or contemplation, and that this has given or would give rise to a national security risk. The Secretary of State must also reasonably consider—the third bullet point the hon. Lady mentioned—that the period is required to consider whether to impose final remedies or what those remedies should be.
What the Secretary of State may not do is simply extend the assessment period because it is convenient. The clause is drafted in this way to ensure that we protect the investors and businesses that the hon. Lady quite rightly cares about, as do Government Members, and allow them to operate and thrive in our economy. I hope that hon. Members feel assured that the Government have sought to carefully balance the flexibility required for the Secretary of State to deal with the most complex cases and the need to provide businesses and investors with clear time lines.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Just to understand and clarify the point about how realistic the voluntary period might be, in terms of getting the written agreement of the acquirer, in the Minister’s experience, how realistic is it that a business would accede to that? The business might be under financial pressure, looking for cash or a financial injection, which is the whole point about bringing in private equity. How will the Government ensure that that is possible, when all those other pressures are coming into play?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; it is a great question. We are all worrying about the small and medium-sized businesses that his particular angle would very much apply to. He will recall that, in the evidence sessions, we heard evidence to suggest that business founders and directors are best placed to know if their business has a national security angle, so the Secretary of State will clearly work with those business owners, innovators and pioneers to try to mitigate the national security risk while making sure that they can survive and thrive. It is in no one’s interests for them not to do well in the United Kingdom; that would probably create a greater national security threat.
Matt Western
Just to be clear, if a business is desperately seeking that inward investment, surely it would be less likely to write and agree with the Secretary of State about the additional period, because it is desperate for the funds.
Nadhim Zahawi
I absolutely hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The issue then becomes one of national security. As we heard in the evidence sessions, most founders and directors know exactly what they are inventing and what their intellectual property is, and therefore whether there is a national security risk, however nascent the business may be.
I briefly turn to amendment 22. I am grateful for the Opposition’s continued, and in some ways unexpected, push for ever greater powers for the Secretary of State, who I am certain will be most delighted. The amendment would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to agree the use of a voluntary period or a further voluntary period with the acquirer to consider whether to make a final order or what provision that final order should contain. I do not believe that would be the right approach.
We have set much store in the statutory timescales provided for in the Bill. It is vital for the businesses and investors that we all care about that they have confidence in when they can expect decisions so that they can plan accordingly, which goes back to the point of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington about planning for an investment or fundraising event. That is why any extension of the assessment period, beyond the collective 75 maximum working days of the initial period and the additional period combined, requires agreement from the acquirer in recognition of the fact that the process is being lengthened beyond the customary timeline. Enabling the Secretary of State to do that unilaterally would be a matter of concern for business and investment communities alike.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his concern about our encouragement, in our probing amendment, of the Secretary of State having greater powers. When the Minister looks at other organisations, such as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States or, even closer to home, the CMA in the UK, which do not have voluntary period extensions, can he understand why there are concerns about how that process would work? What international comparisons has he made?
Nadhim Zahawi
We talk to our Five Eyes allies and other nations. As the Secretary of State and I set out on Second Reading, we have worked collaboratively with many nations to try to get the balance right so that the Bill does what it does and is proportionate.
I accept that the amendment also attempts to provide some mitigation against that by directly referencing subsection (9). That existing subsection limits the Secretary of State to being able to agree a voluntary period only where he
“is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that…a trigger event has taken place”
or is “in progress or contemplation”, and that
“a risk to national security has arisen…or would arise.”
He may do so only for the purpose of considering
“whether to make a final order or what provision a final order should contain.”
As such, I gently point out to the hon. Lady that the limitations that she seeks to impose on the Secretary of State through the amendment are already provided for by the clause as drafted. Subsection (3) does not provide a parallel or broader power for the Secretary of State to agree a voluntary period or further voluntary periods for other reasons. It is already subject to the limitations set out in subsection (9). I hope that addresses the hon. Lady’s principal concern. I assure her that, as with so many areas in the Bill, we are singing from the same hymn sheet. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment, and I respectfully ask her to withdraw it.
I will turn very briefly to new clause 4. I am grateful to hon. Members for contributing to the debate by suggesting a new clause to allow acquirers to lodge complaints. Under the current drafting of the Bill, the Government can already be held to account on their performance on screening investments. First, the Government can be held to account through the annual report that they are required to publish, as provided for in clause 61. That provision requires the Government to report on the number of notifications that they have accepted and rejected, the sectors of the economy in relation to which call-in notices were given, the financial assistance provided and the number of final notifications given.
Secondly, the Government can be held to account through the judicial review process under clause 49. Acquirers, or indeed any party to the transaction, can claim for judicial review of a relevant decision. Furthermore, throughout the review process, the parties to an acquisition can contact the investment security unit for a discussion about their case and can request to speak to a senior official if needed. Creating a formal complaints procedure would be unnecessarily bureaucratic when acquirers already have better routes available to them if they are unhappy with the decision-making process.
Members from across the House have commented that it is important—the hon. Lady mentioned this earlier—that the appropriate resources are allocated to the investment screening unit. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that that happens. It would be unwise to divert some of those staff from undertaking scrutiny of issues of national security to staff a complaints procedure, particularly where JR is available for any serious concern regarding the process of assessment.
Chi Onwurah
I hear the Minister repeatedly referencing the judicial review process without, I am afraid, addressing our point: judicial review is not an option that will give relief to a small, nimble start-up.
Nadhim Zahawi
I mentioned judicial review as the second way in which the Government can be held to account. The first is the requirement for the Government to report to Parliament annually. Colleagues and Committees will therefore be able scrutinise the work of the unit. Although I understand the hon. Lady’s objective with new clause 4, I am not able to accept it for the reasons that I have set out, and I hope that she will agree to withdraw it.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Committee for considering our amendment and new clause, I thank the Minister for his response and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington for his able interventions.
I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s response. I think it is absolutely true, as he said, that as with so much, we are on the same page when it comes to what we are trying to achieve. There are significant issues with the clause as it stands, however, and I do not feel that the Minister has addressed them in his response. He did not, for example—I am happy to take interventions on these points—address the issue of voluntary extensions. We do not see that in the US process, which has a number of stages. It allows 45 days for a national security review, including a 30-day limit for the director of national intelligence to submit intelligence analysis and an option of a 15-day presidential determination if needed, but it does not have a voluntary period for extensions. The CMA in this country does not have a voluntary period for extensions. The Government are introducing a voluntary period.
I thank the Minister for clarifying that as well as having the acquirer’s approval, the Secretary of State has to meet the conditions in subsection (9), and that both the approval and the conditions in that subsection are satisfied on the balance of probabilities. That does not, however, address the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington raised about whether the acquirer is likely to agree to a voluntary period. Without clarity on that point, the clause allows voluntary extensions that, in practical terms, may not prove to be of use to either the acquirer or the Secretary of State.
On the new clause, I do not want to appear cynical, but I am sure that the Minister and those on the Committee who have worked in and with small businesses—particularly in our tech sector and in some of the 17 areas identified for mandatory notification, such as artificial intelligence and data infrastructure—will agree with me when I say that I do think that any small business would see an annual report to Parliament or a judicial review as a relief, given the ever-present desire for investment finance or for progress and innovation at breakneck speed. The Minister has not made a case against the need for a process to address procedural disputes.
I said that amendment 22 was a probing amendment, but I want to test the will of the Committee on supporting greater clarity and understanding for our small and medium-sized enterprises. I will seek to press the amendment to a vote, as I will for new clause 4.
The Chair
The decision on new clause 4 will be taken at the end of the Bill Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 24, page 16, line 26, at end insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State must publish each year the aggregate amount of days included under subsection (4), the number of called-in events for which such days are included, and the number of times information notices are given for each called-in event in the report required at Clause 61.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish annual reports of how many information notices were given, how many days were added as a result of them, and how many notices were given in each relevant trigger event.
Dr Whitehead
The amendment follows on from a number of concerns that have been raised about small businesses, their role in the production of information and attendance notices, and the effect on those small businesses; and about the potential development of a regime that is far more onerous than those in other parts of the world as we pursue the proper purpose of dealing with information and attendance, and shining a light on the activities of companies that may need to declare what they are doing in a reasonably timely way.
I am reminded of the question of reasonable speed and efficiency, as far as notification and evidence are concerned, as our expert witnesses mentioned earlier in our proceedings. Michael Leiter from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP stated:
“I think it will be an issue unless you are confident that small-scale, early-stage investors can have their transactions quickly reviewed within roughly 30 to 45 days. If it is longer than that, that will make the investment climate, I think, worse than other competing markets. I think that could have an impact.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 24 November 2020; c. 47, Q53.]
The question in front of us is how we ensure that that happens, or at least shine a light on the process and monitor it. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish each year the aggregate number of days included under subsection (4), the number of called-in events for which such days are included, and the number of times information notices are given for each called-in event in the report required in clause 61.
We have not debated clause 61 yet, but it requires the Secretary of State to produce an annual report of quite extensive proportions on proceedings generally under the Act, as it will be. Hon. Members will note that clause 61 provides for what one might call a quantity report. It will record expenditure, the number of mandatory notices accepted and rejected, the number of voluntary notices accepted and rejected, the number of call-in notices, and the number of final notifications. It is an annual numbers report. The amendment would add quality to that quantity.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for his excellent comments on the amendment. Does he also recognise that the report under clause 61 is the one that the Minister just described as providing accountability to small businesses regarding their concerns about procedure or how they might be affected by the Bill? Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that adding quality to quantity as a function of that report would be a truly important step?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the overall effect that shining a light on proceedings, and accounting for them, will have. She emphasises that it will be important for small businesses—I will come to the mechanisms by which this might be done—to see how effectively things are run and organised, ideally in their own interest when it comes to the question of turnaround in proceedings. I quoted one expert witness, but a number of them emphasised the point about turnaround and the problems that might arise for small businesses as a result of lengthy periods of consideration.
My hon. Friend emphasises what I want to emphasise, which is that the report under clause 61 does not enable anyone to assess efficiency and effectiveness. A reader of that report could look at what has occurred and what numbers have gone out, but it would not allow them to consider the efficiency with which those numbers have been arrived at. Our amendment would make that possible. The report under clause 61 would be on the numbers, but the amendment would make it much easier for a reader of the report to interrogate the numbers, and it would therefore add quality to quantity.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned quality and quantity. I have been reflecting on the fact that today is a relatively momentous day, with the first vaccines going into arms. The Committee is lucky enough to have with us the Minister, who has probably been up all night doing that. Although I appreciate that I am not quite speaking to the amendment, I wanted to talk about the quality and quantity of vaccination and of the Minister’s time.
Dr Whitehead
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that interestingly injected intervention—[Laughter.]
Chi Onwurah
It is important that the Committee recognises the momentous occasion of the first use of the vaccine in this country and congratulates the Minister. It is also important that we reflect on the fact that our fantastic NHS and key workers, rather than the Minister himself, made it possible.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed. I was about to reflect on the appointment a long while ago—in another time and another Administration, when there was a severe and prolonged drought—of a Minister for drought, the right hon. Denis Howell. The Minister’s success was amazing: within about three days of his appointment, it poured with rain.
The Chair
Before the Minister intervenes, may I say that it is important to keep to the detail of the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi
Just to second what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central said, we have an incredible team in our NHS in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, our military and all the other planners who have delivered today. I want to put that on the record.
Dr Whitehead
I absolutely endorse that. I also congratulate the Minister on the fact that things are really happening on his watch. I do not necessarily make the parallel with drought and rain falling down, but I wish him every success with the programme that is now rolling out, which started remarkably quickly after his appointment.
I want to highlight the difference that the amendment would make between quality and quantity. In practice, the decisions about issuing information notices and attendance notices will be taken by the new BEIS investment security unit, although I have to say that we have not heard much information about that unit—its resourcing, practice or key performance indicators. The operation of the entire new regime, its impact on the UK’s status as a place for investment in high-value start-ups—the impact assessment states that about 80% of transactions in the scope of the mandatory notification will affect start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises—and its impact on national security will depend on the competence of the new unit when it is set up. So far, the Government have laid out limited plans for securing the capacity and capability it needs. In that context, the extent to which the unit will be able to act efficiently and effectively is a potential concern. To some extent, that is a question of its resourcing and of the way it is set up and required to work.
At the moment, we have no method of assessing how the unit is doing in terms of carrying out what the Bill wants it to do. The amendment, among other things, would bring much greater accountability to the unit to ensure that it carries out an efficient and effective national security screening regime. We have to remember that efficiency is about not just how well the unit goes about its business, but what judgments it makes and, for example, whether it gives multiple information notices out to businesses, as it can under the Bill. Each time a successive notice is given out, it would stop the clock on time limits and extend the period in which that overall examination would take place.
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend is making a really important point, because we all know that what is measured throws a light on the process behind it. If these orders are not measured, I am concerned that they will effectively be a way for a hard-pressed department to gain more time. We have all seen during this pandemic—I refer not least to responses to parliamentary questions—how pressure on resources has increased timescales in the operation of Government Departments. This amendment would shine a light on that and prevent such misuse.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend makes an important point on the amendment about how we undertake the difficult job of making sure something is efficiently and effectively carried out, while not taking the wheels from under the organisation as it does its job. That is a difficult process to undertake, because information notices are clearly important, as are attendance notices, and we should have no mechanisms in the Bill that prevent or undermine the ability of the organisation charged with giving notices out to do that properly. That is a given as far as the process is concerned.
However, it is equally important that substantial light is shed on how that process works in practice and whether, over a period of time, that process might be seen not to be working as well as it should be in combining the necessities of those notices with a reasonably fair approach, particularly as far as small businesses are concerned. Managing that metric properly while enabling the unit to carry out its job properly is quite a task.
The amendment would enable us to undertake that task by requiring the recording of quality—that is, the numbers of notices given out, the “aggregate amount of days” that those notices have consumed and the
“number of called-in events for which such days are included”.
By enumerating those numbers and putting them together in each report, we can see whether the unit is doing its job well overall, could improve or could undertake activities to make sure that there was a balance between efficiency, effectiveness and fairness in the whole process.
Indeed, it is not just small businesses that might welcome having a light shone on what is being done to them; it would also be a potentially important tool to allow the Secretary of State to see what the unit, which is essentially carrying out the Secretary of State’s work, would be doing over each period of the year. The Secretary of State could use that reporting mechanism as a way of ensuring that the unit is doing what it should and that the principles we have set out in the Bill for the good expedition of information and attendance notices continue to operate in the best possible way over a period of time.
Adding quality to the quantity in the report is good news all around. It enhances the Secretary of State’s ability to manage his or her own Department. It shines a light for those bodies that ought to be co-operators in the process, but that may sometimes feel themselves as victims in the process. It shines a ray of light on the operation of the organisation itself—the unit carrying out these activities—and is therefore a welcome addition to its activities. That will keep it considering the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations in the knowledge that the information will be stuck in a report each year and will be scrutinised in terms of the unit’s activities in carrying out the wishes behind what will be the Act.
The amendment would be a constructive and careful addition to the reporting process, and one that would considerably enhance the effectiveness of the Bill. I hope the Secretary of State can consider it in the light in which it is intended, which is as an addition to the Bill, and not as seeking to undermine the effectiveness of the process or the activities of the unit itself.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I intend to speak first to clause 24 stand part and then turn to amendment 23. Clause 24 concerns the Secretary of State’s information-gathering powers in clause 19 and his power to require the attendance of witnesses in clause 20, with the requirement that national security assessments are completed within a defined period, which appears in clause 23.
Clause 24(4) ensures that the clock is stopped on the assessment period while the Secretary of State waits for information or for the attendance of witnesses, as required through the issuance of the relevant notices. That helps to avoid the Secretary of State being timed out of properly assessing a case simply because someone fails or refuses to provide information or to attend to give evidence.
Amendment 23 seeks to require that the annual report, provided for in clause 61, includes additional information relating to how often subsection (4) is engaged. In particular, it seeks to require the Secretary of State to include the aggregate number of days on which the clock is stopped as a result of the Secretary of State awaiting the provision of information through clause 19 or the attendance of a witness through clause 20. It also seeks to include the number of call-in days, and the number of times information notices are given for each call-in.
Our response has three parts, though the Committee will be relieved to hear that each part is distinctly and deliberately brief. First, clause 24(4) is entirely necessary to help to ensure that the Secretary of State is not timed out. Secondly, clauses 19(1) and 20(1) stipulate that the requirements to provide information or evidence must relate to the Secretary of State’s functions under the Bill. In this context, that means that they have to be relevant to assessing the trigger event and making a decision on it.
The Secretary of State will furthermore need to comply with public law duties when issuing an information notice or attendance notice, which would preclude him from doing so for an improper purpose, not that he would ever contemplate such a thing. A decision to issue a notice would also be subject to judicial review. There are therefore appropriate legal safeguards on the use of information notices and attendance notices. Finally, clause 61 does not preclude the Secretary of State from publishing such information should it later prove a helpful metric for assessing the regime.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment, but I am conscious that the Minister is unlikely to agree to it, given what he has said. Bearing that in mind, the detail that is being asked for is probably quite straightforward. I would like this on the record: were a Member to ask for such information, would the Department be willing to provide it in the future, notwithstanding the fact that the amendment will likely be defeated?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his ingenious attempt at augmenting this excellent Bill, but for the reasons I have just set out I see no grounds for including the amendment. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to please withdraw it.
Dr Whitehead
I am not sure that the Minister has given sufficient consideration to what I thought were genuine points concerning, as I set out, both quality and quantity. He says that it will be possible, if the Secretary of State thought it a good idea, to include some of those points in the annual report anyway. That comes back to some of our “may” and “must” arguments. The Secretary of State might, if they want to, decide to do that in an annual report, but the circumstances under which that happened could be that they wanted to say in the report, “The unit is working brilliantly, everything is hunky dory and terrific, and here is the evidence.” Conversely, were the unit not working very well, they might decide not to put those things into an annual report.
Although the Secretary of State would have the ability to add something to the annual report, if they did not want to do it, or they felt that it was a better idea to put such things under the table, away from the light of day, no one else would ever know about it—unless, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen South suggested, some sort of undertaking were given that those numbers were available on request to hon. Members. The formula that the Minister has put forward falls well short of the mark in meeting the three tests that I have put forward for quality plus quality: that the report should be of benefit to the Minister, the unit, and the firms and companies that may be affected. The Minister addresses only one of those three.
Chi Onwurah
Given that, as my hon. Friend sets out, this information should be of use to the unit’s internal workings and that it would, I hope, be readily available in the Department, as part of the workflow in modern-day information management systems, can he think of any reason why the Secretary of State would not want to make it available?
Dr Whitehead
I cannot immediately, because as I mentioned, having that information available in some way or other—we suggest it should be in the report—is a win, win, win all round. It is useful for everybody and potentially important for some.
I do not suggest for a moment that there might be anything untoward about hiding that information away, and I am sure that the Minister absolutely would not want that to happen. However, under the mechanism he has set out and his argument for why this amendment is unnecessary, that is precisely what could happen, which is not something that we should feel very happy about. I hope that, as a minimum, the Minister will address that point, along with the intervention by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South about this information being freely available one way or another, whether in a report or not. An overwhelmingly better idea would be simply and unobtrusively to add it to the report, so that we knew it would come out and could refer to it.
I am not sure whether we would seek to divide the Committee on this—[Interruption]—but I think we might. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, I am slightly at a loss as to why this provision would not be acknowledged and put in the Bill, or something close to it, one way or another. I invite the Minister to intervene to say whether the disclosure of this information on a regular basis would happen in the report or whether he will give an undertaking to ensure that happens in passing this legislation.
Nadhim Zahawi
We have very carefully considered the types of information that would be helpful to investors. The direction of travel—this was the question raised earlier by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South—for Parliament and the public was to include that information in the annual statement. The Committee should also note that the list does not prevent us from adding other relevant non-sensitive information, as I mentioned earlier. I hope the hon. Member will see fit—I know there is a slight disagreement on the shadow Front Bench—to withdraw the amendment.
Nadhim Zahawi
I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he was going to withdraw the amendment, then the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central said, “No, we’re going to put it to a vote.”
Dr Whitehead
To be precise, I said that I was not sure whether we should divide, because we are a little bemused as to why, one way or another, that information should not be within the report or the Minister could not make a firm statement that it will be regularly available, and the Minister has not said either in his response.
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does he agree that it would be helpful if we could be sure that the Minister’s accuracy were not as low when reporting my hon. Friend’s words as when reporting on the functioning of the clause?
Dr Whitehead
To be kind, I think the Minister was reflecting on what the motives for our brief discussion about dividing might have been, rather than attempting in any way to put words in people’s mouths that were not there.
I will put Committee members out of their misery. I do not think there was sufficient reassurance in the responses that have been given, and I think we ought to record that we would like the amendment to be in the Bill. Therefore, we will divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Nadhim Zahawi
I turn to clauses 25 to 28, which I shall treat together, as they all relate to orders that the Secretary of State may make in relation to notifiable cases under the national security and investment regime. It is important that, during any national security assessment following a trigger event being called in, parties do not act in a way that undermines the assessment or any remedies that might be imposed at the end of it. Clause 25 therefore gives the Secretary of State the power to impose requirements for the purpose of preventing, reversing or mitigating actions that might pre-empt the regime through what is known as an interim order. In practice, this could include requiring that the parties do not complete a trigger event until a final decision has been issued, or, where the Secretary of State is concerned about access to sensitive intellectual property, an order could be used to prohibit the intellectual property from being transferred or shared pending the outcome of the assessment. The power is necessarily flexible to allow conditions to be tailored to particular cases and particular risks, although it rightly comes with important safeguards.
First, interim orders may be made only during the formal assessment period when a trigger event has already met the legal test to be called in for a full assessment. The Secretary of State may not, therefore, impose an interim order before he has called in a trigger event, which I hope hon. Members will agree is a significant bar to meet in and of itself. Secondly, the Secretary of State must reasonably consider that the provisions are necessary and proportionate for the purpose of preventing, reversing or mitigating a pre-emptive action. Any decision to make an order would be open to judicial review.
Thirdly, as an interim measure it is inherently time limited. In a particular case, there might be a reason why a requirement is not needed for the full duration of the assessment period. Consequently, a specific end date might be given in an order. Furthermore, unless an earlier date has been specified in the order, or the order has been revoked, an interim order will cease to have effect once the Secretary of State has given a final notification or made a final order decision.
The Bill also includes specific provisions for interim orders to be kept under review and for those subject to them to request that they be varied or revoked. That is provided for in clause 27. Without clause 25, it would be possible for a dangerous acquisition outside of the mandatory sectors to be completed before the Secretary of State has an opportunity to assess it properly. Indeed, the Government expect a genuinely determined hostile actor to seek to do just that.
Clause 26 provides for the Secretary of State either to put in place effective remedies to counter national security risks discovered during an assessment of a trigger event, or to clear a trigger event where no national security risk is found. The clause therefore provides for both final orders and final notifications, and subsection (1) requires the Secretary of State either to make a final order or to give a final notification before the end of the assessment period. Final notifications act as notice to parties that no further action is to be taken under the Bill in relation to the call-in notice.
Final orders seek to address any national security risks found during an assessment. Those will not be arbitrary and will be subject to a strict legal test. First, the Secretary of State must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a trigger event has taken place or is in progress or contemplation and that this would give rise to a national security risk if carried into effect. Secondly, the Secretary of State must reasonably consider that the provisions of the order are necessary and proportionate for the purpose of preventing remedy or mitigating the risk.
The permitted contents for final orders are set out in subsection (5). This includes the power to put certain conditions on a trigger event before it can proceed, or for it to remain in place. The subsection also gives the Secretary of State the power to block a trigger event or, where it has already taken place, require that to be unwound. I make it clear to hon. Members that such a course of action would be a last resort. In the nearly two decades since the Enterprise Act 2002 came into force, no Government of either colour has blocked a deal on national security grounds. However, it is still a necessary power to have. There might be some cases where a trigger event poses such an acute risk that it cannot be allowed to proceed in any form, and it would be irresponsible to leave our country unprotected.
Clause 27 provides important safeguards on the continued operation of interim orders and final orders. First, it requires the Secretary of State to keep interim and final orders under review to ensure that they are relevant and proportionate. Secondly, it empowers him to vary or revoke such orders. Thirdly, it compels him to consider any request to vary or revoke an order as soon as practicable after receiving such a request.
Dr Whitehead
Does the Minister consider that the arrangements in clauses 25 to 28 for variations, revocations and exemptions are a proper subject for inclusion in an annual report? As he will observe, clause 61 on the annual report states that the
“The Secretary of State must, in relation to each relevant period—
(a) prepare a report in accordance with this section”.
Although not specifically covered by the word “must” in the clause, does the Minister consider that the arrangements in these clauses are a proper subject for the annual report?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We have had that debate already, and we have set out clearly what we think is appropriate to be in the report, notwithstanding what we might do in future if that allows investors to have greater clarity.
Matt Western
I was going to make exactly the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. Surely the intent behind the question is how we make the operation of the provision much more efficient. We are starting from a zero base. The suggestion that we consider future demands and implications is a constructive one.
Nadhim Zahawi
I see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. The House has many levers at its disposal, including the Select Committee process, to probe the effectiveness of the new regime.
I shall now make some headway. The provision is designed to ensure that orders reflect changing circumstances and do not remain in force for perpetuity without further consideration. Parties subject to orders may themselves request that the Secretary of State vary or revoke their order. This is another mechanism to ensure that orders remain appropriate. The Secretary of State must consider such requests unless the request relates to a final order and, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, there has been no material change in circumstances since the order was made or last varied, or if the party concerned has previously made a request to vary or revoke the order since that request.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for the progress he is making in reading out the provisions of these clauses, but I am trying to understand the length of time that an interim order can be in force. What is the maximum time an interim order can be in force?
Nadhim Zahawi
It is time limited, but that does not specify what the time needs to be. I will happily write to the hon. Lady.
Chi Onwurah
I am not sure that it is time limited, because of the number of additional voluntary periods that the Secretary of State can invoke.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am happy to come back to the hon. Lady on that point.
Clause 28 requires that orders made under this Bill be served on anyone required to comply with them and anyone with whom the call-in notice was served. The clause also places certain requirements on the contents of orders or accompanying explanatory material as well as giving the Secretary of State the power to exclude sensitive information. The clause sets out the process that the Secretary of State must follow after making an interim order or final order. This provides the clarity and predictability that we all want for businesses and investors.
First, clause 25 requires the Secretary of State to serve the order on everyone who needs to be aware of it, including anyone who is required to comply with it as well as anyone on whom the call-in notice was served. That will provide clarity for affected parties. The Secretary of State is also required to serve the order on such other persons as he considers appropriate—for example, a regulator who is considering the trigger event might need to be aware of the terms of an order.
Secondly, the clause sets out the information that must be contained within an order or its accompanying explanatory material, including the reasons for making the order, the trigger event to which the order relates, the date on which the order comes into force, and the possible consequences of not complying with the order. That will help to ensure that parties are clear about why the Secretary of State has made the order and what they must now do as a result.
Thirdly, the clause enables the Secretary of State to exclude information from a copy of an order or its accompanying explanatory material that he considers commercially sensitive or national security sensitive. That will help to ensure that the process of serving orders does not negatively impact on parties’ commercial interest or on our national security interest. The clause makes provision for notifying those affected by variations and revocations of orders, with a view to ensuring that they are properly communicated in a timely manner.
I hope that hon. Members feel reassured that clauses 25 to 28 will frustrate hostile actors and enable the Government to work with business in executing this regime, that there are safeguards to ensure that orders do not stay in place longer than is necessary or proportionate, and that all relevant parties will have the information they need in relation to orders. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Chi Onwurah
Let me start my thanking the Minister for setting out the purpose and details of clauses 25 to 28, which set out the remedies and the process of the timelines that we discussed in relation to clause 23. As he has suggested, and as the Opposition recognise, many of our amendments and arguments have been focused on trying to ensure that the process of assessment, interim orders and final orders works not just as effectively as possible, but as clearly as possible. It should be as clear as possible to the many businesses that will come under the remit of the Bill, particularly the small and medium-sized enterprises that the Opposition seek to champion.
On the requirements for interim orders, which are set out in clause 25, the Minister is absolutely right to say that we have to have regard to the actions of hostile actors. Indeed, we will be looking for greater clarity on who those hostile actors might be, but we have to recognise that hostile actors might seek to circumvent the provisions of the Bill in order to make off with important intellectual property or to otherwise influence the companies’ assets that they are seeking to acquire. We therefore recognise the importance of interim orders, as set out in clause 25. As I have told the Minister, I am not clear about the maximum timeline that the interim orders can be in place. Regardless of that, it is clearly necessary for them to be put in place and to be defined. They need to be reviewed and rewritten, and other provisions in clause 25 set that out.
My understanding is that interim orders give way to final orders and the final notifications. Although we have some concerns about how those notifications are to be made, which we shall consider later, a final order, made as effectively and quickly as possible, is clearly important.
I am not sure that the Minister made it clear in clause 26(4):
“Before making a final order the Secretary of State must consider any representations made to the Secretary of State”.
This seems to me to be a very broad statement, yet here we see—as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test will observe—that it does not say “may”, but “must”. I am not clear what that is seeking to address, as I would have thought that it was normal practice for the Secretary of State to consider representations made to them.
I wonder whether this is setting up the potential for a future judicial—or other—review, should any representation be made that was not considered to have been considered. Perhaps the Minister will write to me to give his view on that, or to set out what part of the process that statement is trying to address or give accountability on.
Nadhim Zahawi
The reason for that is to enable the Secretary of State to tailor remedies accordingly, as a limited list of remedies could result in risks being ineffectively addressed. I am happy to write to her on anything else she requires.
Chi Onwurah
My question is not about the broadness of the orders, or even the discretion that the Secretary of State has, because, as the Minister has observed, we have sought to probe that level of discretion in these powers; it is about the broadness of the provision that:
“Before making a final order the Secretary of State must consider any representations made to the Secretary of State”.
What is meant by “consider”? How would a failure to do so be identified and reported on, and how would the Secretary of State be held to account? I seek further clarity on that. Perhaps it is obvious to the Minister, and perhaps it is just to me that it is not obvious.
I would say, in agreeing to the provisions set out in clauses 25 to 27, that there are concerns that they will not be part of the general reporting, certainly in the provisions of clause 25, and interim reports are not mentioned in clause 61. I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test about a lack of reporting on the provisions of the Bill, but we recognise the importance of the clauses and will not be opposing them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 26 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Twigg. Is it possible to turn up the heating in here? It is incredibly cold.
The Chair
I am afraid that is not in my power. We have 10 minutes more to get through. We will ask about heating, but I do not think there is much we can do about it.
Clause 29
Publication of notice of final order
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 29, page 19, line 39, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person and where the publication would not be in the public interest, or”.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from redacting notices of final order (and information within them) on commercial grounds if redacting is contrary to the public interest.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this frosty morning, Mr Twigg. The amendment is on the public interest for disclosure. It is really about preventing the Secretary of State from redacting notices of final order and the information with them. The Opposition believe that commercial grounds for redacting are contrary to the public interest. It is about putting as much information as possible into the public realm about stuff that is particularly controversial but is really about clear protection of our national security.
Our strong belief is that the fundamental task of any Government, and the reason for the Bill overall, is the protection of our national security. A critical driver of that security is the wider public understanding of the rapidly changing threats that we face, and the different sources of those threats. We have heard from various expert witnesses over the past few weeks that other countries understand, perhaps far better than we do, what some of those threats are, and that our public understanding of threats is even more limited.
When Sir Richard Dearlove gave evidence, with vast experience spanning decades, he said:
“What is important about the Bill is that it raises parliamentary and public awareness of the issue.”—[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 24 November 2020; c. 24, Q30.]
Everyone on both sides of the House would like to see that. He also said, talking about China specifically:
“We need to conduct our relationship with China with much more wisdom and care. The Chinese understand us incredibly well. They have put their leadership through our universities for 20 or 30 years. We in comparison hardly know anything about China”—[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 24 November 2020; c. 20, Q21.]
The wider point in his evidence was that for too long our business priorities and the desire to be an attractive investment destination had overridden some of the security concerns, across a number of different Governments, perhaps creating a pattern of not taking the threats posed by China as seriously as possible.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish notices of final order, setting out the details of persons and events involving national security that meant the notices were made. Those details are critical to our security and to our understanding of the threats. They must be made public. The amendment would put into the public domain the accurate information that will create public confidence on what the clause seeks to achieve.
As drafted, the clause prevents the publication of information that is critical to our security if it prejudices commercial interest. The Opposition believe that is the wrong judgment. The whole point of the Bill is to take a more strategic view, as indicated by Sir Richard Dearlove. The focus should be on long-term security, but the Bill is a way to protect not only security but our long-term commercial interests. The approach in the amendment might mean some short-term commercial challenges, but it is absolutely right for our national security and our longer-term prosperity.
The amendment would require the Government to publish all details of a final order notice where it is in the interests of national security and the public interest, even when commercial interest could be prejudiced. Where a hostile actor acts against our security interests, it is crucial for the British public to know about it and that we have some appropriate conversations in the public domain. Not to disclose such threats or events for the sake of protecting imminent profits in the short term would be the wrong judgment.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for the amendment and for the excellent point that he is making. Does he think that if a company was being acquired by a hostile actor, and the Secretary of State thought that knowledge of the acquisition would be detrimental to the commercial interests of the company, the clause would allow the Secretary of State to redact that information? It would be in the general public’s interest to know that such an acquisition was taking place.
Sam Tarry
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is our belief that national security must be the overriding priority when threats emerge in an ever-changing world. We have heard evidence that threats that should have been seen were not dealt with in the correct way. Bringing that into the public domain through the amendment is incredibly important. That would override the short-term commercial pain if it guaranteed that security was paramount.
If we did not disclose such threats or events, and the focus was just on the short-term protection of swift profits, that would be the wrong judgment, because it would downgrade the overarching purpose of the Bill, which is to use all its mechanisms to enhance our security and ensure that we are on top of it at all times. The amendment would correct the focal point of this area of the Bill, by requiring before any redaction on commercial grounds an assessment of whether publishing would be in the public interest. That puts the onus on, and gives power to, the Secretary of State to make those crucial judgments.
Chi Onwurah
I rise to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend’s amendment. The excellent points that he has made have highlighted a theme of the Committee’s discussions: the potential conflict between the Department’s focus on supporting business and investment into the UK, and our national security. As he set out, the public interest might be in knowing that a hostile acquisition was taking place and in being better informed generally about national security. In addition, I can think of many examples in which the knowledge that a company had come into the purview of the Bill could have a detrimental impact on its stock valuation or reputation.
When the Minister responds, I hope that he will set out what he expects the Secretary of State to do when there is a conflict of interest between public knowledge of hostile actors and specific measures in the Bill to ensure that companies related to potential hostile actors, or those for whom our national security is not in their interests—through chains of influence or company holdings, for example—should not be beyond the reach of the Bill. The clause, by enabling the Secretary of State to leave out details that prejudice the commercial interests of any person, seems to put the focus back on commercial interests rather than national security. The amendment would put the focus back on national security and the public interest.
National Security and Investment Bill (Tenth sitting)
Tuesday 8th December 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 View all National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 December 2020 - (8 Dec 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we adjourned, the Committee was considering amendment 27 to clause 29, and I believe that Chi Onwurah was in the process of concluding her remarks.
Clause 29
Publication of notice of final order
Amendment proposed this day: 27, in clause 29, page 19, line 39, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person and where the publication would not be in the public interest, or”—(Sam Tarry.)
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from redacting notices of final order (and information within them) on commercial grounds if redacting is contrary to the public interest.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I had been just about to conclude by saying that a key reason for the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South is that it asserts and requires the supremacy of the public interest over commercial interest in the Secretary of State’s actions in reporting on final notices. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
With your permission, Sir Graham, I will speak to clause 29 stand part before turning to the amendment. The Committee has heard about the careful balance that the Government are striking in this regime by allowing for a discreet and commercially sensitive screening process wherever possible, while requiring transparency at key junctures where not to do so could disadvantage third parties.
Clause 29 is a key clause, the purpose of which is to deliver that essential but carefully chosen transparency. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a notice of the fact that a final order has been made, varied or revoked. The main purpose of publishing notice of those facts is to ensure that third parties who may have a financial interest in a trigger event are not disadvantaged by the provision of information only to the parties involved. Examples of relevant third parties might include shareholders, suppliers or customers of the target entity, and other investors who may be considering investing.
The clause will provide important reassurance to the business community and the wider public about the circumstances in which final orders are made, varied and revoked. It specifies what information must appear in a notice, including, crucially, a summary of the order, revocation or variation, its effect, and the reasons for it. Similarly to the approach on orders, subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to exclude information from the notice when he considers it commercially sensitive or national security sensitive. The clause is complemented by the requirement in clause 61 for the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the use of the powers in the Bill. Clause 61(2) sets out an extensive list of the aggregate data that the annual report must include. Together, those provisions will help investors and businesses to understand the regime, and will ensure that Parliament can hold the Government to account on their operation at both individual and aggregate levels.
I will now turn to amendment 27 to clause 29. I remind the Committee that the clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a notice when a final order has been made, varied or revoked. As drafted, subsection (3)(a) provides that the Secretary of State may exclude from that public notice anything that he considers likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person. The amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from excluding such information, unless he considers that publishing it would not be in the public interest.
The Committee has heard about the careful balance that the Government are seeking to strike in this regime, to allow, as I mentioned earlier, for a discreet and commercially sensitive screening process wherever possible, while requiring transparency at key junctures when not to do so may disadvantage third parties. As I set out, this is a key clause, the purpose of which is to deliver that carefully balanced transparency. Inherent in the clause is the degree of flexibility afforded to the Secretary of State to redact information when he judges that to be appropriate, whether for commercial or national security reasons. I hesitate slightly to return to a somewhat recurring theme—the difference between “may” and “shall”—but the fact that the Secretary of State “may” redact information provides him with the flexibility to decide case by case whether that is the right thing to do.
The hon. Member for Ilford South seeks to ensure with this amendment that the Secretary of State will not disregard the public interest when using the flexibility on deciding whether to redact information. The hon. Gentleman need not worry; that is my message to him. The Secretary of State will always seek to serve the public interest in this Bill and in all that he does. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State will carefully consider any redactions made and that he will not take the decision to exclude information lightly.
Nadhim Zahawi
I suspect that the hon. Member for Ilford South may wonder why, if it makes so little difference, we do not include his amendment and formalise the importance of considering the public interest. I suspect that that is also the point on which the hon. Lady wishes to intervene.
Chi Onwurah
The Committee recognises the importance of giving the powers in the Bill to the Secretary of State in the interests of national security. The powers of redaction are, or could be, in the interests of commercial sensitivity. Does the Minister agree that national security and the public interest should be supreme over commercial sensitivity? Why will he not make that clear?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thought I had made that clear. The Bill strikes that balance between commercial sensitivity and national security.
I return to my reassurance on the importance of considering the public interest. In addition to the general principle that one should avoid amending clauses that, essentially, fulfil their objectives—if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it—I suggest that the Bill is not the place to begin adding references to the public interest. While the Secretary of State cares profoundly about the public interest, this specific regime is intentionally and carefully focused on national security. Although it may be an attractive proposition to certain hon. Members, my strong view is that by introducing ideas of wider public interest into the Bill, we would risk confusing and stretching its scope beyond its carefully crafted calibration. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy with what hon. Members seek to achieve with the amendment but, for the reasons I have set out, I must ask that the hon. Gentleman withdraws it.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham, in these temperatures, which are positively balmy compared with the Siberian ones that we experienced this morning.
I thank the Minister for his comments, but I would say that there is no stretch too far on national security. It is positive to hear that the Minister agrees that the focus on national security is crucial, and that we are driving at the interests of national security in our amendment.
Chi Onwurah
Was my hon. Friend as confused as I was when the Minister spoke about this Bill not being the place to introduce public interest? The Government, however, have introduced commercial sensitivity. We are not seeking to modify national security; it is the introduction of commercial sensitivity that requires the introduction of public interest. We are talking about modifying the importance of commercial sensitivity, not national security. Will my hon. Friend join me in rejecting the Minister’s assertion?
Sam Tarry
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. We have been clear that the amendment is simply about preventing the Secretary of State from redacting notices of final order on commercial grounds, if redaction is contrary to the public interest. The whole point of this Bill is to together public interest, national security and commercial interest because they are one and the same. National security is our highest priority, but in the post-Brexit scenario we want to be a country that is as open and positive as possible towards investment from international partners if they share our values and our objectives of supporting and building Britain. It feels as though the Minister is agreeing with us in part, but he is not prepared to accept this amendment. For that reason, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 30, page 19, line 44, leave out
“making of a final order”
and insert
“making of an interim or a final order”.
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to give financial assistance in consequence of the making of an interim order.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in clause 30, page 20, line 3, after “period” insert “or any calendar year,”.
This amendment would make it mandatory for the Government to inform Parliament if financial assistance given in any financial year, or in any calendar year, exceeds £100 million.
Clause stand part.
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friends and I have set out how we are seeking to provide constructive support and improvement for this Bill. I am disappointed that the Minister seems to feel that no improvement is possible, but I hope to persuade him otherwise with amendment 24. It is not a probing amendment; it brings a much-needed improvement to what I consider to be an incomprehensible omission in clause 30.
Clause 30 provides that the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, give financial assistance to, or in respect of, an entity through a loan guarantee or indemnity, or any other form of financial assistance. The financial assistance must be given as a consequence of him making a final order. That is a key point that I will return to.
Clause 30 further states that during any financial year, if the amount given under the clause totals £100 million or more, the Secretary of State must lay a report of the amount before the House of Commons. It states that during any financial year in which a report has been laid before Parliament, if the Secretary of State provides any further financial assistance under this clause, he must lay before the House a report of the amount.
I set that out to indicate that, as I understand it, the amount of financial assistance that can be provided is not limited. A report must be provided when the amount given under this clause totals £100 million or more, but there is no limit on the amount which can be provided. One would expect the Treasury to provide a limit in any year, but the Bill does not set any limit on the amount of financial assistance that the Secretary of State can make available. It does not, however, provide for any financial assistance in the case of an interim order. The provision applies only to a final order, specifically in clause 30, on page 19, in line 44. That is why we seek simply to change that to include interim orders under the scope of the financial assistance clause.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I think it was Cicero who said:
“Brevity is a great charm of eloquence.”
In that regard, I will keep my remarks brief. Obviously, what we propose here is incredibly straightforward. It would expand the scope from a financial year to a calendar year. I would not wish to imply that I do not necessarily have complete and utter confidence in the UK Government at all times, and that they might wish, perhaps, to stay away from and overcome any form of scrutiny by making some sort of payment at a certain point in time where the overlap is with a financial year. An amendment such as this, which is succinct and clear, would allow for everyone to be quite happy that where there is a need for the UK Government to put in place a financial assistance level of £100 million, irrespective of whether it is a financial year or a calendar year, Members are fully apprised of that spend.
Nadhim Zahawi
For the benefit of the Committee, I will begin with clause 30 stand part, which makes provision for financial assistance. I will then turn to amendment 24, and amendment 28 from the hon. Member for Aberdeen South.
The Government recognise that final orders, in exceptional cases—and I have to stress in exceptional cases, when we are administering taxpayers’ money—may bring about financial difficulty for the affected parties. This clause therefore gives the Secretary of State the legal authority to provide financial assistance to, or in relation to, entities in consequence of the making of a final order, to mitigate the impacts of a final order, for example. It might also be used where the consequence of a final order in itself might otherwise impact the country’s national security interests.
Hon. Members will know that such clauses are required to provide parliamentary authority for spending by Government in pursuit of policy objectives where no existing statutory authority for such expenditure already exists. I am confident that such assistance would be given only in exceptional circumstances when no alternative was available. For example, the Secretary of State could impose a final order blocking an acquisition of an entity that is an irreplaceable supplier to Government, subsequently putting the financial viability of the entity in doubt. In such a situation, the Secretary of State could provide financial assistance to the entity to ensure that the supplier could continue operating while an alternative buyer was found.
Such spending would of course be subject to the existing duty of managing public money—the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central asked what checks and balances are in place—and compliant with any other legal obligations concerning the use of Government funds. To provide further explicit reassurance regarding the use of the power, subsection (1) specifies that any financial assistance may be given only with the consent of the Treasury.
The clause also covers reporting to the House when financial assistance is given under the clause. I will speak to that further when I turn to the amendments. I am sure that hon. Members will see the clause as necessary and appropriate, and have confidence that our Government, and future Governments, will have only limited, but sufficient, freedom to provide financial support under the regime as a result.
Amendment 24 would permit the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance in consequence of making an interim order, which was the hon. Lady’s point. As she will know, the Government take the management of our country’s finances very seriously, and such a power naturally requires appropriate safeguards to ensure that public money is spent appropriately. Restricting the power to final orders ensures that the Secretary of State may use it only to assist entities once a national security assessment has been completed and final remedies have been imposed—for example, to mitigate the impact of a final order on a company. It would not be appropriate to use the power to provide aid to an entity that is only temporarily affected by an interim order, which will last only for a period of review, likely to take 30 working days and, at most, 75.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his comments. When he says that an interim order can be in place for at most 75 days, I think he is adding 30 days, which is the initial period, to 45 days, which is the additional period. I am afraid that he is forgetting the voluntary periods.
Nadhim Zahawi
Yes, but the point remains that no final order has been made, and public money will be spent only in very limited circumstances, as I mentioned, in consequence of a final order. Any expenditure will be subject to appropriate safeguards.
Amendment 28, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South, would require the Secretary of State to inform Parliament if financial assistance given under clause 30 in any financial year, or any calendar year, exceeds £100 million. If during any financial year the assistance given under the clause totals £100 million or more, subsection (3) as drafted requires the Secretary of State to lay a report of the amount before the House.
If, during any financial year in which such a report has been laid, the Secretary of State provides any further financial assistance under the clause, subsection (4) requires that he lay a further report of the amount, so if he makes a report before the end of the year and then spends more money, which was the hon. Gentleman’s point, the Secretary of State will need to update the report. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, the Government are committed to providing as much transparency as is reasonably possible when it comes to the use of the new investment screening regime provided for in the Bill.
The amendment would effectively mean that the Secretary of State must stand before Parliament twice—likely, once at the end of the calendar year and again at the end of the financial year, a few months later—to lay what is likely to be a rather similar report of the amount given in financial assistance grants under the clause. Although the Secretary of State would be flattered by his popularity, I am sure the hon. Member for Aberdeen South would agree that seeing him for that purpose twice in such a short time would be a case of duplication, and the Secretary of State would not want to take up his valuable time unnecessarily. I can assure him that the Secretary of State is fully committed to transparency and will ensure that Parliament has the information that it needs to track the use of the powers in the regime.
For those reasons, I am unable to accept the amendments, and I hope that hon. Members will not press them.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his comments, but I am disappointed that he seems determined merely to respond from his notes, regardless of the validity of the points put to him. On why it is inappropriate for financial assistance to be provided in the case of interim orders, his reason—as far as I can understand it—was purely that interim orders were too short to make any difference. Although he cannot say how long an interim order will last—he can say how long he thinks it may last—it could go on indefinitely, because I cannot see in clause 26 a limit on the number or length of voluntary periods that may be agreed for the assessment. On that basis, the assessment could last a significant time.
In any case, I hope that he, as the Minister for Business and Industry, is aware of how fast-paced the technology sector, in particular, can be. The inability to raise finance at a critical moment or to sell to a particular customer, for example, may cause significant financial and commercial damage to a small business or a start-up. I did not hear the Minister reject that point, yet he has rejected the need for any support during the period of an interim order. As I have shown, that is a mistake, and that is why we will press the amendment to a vote.
The Minister also made no response to my question about equity.
Nadhim Zahawi
I apologise—I should have responded to that, and it was remiss of me not to. We will consider all forms of financial assistance, including equity.
To respond to the point the hon. Lady has just made about companies that may have IP or a product in its early, nascent stage of growth, that are struggling and that are fast-moving in terms of raising funds, we at BEIS talk to many companies like that, outside the remit of the Bill, and we look to support them in a variety of ways.
Chi Onwurah
I genuinely thank the Minister for the clarification that equity investments will be included in this bit of the Bill.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
We are focusing greatly on small and medium-sized businesses, but this can also happen to slightly larger organisations, which might be outside the commonly used definition of an SME. When a larger business is distressed because it has lost a major customer and finds itself in financial difficulty, it needs that cash injection, so that sort of assurance is important.
Chi Onwurah
As always, my hon. Friend makes a really important point, and one that I had not thought of. The point about this being applicable to medium-sized businesses is absolutely right. In some ways, medium-sized businesses can often be at a critical point; cash flow is so important, and they could suddenly become very distressed, but with the right cash flow or the right injection of capital, they could expand greatly.
Will the Minister consider this? During the pandemic, when certain innovations have become incredibly important, and cash and support are needed to significantly increase the volume of production—of a vaccine, shall we say, with which the Minister is intimately concerned—a delay of 30, 70 or whatever days will create a huge problem for a medium-sized or growing business, as well as for small businesses.
Nadhim Zahawi
In response to a point made by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington about a company being in distress because it has lost a client, irrespective of the national security and investment regime we talk to such companies all the time. Whether they are small, nascent, medium-sized or large, we have other avenues of assistance to help those companies. That is the point I was making.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for that, which brings me to the point that I wanted to make in response to him. I discerned that that seemed to be his point—that the Bill may cause harm to companies, but that rather than seeking redress under the Bill, or this clause in particular, they should seek redress or some kind of compensation through the well-oiled machinery of Government that provides support for small and growing businesses. I am afraid that that response will be met with undiluted cynicism among the many small and medium-sized businesses that have dealt with Government.
Again, we are talking about a fast-moving situation. Perhaps the Minister will provide examples of where, on such timescales, support has been provided. More importantly, if that is a consequence of the Bill, why would it not be addressed in the Bill, especially as we have a clause that seeks to address this issue in the case of notices of final order. I gave the example of OneWeb satellites, which was a major investment that took some time to come about, and we were not clear whether it was a strategic asset or national security. Clarity is critical.
Matt Western
This is important. I take on board exactly what the Minister is saying, but I am sure he can assure me on this. To give one specific example, Imagination Technologies is a fantastic company, which lost its major customer, which was Apple. Chinese-backed investment—private equity—then came in. The US refused the company the chance to buy into a US business in 2017. I would love to think that whoever was in BEIS in 2017 looked at it closely and offered support. This might be beyond our remit, but it is important that such businesses are reached out to. Will someone in the Minister’s team confirm that the Government tried to support Imagination Technologies?
Chi Onwurah
I very much hope that the Minister or his Department will respond to that. My hon. Friend gave an example of an innovative company in need of support from the Department. Presumably it was similar to the cases we are discussing now, and that support was offered. If confirmation is not forthcoming, we should perhaps look for it via a parliamentary question, which might help us.
I want to say one word about amendment 28, which seeks to ensure that the term of the reporting does not undermine what is reported or its effectiveness. The Minister said that if the £100 million barrier was crossed, another report would have to be made on any further expenditure. However, the amendment concerns a small amount of expenditure in a given period, followed by a larger amount, and whether the periods in which the expenditure was made might mean that a report did not have to be made. The Minister also did not address the question of why £100 million was the right threshold for making a report. On that basis, I wish to press the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sam Tarry
I beg to move amendment 25, in page 20, line 27, leave out from “in” until end of line 28 and insert
“setting out the reasons for such direction and an assessment of the impacts on grounds for action that may have arisen under Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out reasons, and an assessment of the likely impacts, when publishing directions under this section.
Sam Tarry
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out the reasons for and an assessment of the likely impacts of published directions under the provisions regarding the Enterprise Act 2002. That is incredibly important because, in one respect, the Bill creates a radical shift by taking the merger control process, which is currently located primarily in the Competition and Markets Authority, and creating an alternative centre for merger control in the new investment security unit in BEIS. That is a big shift. We are trying to focus on setting out the reasons, and an assessment of the likely impacts, when directions come out of the new unit.
I want to expand a little on this. We have a series of reasons for intervention in investment and merger scenarios, such as national security, competition, financial stability, media plurality, public health—the list goes on. Having a single centre for merger control in the CMA helped ensure, partially, that the different reasons for intervention were considered coherently. At the very least, they were coherent as a package, ensuring that where, for example, national security demanded one solution, competition remedies did not force another. The multiple centres that the Bill creates make coherence more challenging. This is about ensuring that the process is as smooth as possible.
The Government must clarify how they intend the CMA’s merger control process to align with their new national security screening and approval process. That is particularly important when we reflect that the Government consultation process currently indicates that national security reviews will be run in parallel with CMA assessments and that the Government will cover interaction between the CMA regime and the new national security regime in a memorandum of understanding. Unfortunately, there is no specific indication of when this will happen. The amendment pushes for clarity now and for statutory accountability when a Secretary of State could otherwise undermine the CMA or take a decision that is contrary to something it will bring forward.
In relation to the Enterprise Act 2002, public interest intervention notice regimes allow the Secretary of State to direct the CMA to ensure that it does not inadvertently undermine the Secretary of State’s decision on national security in addressing competition concerns. The power to undermine the CMA is not in itself a problem, but it is about the accountability—that is what we are trying to drive at here. In the face of a vastly extended set of powers for the Secretary of State, the amendment would provide important clarification.
Previously, the CMA had a good reputation with business for independence and for reasons and rules-based decision making. We are really keen that that is continued, and that is what the driving force for this amendment is. For that reason, we seek greater accountability from the Secretary of State. The amendment would require that whenever the Secretary of State subordinates the CMA’s decision-making process, the reasons for doing so are published alongside an assessment of the impact in terms of whatever reasons the CMA would have had to act under its part 3 powers, whether that be competition, media plurality or quality, financial stability or, as I mentioned earlier, public health.
This is about the smooth and rational alignment of the merger control process. That is important for the integrity and impartiality of our national merger control processes and so that business can have certainty that these will be fully aligned. The question I would really like the Minister to answer is about the assurances the Government can give on providing specific, timely guidance on how many different parts of the merger control process will now work. How will the combination of the new unit and the pre-existing regime produce the guidance, and be driven by Government to do so, in a timely fashion? One thing that businesses are certainly seeking at the moment is assurances that things are set out as early and as clearly as possible. If that happens, it will allow businesses to plan in a much better way. For those reasons, I would like to hear how the Government plan to bring those two elements together.
Nadhim Zahawi
With your permission, Sir Graham, I will speak initially to clause 31 stand part, before turning to amendment 25. As the Bill separates out national security screening from the competition-focused merger control regime, we must, I am sure colleagues agree, ensure that the two regimes interact effectively, while also maintaining the CMA’s operational independence in relation to its merger investigations.
A trigger event under the Bill which is also a merger under the Enterprise Act may raise both national security and competition issues. Not having a power to avoid conflict between the two regimes raises an unacceptable risk for businesses’ operations and, of course, the Government’s reputation. The United Kingdom has a deserved and hard-earned reputation for being a dependable place in which to do business. Transparent regimes are fundamental to building and maintaining this reputation and fostering trust between Government and business.
Currently, under the Enterprise Act 2002, if both national security and competition concerns are raised, the CMA provides a report to the Secretary of State, who would then have the final say on how best to balance national security and competition concerns. This clause will ensure that the Secretary of State continues in his vital role of balancing national security and competition concerns. We will be able to avoid the risk of undue regime interference by maintaining regular and open channels of communication with the CMA.
There may, however, still be a risk that parallel investigations for national security and competition reasons reach conflicting conclusions. That may be particularly true in terms of the remedies required to address national security risks and competition concerns respectively. To remedy that issue, the clause enables the Secretary of State to direct the CMA to take, or not take, a particular course of action. The obligation on the Secretary of State to publish any direction given ensures that the decisions will be transparent, and provides certainty for all parties.
Chi Onwurah
The Minister says that it is unlikely that investigations would trigger concerns on both national security and competition grounds. However, the position that we are in right now with regard to Huawei is one in which the desire for more competition in our telecoms supply chain—that is, to have three vendors as opposed to two—led to a national security impact, which is why we are now in the process of ripping Huawei out of our network. Does he recognise that such examples may happen?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but the difference is that I was referring to mergers. Such mergers would be rare. I do not think that anyone is merging with Huawei, or will in the future.
Chi Onwurah
It is quite clear that the acquisition of a vendor in our telecoms network by another country would have almost exactly the same outcome, so it may well apply.
Nadhim Zahawi
I was merely pointing out that there was no merger. The hon. Lady will forgive me: she is correct, but I did say that it is a rare occurrence. That is the point that I was making to the Committee.
The amendment seeks to impose a requirement to publish the reasons for giving a direction. We do not think that that is necessary. The clause already requires the Secretary of State to publish a direction in the manner that he considers appropriate. I do not think that I would be disclosing too many state secrets were I to speculate that that would be published on gov.uk. That is a reasonable bet. In many cases, I envisage that it is likely to be accompanied by a high-level explanation, but it is right that the Secretary of State should be able to decide what is appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
The amendment also seeks to require publication of an assessment of the direction’s impact on any grounds for action under part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002. I have two points to make to the hon. Member for Ilford South. First, such a duty would not be appropriate in all cases—for example, where a direction simply required the CMA not to make a decision on competition remedies until a national security assessment had been concluded. The amendment as drafted would still require an assessment to be published in those circumstances.
Secondly, the predominant impact on grounds for action will of course relate to competition. The CMA is the independent expert competition authority, and nothing in the clause as drafted would prevent it from publishing its own assessment of the impact of a Secretary of State direction on the possible competition issues of a case. The clause also requires the Secretary of State to consult the CMA before giving a direction, so it will be able to inform him of the likely impact and he can factor that into his decision whether to give the direction. I believe that is the right approach and while I understand the hon. Member’s motivations in tabling the amendment, I urge him to withdraw it.
Sam Tarry
One of the questions that sprang to mind while listening to the Minister’s answer was: if there are conflicting remedies, which of security and economic competitiveness would the Secretary of State decide had primacy? In drawing the matter out as clearly as possible, we have seen that one of the issues with telecoms and Huawei was that the primacy of economic competitiveness was viewed as paramount over security. The Bill is not clear about the framework for assessing primacy when it comes to security. We have argued throughout that security needs to be the primary focus, and sometimes that will mean economic competitiveness taking a slight hit. However, we think this is about protecting our long-term economic interest.
Nadhim Zahawi
I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman. He asks whether the Secretary of State can override the CMA’s assessment. To give him some clarity, the power to direct may be used only if a trigger event has been called in for assessment under NSI and either a final order has been enforced or a final notification of no further action has been given. That is stage 1. To direct the CMA without a trigger event having first been called in and assessed would not be either reasonable or proportionate, in the Government’s view. However, if a merger is considered to be crucial in the interests of national security after an assessment, no competition concerns should be allowed to prevent it from continuing or remaining in place. I hope that offers him that reassurance.
Nadhim Zahawi
It is important to ensure that we are able to enforce the regime. If hostile actors realise that there is a gap in enforcement capability, that could serve to undermine the deterrent effect of the regime, and therefore compliance with it, and could cause reputational damage to the United Kingdom’s screening regime. Clauses 32 to 36 focus on enforcement and appeal. I will run through them at a relatively high level, but I am happy to discuss them in more detail if that would be of interest to hon. Members.
Clause 32 establishes the offence of completing without reasonable excuse a notifiable acquisition without approval from the Secretary of State. Completing a notifiable acquisition without approval could put national security at risk. In particular, the risk that hostile actors might seek to immediately extract sensitive intellectual property and transport it to far-flung corners of the world, may already have crystallised. Intervention after the event in such circumstances would too often be irrelevant, as that could not undo the damage done to our national security. I am confident that hon. Members will agree that this offence reflects the severe consequences that might result from completing a notifiable acquisition without approval of the Secretary of State in one of the ways set out in clause 13.
Clause 33 makes it an offence for a person to breach an interim order or a final order without reasonable excuse. Under the regime, interim orders and final orders are the mechanisms whereby the Secretary of State imposes revenues for the purposes of safeguarding the assessment and process of national security respectively. They are, therefore, vital components of the legislation. Given that a breach of an interim order or a final order could undermine the assessment process or put national security at risk, it is right that breaches of such orders carry a clear deterrent. I am confident that hon. Members will agree that it is essential to have robust measures in place to ensure effective compliance with any interim orders or final orders imposed by the Secretary of State.
I will move on to clause 34. It is vital that parties comply with information notices and attendance notices, and that parties do not provide materially false or misleading information to the Secretary of State.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
On how all this will be policed, the Minister is talking about an incredibly important issue that is crucial to the Bill, but it is a bit like the tax evasion problem, in that a tax evader can be prosecuted only when they have been caught. What policing measures are in place to get to the point of imposing sanctions on those who infringe the measure?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Part of it is the screening process and, obviously, the security agencies play a major role in that.
Under clause 35(2), it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this clause to prove that they reasonably believe that the use or disclosure was lawful, or that the information had already and lawfully been made available to the public. I hope that hon. Members are reassured that Government are committed to the safeguarding of information collected by the regime.
Finally, clause 36 ensures that persons in authority in bodies—for example, a body corporate, such as a company, or an unincorporated body, such as a partnership—can be prosecuted under the legislation where they are responsible for an offence committed by their body. This clause therefore ensures that individuals who are responsible for offences committed by their bodies cannot simply hide behind those bodies and escape responsibility. Instead, they too will have committed an offence and can be punished for it. If you will forgive the pun, Sir Graham, if there are skeletons in the cupboard—or filing cabinets, I suppose—it is not just the bodies that can be held responsible. I hope hon. Members will agree that these clauses are both necessary and proportionate.
The Chair
There is no guidance in my script on what I do if I do not forgive the pun.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Prosecution
Nadhim Zahawi
The Secretary of State makes decisions under the regime and has the power to impose enforceable interim and final orders. However, the institution of criminal proceedings for offences under the Bill is a matter for the appropriate prosecutor. Clause 37 therefore makes clear who may bring proceedings for an offence under the Bill.
Turning to clause 38, the Government consider it important that persons who have committed an offence under the Bill should be held accountable, particularly partnerships and other unincorporated associations. For example, clause 7 provides that partnerships and unincorporated associations are qualifying entities under the regime. Clause 38 therefore provides that proceedings for offences under the Bill may be brought against partnerships and other types of unincorporated association. I stress that the commencement of criminal proceedings in relation to this regime will likely be very rare indeed but it is nevertheless important that a full spectrum of possible offending is covered.
Clause 39 sets out the criminal penalties available on conviction for offences committed under the Bill. It is crucial that the regime carries a sufficiently robust deterrent to ensure compliance. Given the seriousness of the harm that a breach of the legislation might cause, it is right that these offences carry significant criminal penalties. I do not plan to set out all the penalties available but would be happy to discuss them in more detail if it would be of interest. I hope that hon. Members agree that it is clear who can bring prosecutions under the regime, that it should be possible to prosecute partnerships and unincorporated associations, and that penalties should be sufficiently strong for those convicted of breaking this law.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Power to impose monetary penalties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi
Clauses 40 to 47 cover the civil sanctions under the Bill. I will cover them fairly briefly but I am happy to discuss them in more detail if it would be of interest to the Committee.
It is vital that the Secretary of State has appropriate powers to punish and deter non-compliance with the regime. Should a person breach an order under the regime or fail to provide information or evidence where required, it is vital that the Secretary of State has the power to bring the offender into compliance as quickly as possible to ensure the efficacy of the regime.
Clause 40 provides the Secretary of State with the powers to impose monetary penalties on a person where he is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has committed an offence under clauses 32 to 34. Clause 40(6) requires the Secretary of State to consider the amount of a monetary penalty to be appropriate before imposing it and it must not exceed the relevant maximum set out in clause 41. The power to impose monetary penalties instead of pursuing criminal proceedings will contribute to ensuring that the Secretary of State has a number of enforcement options to tailor to the situation.
The Secretary of State will not take the power to impose monetary penalties lightly and is required by clause 40(7) to take into account a number of factors, including the seriousness of the offence and any steps taken by the person to remedy the offence in question. I am confident that hon. Members will agree that the clause is valuable in ensuring that the Secretary of State has the appropriate enforcement mechanism to secure compliance with the new regime.
Clause 41 sets out the maximum fixed penalty and, where applicable, the maximum daily rate penalty that may be imposed. The penalties set out here are substantive, and I recognise that they may seem draconian, but they may have to be issued against companies that have significant financial incentive to disregard legal requirements under the regime and put national security at risk by going ahead with an acquisition, so the penalties need to be an effective incentive to comply. I also remind Members that these are maximum penalties; the Secretary of State will have a duty to ensure that any penalty imposed is reasonable and proportionate.
The clause also enables the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying how the maximum penalties applicable to businesses should be calculated and to amend the maximum penalty amounts or percentage rates. It is important that we can adjust any penalties over time, to ensure that they are a sufficient deterrent against non-compliance.
Clause 42 requires the Secretary of State to keep all monetary penalties imposed under review. It also provides a power to vary or revoke penalty notices as appropriate in the light of changing circumstances. Importantly, under the clause, where new evidence comes to light about a breach, it can be taken into account by the Secretary of State, and the penalty notice can be increased, decreased or revoked as appropriate. In all variations, there is, of course, a right of appeal, which is provided for by clause 50.
It is important that both criminal and civil sanctions should be available against offences committed under the Bill, but it would not be appropriate for them to be used in tandem. Clause 43 ensures that parties cannot be subject to both criminal and civil sanctions for the same offence. The clause is vital in giving businesses and other parties certainty and assurance that they will not be penalised in two separate ways for the same offence, which would clearly be unfair.
Clause 44 gives the Secretary of State the power to enforce monetary penalties by making unpaid penalties recoverable, as if they were payable under a court. Failure to comply with a penalty notice would be enforced in the same way as a court order to recover unpaid debts. It also provides for interest to be charged on unpaid penalties that are due.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for setting out the provisions of these clauses. Perhaps this is my ignorance, but what will happen to the moneys recouped through the penalties?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am very happy to write to the hon. Lady on that, but I suppose the money goes back to the Treasury.
Chi Onwurah
That was my assumption, but I know that in certain cases penalties can be used to offset the expenses incurred in creating the regulatory regime, or in supporting companies that are adversely affected, as we discussed earlier.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am very happy to come back to the hon. Lady on that point.
Clause 45 ensures that the Government are not unduly burdened with costs relating to the imposition of monetary penalties, which can be expensive. The clause enables the Secretary of State to recover the associated costs from those who are issued with a penalty notice. The amount demanded will depend on the circumstances of each case, but the Secretary of State will need to comply with public law duties in imposing the requirements and in fixing the amount. In particular, the amount will need to be proportionate.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Pursuant to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, will the Minister and his Department not only think about, but make a positive decision on, where the penalties go? I have in mind, as he will know, penalties relating to misdemeanours by electricity supply companies.
Those are routinely collected and distributed for good purposes—to keep people’s electricity bills down, among other things. Maybe the Minister will have a similar scheme that could be a good home for those penalties, so that they are turned around and put to good use.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am quite rightly grateful to my brilliant Whip for reminding me that the Bill contains the provision that the moneys be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
Clause 46 requires the Secretary of State to keep cost recovery notices under review and provides him with the power to vary or revoke a cost recovery notice as he considers appropriate. That will reassure businesses and other persons that cost recovery notices remain appropriate. Finally, it is important that the Secretary of State be able to recover the associated costs from those who are issued penalty notices. Clause 47 therefore provides for an effective range of consequences for non-compliance with a cost recovery notice, including the charging of interest, and acts as another important tool in the Secretary of State’s enforcement powers. I hope that the Committee will appreciate the rationale for clauses 40 to 47, which are essential for the effectiveness of the regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 41 to 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48
Enforcement through civil proceedings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi
The regime relies on parties complying with information notices and attendance notices, and with interim orders and final orders. Those are crucial levers that the Secretary of State will use to identify, assess and address national security risks, so it is vital that he has appropriate powers to ensure that a person who is given such an order or notice complies with the requirements as set out.
The clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to bring civil proceedings for an injunction or other remedy to require compliance. The power applies whether or not the person is in the UK. Failure to comply with an order made by the court in those circumstances is likely to be considered contempt of court. We should not forget that any failure to obey an information notice or attendance notice, for example, could result in the Secretary of State having insufficient information to decide whether to call in an acquisition or carry out an effective national security assessment. Breaching the requirements of an interim order or final order may undermine the assessment process or harm national security.
Above all, I hope that the Committee will agree that the clause further strengthens the Secretary of State’s enforcement powers, playing a key role in ensuring the efficacy of the regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49
Procedure for judicial review of certain decisions
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 49, page 30, line 31, leave out “28 days” and insert “three months”
This amendment would extend the period within which applications for judicial review may be made from 28 days to three months.
Dr Whitehead
I have not spoken other than to intervene, so the amendment gives me a brief opportunity to commend the heroism of my fellow Committee members for carrying on proceedings when most of them wish they were somewhere else because they are too cold. I hope that the authorities will consider ameliorative steps so that we can be a little warmer when the Committee meets on Thursday. Alternatively, Sir Graham, we may need to invent a new Standing Order by which the Chair can rule on whether Members have permission to remove their coats, rather than the customary jackets, before the beginning of proceedings. I am sure that would not be necessary if reasonable action were taken.
The amendment concerns what is referred to in the clause title: the procedure for judicial review of certain decisions. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified what the clause means for other decisions that are set out in the Bill but not included in the provisions for judicial review set out in this clause.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on that, but my understanding is that individuals or entities that feel that they have been wronged by the actions of the Secretary of State can JR the Secretary of State.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for that clarification, which appears to suggest that the whole of the Bill, or the decisions in it, are in principle covered by the ability to bring a judicial review. He will know that under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 there is some pretty clear guidance about the time limits for judicial reviews. Indeed, the CPRs state that claims must be lodged promptly and, in any event, no later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose, unless the court exercises its discretion to extend. The judicial review rules are pretty much governed by that three-month time limit.
In the clause, the framers of the Bill have taken out certain elements of the Bill. I mentioned some of them, including the attendance of witnesses and the power to require information. They have said that, while no new procedure has been put in place for reviewing certain decisions—that is, the normal rules of judicial review apply—the big difference is that any action must be brought within 28 days of the event, and not within three months, as is the case in the standard judicial review arrangements.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent points that he is making, which give cause for concern and thought. Given the Minister’s earlier assertion that there was no need for a complaints procedure with regard to the provisions of the Bill, does my hon. Friend agree that neither the reporting requirement, which we have identified will not mean reporting on everything, nor the judicial review provisions, which we have now identified are not reviewable in the normal timescales for everything, will be sufficient to address the concerns of small and medium-sized enterprises? Does he also agree that that will clearly not be the case given the complexities that he has outlined?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the extent to which justice in such circumstances might be like the Ritz: open to everybody, but not necessarily quite as open to some as to others.
Certainly, that is the case with the time reduction applied to those particular things in the clause. Nevertheless, that reduction has to fit in with judicial review rules for everything else. That is, no new procedure is set out in the Bill, which is otherwise reliant on the standard judicial review procedures.
Hon. Members will see that elsewhere the civil procedure rules refer to the provision of skeleton arguments before a judicial review can be heard. Under those rules, such arguments must be undertaken within 21 working days of a hearing, which in practice means close to the 28 days in the clause, which are not as working days. Given the adherence to the rest of the judicial review rules, therefore, the 28 days can conceivably reduce to virtually nothing the period in which a person may apply for a claim to judicial review under the Bill.
Furthermore—this is what I think my hon. Friend was alluding to—given that brief timescale, it is important and I would say necessary to have a clear idea of when the event that caused the 28-day timescale to come in took place. I turned up an interesting article, one of Weightmans’ “Insights”, from October 2013, entitled “Is the clock ticking? The importance of time limits in judicial review”. The point made in that article is that getting the point at which the clock started ticking absolutely right is important.
I am not certain whether all the events specified in the clause have identical starting points. That is, is the starting point a trigger mechanism? Is the starting point the issuing of a notice? Is the starting point the receipt of a notice? If the receipt of a notice is delayed—and the judicial review procedure very much hinges on the actions of the Secretary of State in issuing notices—my hon. Friend can imagine that, for a small business, that could be very confusing and possibly difficult to adhere to. If it turns out that the point at which the 28-day clock starts to tick varies according to different provisions of the clause, descibed as the particular provisions that the Secretary of State has reserved for the 28-day reduction in judicial review, that will be pretty difficult for people to adhere to properly.
Judicial review is a very important part of the process; not that it would often be used, but it is important that it is there in the Bill. It is also important that the people affected by the arrangements have access to the judicial review process. The Government obviously recognise that by putting it into legislation. I am concerned not about the fact that it is in the legislation—it should be—but about whether placing certain areas of concern in the Bill under that 28-day heading has been completely thought out. If it has been completely thought out, why has it been thought out in that particular way? What is it about those things that requires the normal rules of judicial review to be reduced from three months to 28 days?
Chi Onwurah
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend while he is in full flow, and I am immensely grateful for what I am learning about the intricacies of the judicial review process and the importance of understanding the initial timing and what the trigger event was. He mentioned that skeleton hearings must take place within 21 working days. Can he say a little bit more, for my understanding, about how those skeleton hearings affect the following timetables in the process?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend somehow suggests that I have knowledge and expertise beyond my calling. I should say that I am not a lawyer, so I have only limited guidance to give her on this. However, from my reading of civil procedure rules, there are certainly elements, which I think relate to working days in some instances and to simple time in others, that are sub-time limits within the overall limit for judicial review. Civil procedure rules give those sub-limits as working practices for the operation of judicial review overall. The skeleton argument rule requires skeleton arguments to be put to the court within a certain period before the hearing takes place. If the hearing is delayed for a long time after the initial event, the 21 days apply before the court hearing. However, if the court hearing is close to the event, those sub-rules within the overall judicial review rules could affect quite substantially an individual’s remaining time to get their case together prior to the hearing.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reasoned and thoughtful remarks. As I said in my intervention, all decisions in the Bill are subject to judicial review. Clause 49 does not apply to information sharing post screening or enforcement decisions. The exception to JR is monetary penalties and cost recovery, which have a bespoke appeals process, as he probably knows.
Clause 49 concerns the procedure for judicial review of certain decisions. The clause provides that any claim for judicial review of certain decisions, which are set out in the clause, must be no more than 28 days after the day on which the grounds for the claim first arose, unless the court considers that there are exceptional circumstances. That period is shorter than the usual period in which a judicial review may be sought, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. Generally, judicial reviews must be sought within three months, and in England and Wales, but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland, they must also be sought “promptly”.
I will set out why that is the case shortly when I turn to amendment 26, but I believe that the shortened time limit strikes the right balance for the regime, enabling sufficient time for a claim to be lodged while providing for timely certainty about the effect of relevant decisions made under the Bill. I should also note that the court may entertain proceedings that are sought after the 28-day limit if it considers that exceptional circumstances apply. The usual route to challenge a decision made by the Secretary of State is via judicial review, and this is entirely appropriate for decisions made under the Bill. However, it is vital that this route does not result in prolonged uncertainty over decisions relating to screening.
I now turn to amendment 26, which seeks to extend the period within which applications for judicial review may be made from 28 days to three months. As I have set out, the Bill’s 28-day period in which claims for judicial review of certain decisions made under the Bill generally must be filed is shorter than the usual period in which judicial review may be sought. Again, it is entirely right that the hon. Gentleman wishes to probe us on why that is the case as judicial review plays a key role, which he clearly agrees with, in ensuring that the Government, and the Secretary of State in the case of this regime, act within the limits of the law. We have thought carefully about that while developing the Bill, and I welcome this discussion.
Why the shorter period? It is undeniably important that the Secretary of State is held independently accountable for his decisions under the regime. That must, however, be balanced—this is the important thing—against the need to avoid prolonged uncertainty over the status of screened acquisitions or the general functioning of the screening regime, which may have a chilling effect on investment, leaving the types of questions that a judicial review would answer, such as whether a decision to clear a transaction was unlawful, potentially still open for three months before it is clear that a judicial review is not going to be sought, which could make it extremely difficult for the various parties affected to plan and adjust following such a decision. Any party with a sufficient interest could seek a judicial review and all parties affected could be impacted. That is why we have come to this decision.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for the points he is making, which I am seeking to understand. Clause 49(2) mentions “relevant decisions”. Why would “section 19”, “section 20” and “section 21” that deal with the powers to require information and so on cause uncertainty, and not other provisions in the Bill?
Nadhim Zahawi
The point I was trying to make is that the uncertainty in any of those sections means that any party to a transaction can, if they feel they could frustrate the process because the outcome might not be advantageous to them, use the judicial review process to add to the uncertainty of a transaction. In addition, there is also a public interest in timely certainty and finality about decisions made under the regime that are, after all, imposed for the purpose of safeguarding national security. The 28-day limit is also in line with the current merger screening regime that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test asked about, where applications for the competitions appeal tribunal made under the Enterprise Act 2002 to review a merger decision must be made within four weeks, a time period chosen after public consultation. There may be some situations where, for legitimate reasons, 28 days is simply not enough. It is therefore important to remember that this Bill provides that the court may “entertain proceedings” that are sought after the 28-day limit, if it is considered that exceptional circumstances apply.
This shortened time limit and flexibility is for the courts to deal with exceptional circumstances. It strikes the right balance for this regime, in my view. It allows sufficient time for parties to obtain legal advice and mount a challenge, while also providing timely certainty about the effect of the relevant decision made under the Bill. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I have to be honest, I did not think that was very good. Let us start with who is shortening and who is not shortening. The Minister said that the Opposition seek to lengthen the period; no, the Opposition are not seeking to lengthen the period. The Government are seeking to shorten the period that is standard in the UK justice system as far as judicial reviews overall are concerned.
That is a very important point, because the Opposition are not trying to do something that is not an ordinary principle of British justice; the Government are trying to that. The Minister’s remarks could have applied to a lot of other areas, where it might be a bit inconvenient to have a judicial review being tenable for a three-month period after an event had occurred. However, it is not a question of inconvenience. Is a matter so important to national security that the 28 days can be justified under those terms?
The Minister has sought to justify the 28 days under the terms that there may be some uncertainty if there is a longer period for judicial review to be undertaken. He is potentially right about that, but not right as far as this Bill is concerned. He is right potentially as far as any application for judicial review is concerned, in all sorts of areas in this country. That is the problem of judicial review for the Administration, under any circumstances. When someone comes along and says, “I’m going to JR this,” a lot of people clap their hands and say, “That’s very inconvenient. It really does foul things up, because we would like to do this, that and next thing, but because we have been judicially reviewed, we have to carry out the procedure that is there.”
As several people have said in a number of different circumstances, the fact that the JR procedure is there and that often ordinary people have a reasonable amount of time to get their case together to undertake the JR process, is an important principle of the British justice system. The Minister has made no serious case for why these things should be so special under these circumstances. Interestingly, the consultation document did not make any case at all for the 28 days, other than to note that it was a shorter period. I am sorry to say that this appears to be a shortened period simply for administrative convenience.
Chi Onwurah
Does my hon. Friend think that shortening the JR period for administrative reasons is especially contentious, given that the judicial review process would be the only option for small and medium enterprises to complain about the way in which they are being treated under this process? The Minister says that their only option to make a complaint is effectively to JR it, yet they are given less time to JR it.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. In many circumstances, we are not talking about the sort of JRs that we hear about in the press, where a big corporation has been judicially reviewed on some subject by another large corporation, or some big body has judicially reviewed someone else about a planning decision.
Nadhim Zahawi
With permission, Sir Graham, I will speak to clauses 50, 51 and 52 together. Clause 50 concerns appeals against penalty notices or variation notices. It is only right that parties have the opportunity to appeal decisions made by the Secretary of State in relation to monetary penalties imposed. Clause 50 provides a person who has received a penalty notice or a variation notice with the right to appeal to the court within 28 days, starting from the day after the notice is served.
On an appeal against a penalty notice, the clause provides that the court may confirm or quash the decision to impose a monetary penalty, confirm or reduce the amount of a penalty, and confirm or vary the period in which the penalty must be paid. It may not increase the amount of the monetary penalty. Where the appeal is against a variation notice, the court may confirm, vary or quash the variation, but again it may not increase the amount of the monetary penalty.
Clause 51 provides a right of appeal against decisions made by the Secretary of State related to requirements to pay costs associated with monetary penalties. Clause 52 concerns extraterritorial application and jurisdiction to try offences under the regime. Let me briefly turn back to clauses 32 to 35, which create the offences of the regime. We would normally expect that if those offences occurred, they would happen in the UK. That will not, however, always be the case, and offences will not always involve UK nationals or bodies.
As befits a regime that concerns the actions of international actors in relation to the United Kingdom, the Bill has some application beyond the shores of the UK. For example, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to issue final orders on conduct outside the UK by certain categories of person with a connection to the UK, including UK nationals and companies incorporated here. Therefore, clause 52 provides for the offences in clauses 32 to 35 to have extraterritorial effect, including in relation to non-UK nationals and bodies. That means that conduct abroad that amounts to an offence can be prosecuted and it also enables the Secretary of State to impose monetary penalties in relation to offences committed outside the UK. That ensures that regime obligations are not unenforceable simply because they concern conduct abroad. I hope that hon. Members will agree that, in a globalised world where transactions routinely take place across borders, it is important for enforcement to be able to react with equal agility. I therefore submit that the appeals process set out in the clauses should be adopted and that, in a globalised world, it is necessary for extraterritorial regime breaches to be enforceable.
Chi Onwurah
It is a pleasure to respond in this debate and observe how quickly we have galloped throughs parts 2 and 3. I wonder if that may in part relate to the descending temperatures that we are enjoying. While I know that the Committee shares my fascination with the various procedural and judicial issues with which we were wrestling, the temperature gave no scope for anyone to get comfortable enough to fail to pay attention. I recognise that we on this side of the Committee are in an advantageous position in that we are furthest from the open windows.
We recognise the importance of clauses 50 to 52 in terms of appeals against monetary penalties, of appeals against costs and of having extraterritorial application and jurisdiction to try offences. The Minister set out the reasons for that. To return to an intervention from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, I am concerned about whether the provisions will be enforceable and useable in having extraterritorial application and jurisdiction over those who are not British and where the offence does not take place in the UK. Do the Government envisage––the impact assessment is, once again, remarkably silent on this––issuing international warrants to get access to those thought to have committed offences but who are not in the UK? Will the measures be pursued and enforced actively or are they there to deal with exceptional circumstances? I would be happy for the Minister to intervene.
Nadhim Zahawi
I think that the hon. Lady’s question is whether the Government will genuinely be able to punish offences committed overseas. Clearly, in a globalised world where transactions routinely take place across borders, it is important that we have the ability to punish offences and be as agile as those who wish to do us harm. It is therefore right that these offences have extraterritorial reach. We will work with overseas public authorities to ensure that offenders face justice where appropriate.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for that intervention. I am reluctant to test his tolerance by bringing Brexit into this, but I hope that we will continue to have the means to engage with overseas jurisdictions in order to pursue those who break UK law, here or abroad. We will not oppose the clauses, and I congratulate the Committee on making such speedy progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 51 and 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill,.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. ––(Michael Tomlinson.)
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Global Malnutrition: FCDO Role
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new call-list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones, using the cleaning materials provided, before they use them and should dispose of those materials as they leave the room. Members are asked to respect the one-way system around the room and exit by the door on the left. Members should speak only from the horseshoe. Members may speak only if they are on the call list. That applies even if the debate is undersubscribed. Members may not join the debate if they are not on the call list. I remind Members that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall—obviously, you are all here, so this is just for future reference—and Members are not expected to remain for the winding-up speeches, but are certainly not discouraged from remaining for them.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s role in tackling global malnutrition.
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the application in my name and that of the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). We originally sought the debate pre-lockdown as co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on nutrition for growth. The group has been campaigning now for almost two years for the UK Government to make a strong early pledge on nutrition for growth, with the reliable multi-year funding and policy reforms that will increase the impact of the FCDO’s work.
To be honest, I rather hoped that the campaign would be complete by now. The N4G summit was supposed to take place this month, and we hoped that the UK would have pledged early. The summit has understandably been postponed by a year as a result of the pandemic. In the meantime, however, UK commitments on nutrition expire at the end of 2020, just as covid-19 is causing malnutrition cases to skyrocket.
Up to 10,000 more children are predicted to die because of undernutrition each month in 2020 than was predicted pre-covid-19. Stunting, which before the pandemic affected one fifth of children under the age of five, is set to rise dramatically unless urgent action is taken. Therefore, we are not where we wanted to be at this stage, but that is understandable. Covid-19 has disrupted the FCDO’s work in the N4G process in a way that none of us could have foreseen. We did meet the Minister back in May, and she assured us that progress was being made. I hope that, in response to today’s debate, she will be able to demonstrate some of the steps that her Department is taking.
Nutrition is a foundational investment in people. A child who suffers malnutrition in their early years is less likely to develop a strong immune system and, as a result, is more likely to fall ill and, indeed, to die. As well as costing lives, malnutrition holds people back. A child who is more likely to fall ill will get less from their education and is therefore less likely to meet their economic potential in adulthood.
In regions such as east Africa, where almost 40% of children suffer from stunting, countries are held back by malnutrition as they haemorrhage money on avoidable healthcare costs and lost workforce productivity. Indeed, the World Bank estimates that malnutrition costs some countries up to 11% of GDP each year.
In his speech addressing the cuts to the official development assistance budget, the Foreign Secretary set out his Department’s priorities. I argue that nutrition is central to each one and I therefore hope that it will remain a priority. Let us look first at climate change. Climate change adversely impacts food systems, but food systems also emit 20% to 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions, so the Foreign Secretary will need to look at reforming food systems to become both climate-smart and nutrition-sensitive.
Secondly, on covid-19, we have all been thrilled by the news of the vaccines, the administering of which started this morning. However, vaccines are often less effective on malnourished people. An article in The Telegraph, which I must confess I am not an avid reader of, confirmed that that is likely to be the case with any covid-19 vaccine. Malnutrition is also a risk factor for developing severe covid-19 symptoms.
Thirdly, on girls’ education, malnutrition disproportionately affects girls, and it is estimated that malnourished children are 19% less likely to be able to read at the age of eight and 13% less likely to be at the appropriate grade for their age. Put simply, the Government cannot meet their objectives on girls’ education without prioritising nutrition.
Fourthly, on resolving conflicts and alleviating crises, conflicts and malnutrition mutually reinforce each other. It is no coincidence that 80% of stunted children live in conflict zones, so any UK aid programmes in a fragile context must invest in long-term nutrition improvement.
Finally, on the issue of strengthening accountability and value for money, according to the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, nutrition is one of the most cost-effective development actions with significant economic returns. If the Minister wants to invest in proven high-impact interventions that represent excellent value for money, nutrition is very much a safe bet. The fact that nutrition is so foundational is what makes it so important, but it also makes it a challenge to invest in. Nutrition is relevant to health, education, agriculture, economic development and climate. Without processes in place to ensure that nutrition is embedded into the Department’s work in those areas, there is, I am afraid, a real risk that nutrition becomes everyone’s problem, but no one’s responsibility.
There are numerous cost-free steps that the Minister could take to ensure that nutrition is more effectively embedded across the FCDO’s work. First, will she re-commit to reach 50 million women, adolescent girls and children with high impact nutrition interventions over the next four years? Secondly, will she implement the policy marker for nutrition across all relevant parts of the FCDO’s work, and set percentage targets for its work in other areas to meet nutrition outcomes? Thirdly, will she ensure that at least £680 million-worth of FCDO spend in other areas is adapted to include nutrition outcomes?
Such changes would embed nutrition into the FCDO and improve value for money across the piece. However, basic nutrition financing is also important. Reliable multi-year funding for Governments and implementing agencies would allow them to plan and maximise value for money and impact. We call on the Government to pledge at least £120 million each year to nutrition-specific interventions between 2021 and 2025. That is less than the Government spent on nutrition in 2017-18, but is ambitious enough to make meaningful progress. Will the Minister agree to that financial pledge today, or at least set a timeline for when she will make a financial pledge?
I will wrap up by saying that the UK has been a global leader in tackling malnutrition. As a Scottish nationalist MP, it is not my modus operandi to routinely praise the UK Government, but this issue is far too important for party politics. It was the UK Government that hosted the first Nutrition for Growth summit in 2013—the most successful global nutrition summit ever. Governments, non-governmental organisations and the private sector pledged more than £17 billion to end malnutrition, representing a 33% global uplift in nutrition spending, and rates of malnutrition have steadily decreased ever since.
The UK can be immensely proud of its record on nutrition. Its leadership has galvanised others and meaningfully changed the lives of millions of people around the world, making us all safer and better off, so I hope the Minister can demonstrate that the UK’s commitment to leadership will not wane at a time when it is more needed than ever. I look forward to her summing up on behalf of the Government.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
It might be helpful if I tell colleagues that I plan to get to the Front-Bench speakers at no later than 10.30 am. I am not setting a formal time limit. I have six people looking to catch my eye, so, as a guide, if they take eight minutes each, I will not have to impose a limit. I call Christian Matheson.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I declare an interest because, a couple of years ago, I visited health and vaccination programmes in Ethiopia, and the visit was paid for by the advocacy group, RESULTS UK, which has helped me with some of the information for my speech today. I congratulate my good friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), on his excellent introductory speech.
The context in which we meet today is an unfortunate one. The Government have recently announced that they are walking away from the legal commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development aid support, reducing it to 0.5%. Of course, it would have been 0.7% of a smaller amount, anyway, so it is a double whammy. In fact, we get a triple whammy with the abolition of the Department for International Development, which sends out completely the wrong message at this time. It is all well and good telling scare stories about aid and space programmes in India and the such like, but as my friend the hon. Member for Glasgow East said, this is about life-changing and life-critical decisions that have real-life consequences for hundreds, thousands and millions of people across the globe. As he said, the great tragedy is that the Government would have some good stories to tell if only they had the confidence to believe in the importance of development aid assistance and overseas development and if only they had the confidence to stand up to the naysayers on their own side and say, “Actually, this is the right thing to do, and we have a good story to tell.”
The UK has indeed been a global leader on nutrition since it hosted the first Nutrition for Growth summit in 2013, which raised more than £17 billion—a 33% uplift in global nutrition spending—and rates of malnutrition have steadily declined as a result. The number of children under five suffering from irreversible stunting, which has lifelong health implications, has reduced from 170 million in 2010 to 144 million in 2019, although, Mr Davies, I think you would agree that a figure of more than 100 million youngsters having lifelong conditions is horrendous. However, that does mark progress, but covid-19 threatens to undo all those hard-won gains. Many of the world’s poorest people cannot work from home and most Governments cannot support them through furlough schemes. Food prices are soaring and, for most people, the threat of hunger and malnutrition is far greater than the threat of the virus itself.
Additionally, as health systems have redeployed resources to address covid-19, other areas of health, such as nutrition, have been under-resourced. UNICEF reports a 30% reduction in the coverage of nutrition programmes. In some countries, coverage is reduced by as much as 75%. As a result, an additional 10,000 children will die from malnutrition each month this year. The number of children suffering from wasting—being dangerously underweight—is likely to increase from 47 million to 53 million and the head of the UN World Food Programme warned at the Security Council that covid-19 could lead to a famine of biblical proportions.
Although I recognise DFID’s work to tackle covid-19-induced food security, food security and nutrition are not the same thing. None of us wants to bring up a child exclusively eating carbohydrates because of the obvious health implications. Unless the Government prioritise nutrition alongside their ambitious food security work, they risk turning an immediate economic crisis into a protracted health crisis. At this critical time, not only is the coronavirus reversing years of progress on nutrition, so is the disruption to the FCDO’s work and to the nutrition for growth process as a whole.
The Tokyo Nutrition for Growth summit at which we had hoped the FCDO would renew its commitment to nutrition has been postponed by a year. The Government have carried out just a one-year spending review and announced their intention to cut the aid budget, making reliable multi-year FCDO financing of nutrition even more difficult. I understand that the Governments of Canada and Bangladesh have stepped in and are hosting an event next week and launching 2021 as a year of action for nutrition. I hope the Minister will attend and announce what action the Government intend to take in the year of action. Perhaps she can share her Department’s plans for that event when she wraps up the debate.
I am worried by the cliff edge in the FCDO’s nutrition commitments at the end of the year. Will the Minister share her predictions for what official development assistance will be for basic nutrition from the start of 2021? How will she mitigate the effects of any drop in nutrition financing and ensure it is for as short as time as possible? Does she agree that the FCDO will have to prioritise nutrition in order to meet the Government’s manifesto commitments to end preventable deaths by 2030 and ensure 12 years of quality education for every girl? Will she commit to spending £120 million on nutrition-specific interventions each year between 2021 and 2025, and will she ensure that spending of at least £680 million of the FCDO’s work in other areas includes nutrition objectives?
Will the Minister commit to reaching 50 million women, children and adolescent girls with high-impact nutrition interventions? As the hon. Member for Glasgow East said, women and girls are disproportionately adversely affected by this particular crisis. Will she develop a nutrition-sensitive investment case, and can she set percentage targets for the FCDO’s work in other areas to meet nutrition outcomes? If she cannot make any commitment in response to the debate today, I hope that at the very least she will set out a timeline by which the UK will meet these pledges.
With covid-19 wreaking havoc on health systems and economies around the world, it is more important than ever that the international community ramps up efforts on nutrition. I hope that the UK can display some of its historic leadership in this space at a time when it is needed more than ever. However, the Government are signalling that they are pedalling back on a commitment to development and aid. That is the wrong signal at absolutely the wrong time, and the consequences really are a matter of life and death for millions of people.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), not only for his work in securing this debate on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s role in tackling global malnutrition, but for all his efforts as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nutrition for growth. As co-chair of that group, I know that he has been at the forefront of the push for a pledge from the Government for a multi-year settlement on nutrition for growth. When he and I appeared before the Backbench Business Committee to argue for this debate, these were not the circumstances in which we envisaged it taking place, but we were clear that it was important that this issue is highlighted.
I commend to you, Mr Davies, and other Members present an excellent article that appears in The Herald today, which is headed, “Britain must not lose sight of those who go to sleep hungry”, with the by-line, “For many, malnutrition can pose a greater threat than covid”. I think we have already heard that in contributions to the debate.
Like the hon. Member for Glasgow East, I am concerned that the pledge has not yet been made and worried that UK support for nutrition faces a potential financial cliff edge in a few days. This debate provides the Minister with an opportunity to respond to those concerns. I know from my own direct experience of working with her—not in this House, but in Rwanda as part of what was then the Conservative party’s development programme, Project Umubano—her own level of personal commitment to development. I also know, from our own meetings with her, that she will pursue this issue, but we need action.
As the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) said, it was recently announced by the Canadian and Bangladeshi Governments that there will be a virtual event early next week, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that she will be part of it. It has been styled “a year of action on nutrition” and that is really what we want to see from this debate today. We want to see action and we want to hear about a definitive timeline for when decisions on nutrition will be announced here in the UK.
Obviously, we had hoped that the pledge would have been made already and that the Nutrition for Growth summit in Tokyo would have taken place. Although it is obviously understandable why that event is not going ahead and has been postponed, the needs of those who are reliant on UK support cannot simply be postponed.
The need for UK commitment is clear. Malnutrition is a factor in 45% of all deaths of under-fives worldwide and the head of the UN World Food Programme expects another 130 million people to face starvation, and that a further 6 million children are likely to suffer wasting. Stunting, as the hon. Gentleman has already said, causes lifelong health complications and it is set to rise dramatically after years of decline. Perhaps most disturbingly, an additional 433 children are expected to die of malnutrition every single day.
Further to the appalling human cost of malnutrition is the financial cost: a staggering $3.5 trillion to the global economy. The World Bank estimates that, for some countries, up to 11% of GDP is lost each year to otherwise avoidable healthcare costs and reduced workforce productivity.
However, we know how to alleviate this. The UK’s interventions have reached over 50 million women of child-bearing age, adolescent girls and children under five. This, among other successes, has supported a steady reduction in the number of children who were suffering from stunting from roughly 170 million to 144 million. As has been referenced, we need to highlight those successes and the positive impact that has already been made by our previous commitment.
Moreover, nutrition enables and increases the effectiveness of the UK’s action in other areas, such as health, education, economic development and helping those in conflict zones. A malnourished mother-to-be is much more likely to suffer complications. A hungry child is one fifth less likely to be able to read by the time they are eight. An adult living with stunting will have greater barriers to reaching their economic potential. Those growing up hungry are far more likely to find themselves vulnerable to the offers of dangerous groups.
Nutrition is a keystone of effective aid. It is also exceptional value for money, which I know is a matter that you take a great interest in, Mr Davies. As the Independent Commission for Aid Impact noted, while offering a green-amber rating, the UK’s nutrition programmes are one of the most cost-effective development actions, with significant economic returns. Indeed, research suggests that every £1 invested in nutrition spending will yield, on average, a £16 return.
I am proud of the UK’s record on nutrition. Its leadership brought us the first ever Nutrition for Growth summit in 2013, where Governments, NGOs and the private sector united around a common set of objectives to end malnutrition and pledged £17 billion to the cause. From the very positive interactions that we have had this year, I want the UK to maintain leadership in this field, as I am sure the Minister does too. To that end, I ask her for the following: to recommit to reaching 50 million women, adolescent girls and children with high impact nutrition interventions over the next four years; to ensure that at least £680 million of the FCDO spend in other areas is adapted to include nutrition outcomes; and to commit to spending at least £120 million per year on nutrition-specific interventions.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow East pointed out, that is less than we spent in 2017 and 2018 to account for the effects of covid-19 on the UK economy, but it is still ambitious enough to make meaningful progress. Without such commitments, we will potentially waste the progress that our aid has made in recent years, and right at the time when those who need that support need it the most.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I thank the Members who have brought forward this debate. This year, the Nobel peace prize committee awarded its prize to the World Food Programme, because it wanted to turn the eyes of the world to the millions of people who suffer from, or face the threat of, hunger. It said that hunger was used in many cases as a weapon of war and conflict, and that giving the award was a call to the international community to provide adequately funding to ensure that people would not starve. It said that the World Food Programme would have been a worthy recipient in any year, but in this year the virus has strengthened the reasons to address this issue, including the need for multilateralism in a time of global crisis.
The head of the World Food Programme has warned that next year there will be famines of biblical proportions. The Lancet has reported that the pandemic poses grave risks to the nutritional status and survival of children in low and middle-income countries, due to the decline in household incomes and interruptions to health and nutrition and social protection services. That is without dwelling on the worsening impact of climate change on the most vulnerable.
It is clear to see that, for the first time in many years, development progress is actually going backwards. This is the unfortunate context in which the Government have dropped their legal commitment—and, of course, a manifesto pledge made less than a year old—to protect the UK’s aid spending.
There is no doubt that the UK has been an enormously generous aid donor over the years, which is something to be very proud of, and I was struck by what the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said. I am an Irish MP from a contested region. People talk a lot about the Union, and it is fair to say that things like sovereignty, militarism and flags are never going to move me politically, but I have been deeply proud of the UK’s record on aid spending for many years. For all the talk of global Britain and walking on to the world stage, it is important not to strip back things like this generosity, like far-sightedness, like multilateralism, which have been meaningful to so many people.
We are now in an economic contraction that is worse than any in living memory—that is not in doubt. However, investment in aid, and particularly in nutrition, is not a short-sighted way to spend money, because we know that it helps to guard against longer term problems. Adequately nourished children will learn better in school, and tackling poverty helps to drain the reservoirs of ill-feeling in which extremism can take hold. We know this will make for a safer and more secure world for all of us.
I had the privilege of working for the NGO Concern Worldwide for a decade, until 2015, and then chairing the all-party group on international development during my time in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I had the opportunity to see projects from those NGOs in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean—to see the impact of UK aid all around the world.
We know that fractional cuts in the past have had major impacts on programmes. Save the Children has estimated, based on previous Department for International Development statistics, that the approximately 30% cut in aid spending will mean many reduced programmes. People have spoken about the importance of nutrition, particularly in the first 1,000 days of a child’s life; about the impact it has on education; and about the impact it has on gender equality, because we know that most farmers around the world are women, and most will be feeding their family first. We know about the impact of nutrition on the efficiency and effectiveness of HIV medication, and we know that it is absolutely the founding stone for all other areas of poverty reduction.
The Government have repeated the promise that this is a temporary cut and that they intend to return to the 0.7% commitment when the financial situation permits. I hope the Minister can commit to writing that into legislation in the same way the initial 0.7% proposal was courageously put into law, to assure people that if this really is just a particular need in the time of covid, a sunset clause can be put in place to revert whenever finances allow. Even in the context of the cuts, the Government can commit to improving governance and oversight of spending.
It is important to remember why DFID was created in 1997: the need to separate general overseas policies from aid spending in order to ensure that the aid was used in the interests of the most vulnerable and not, as I believe was the case then, to leverage trade and arms deals. It is important that the Government set out their priorities for aid more comprehensively, and in consultation with civil society here and in the countries we will be seeking to help. We have seen the top line of that, and although everything listed by the Government is good, there is concern that it does not focus on the needs of the most vulnerable, and that it has not been worked through in such consultation.
The hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) was correct to point out the poor timing of the abolition of DFID, when civil servants and those who administer aid were operating in very challenging circumstances. They did not need to be dealing with a bureaucratic shake-up. As I said in the Chamber at the time, it was also the period when, in the context of the Black Lives Matter campaign, we were examining the UK’s legacy on the world stage. As I say, aid was the most positive manifestation of that.
The year that we have just had has shown us how connected the planet is, as well as the value of solidarity and the power of Governments when they choose to invest for good. It is always morally right to support the most vulnerable in the world—those in extreme poverty—and particularly so when their circumstances have been worsened by the pandemic. I do not think it is too late for the Government to do the right thing. Members have made constructive suggestions about how to continue to stand by the world’s poorest, and particularly the world’s poorest children.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I want to begin as others have done by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for bringing forward this important debate. Like others, I want to recognise that, despite the strong feelings on the issue, no one wants to diminish in any way, or not give recognition to, the work that the UK Government have done on tackling global malnutrition up to this point. It is because of the commitment that the UK Government have shown that there is now such profound concern about the threats during the current crisis to the good record that has been set.
There are growing concerns about the Government’s commitment to the overseas aid budget and the fight against world hunger. Many of us voiced concerns about a diminution of that commitment when the Department for International Development was merged with the Foreign Office. The Minister will recall the concerns expressed then. We were concerned that there would be a reduced focus on international development priorities. We feared that diminution, and indeed many even speculated at that time about whether the 0.7% of national income invested in aid was itself in danger. We were told that was nonsense. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary reaffirmed the UK Government’s 0.7% aid budget commitment as recently as July. Yet it has been abandoned. The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, condemned it as
“breaking a promise to the poorest people and the poorest countries in the world”,
and said it was a promise
“that didn’t have to be broken.”
We were told that there was to be no loss of focus and that the UK Government’s commitment to the poorest in the world was not in question, and that it was scaremongering and misleading to suggest otherwise. But now we fear that there will be a wavering of the commitment. We face a cliff edge on funding commitments, including the commitment to tackling malnutrition, at the very time when covid-19 has exacerbated an already desperate situation. We know that combating covid-19 has been costly to the UK. It has been costly to our health and the economy. As attention is focused on controlling the virus, there is a danger that the gains made globally
“in reducing hunger and malnutrition will be lost.”
Those are not my words, but those of Dr David Nabarro, the World Health Organisation’s special envoy on covid-19, in the context of the 2020 Global Nutrition Report.
One in nine people in the world are hungry—or 820 million people worldwide. That reveals the scale of the challenge if those of us in richer countries really want to ensure that the world is fed. Save the Children tells us that a quarter of children in the world today suffer permanent damage to their bodies and minds because they do not get the nutrition they need. Some 45% of child deaths in the world are linked to malnutrition. By 2030, 129 million children will suffer stunting as a result of hunger, and in the face of that there are concerns about reduced programmes to feed the hungry. As we speak there is a food crisis in southern Africa following the worst drought in 35 years, and the number of people at risk of food shortage is expected to rise to 45 million in the coming months. In the face of that, there are also concerns about reducing programmes to feed the hungry.
That means that international co-operation—all richer countries doing their bit, stepping up to the plate and recognising their role in the global village—becomes ever more pressing. We in richer countries have a moral duty—I do not think this is controversial—to come together and do all we can to invest in nutrition, which is vital for the development of a strong immune system and the prevention of protracted health crises.
In that context, the 0.7% commitment could not be more important. Due to the unprecedented economic emergency, we were told that the 0.7% commitment had to be temporarily suspended, but this economic emergency that we face is alongside the hunger emergency in developing countries, where millions face starvation.
What we need are: forecasts for the total drop in aid spending for nutrition from the start of 2021; an impact assessment on the effect that this decision will have on nutrition programs; a plan to mitigate the effects on the world’s malnourished; and an assurance, provided to the developing world and to concerned people in this House and across the UK, that this drop in financing will not be extended. It is alarming, quite frankly, that aid spending is being reallocated away from poverty-alleviation towards projects that cannot be considered aid projects, such as diplomacy and building yachts. I think most people in the UK would agree that these priorities need to be reassessed.
Malnutrition is a violent and corrosive social injustice that is morally inexcusable and politically and economically unsustainable. As human beings, we cannot ignore, or indeed seek to downgrade, the starvation and malnutrition of other people when we are able to help. We cannot turn our backs or reduce our focus simply because these people live far away. In the longer term, we need integrated, international guidelines on the human right to healthy, nutritious diets, and sustainable food systems, as a critical way forward.
Those of us who are lucky enough—and it is luck—to live in a richer country were filled with hope and optimism with the news of a vaccine, which has started to be rolled out this very day. However, vaccines are harder to deliver, and less likely to be effective, for malnourished people. In the developing world, diseases resulting from a lack of calcium, such as rickets, can have lasting harm, especially for children, whose bodies are still developing. The effects are far reaching, as those children are more likely to grow up with their intellectual and economic potential being limited.
Women and girls are most affected by famine, as their traditional roles in developing countries make it so. It is harder for them to survive because they have to care for their families and have to evade sexual violence, if they can, in areas of armed conflict. In some cultures, women eat last and least, and are subject to domestic violence as family access to food comes under greater strain.
The World Bank estimates that malnutrition costs some countries in Africa and Asia up to 11% of GDP each year; that shows us the limiting and damaging effects of malnutrition in economic terms, as well as in human terms.
The truth is that the UK Government’s aid budget has been cut by £6.9 billion this year alone. All of the good work that we have talked about—and were happy to talk about—done by the UK in poorer countries sadly sits under the shadow of that £6.9 billion cut, at a time when covid-19 rips through developing countries that are simply not equipped to deal with the consequences of that health threat.
We need the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to use every diplomatic and financial tool in its armoury to ensure that the postponed Nutrition for Growth summit, in Japan in 2021, is successful and attracts support for financial and policy commitments to end malnutrition. We do not need the international community to give us warm words; we need the UK on the global stage, leading the effort on the front foot.
The health pandemic must not and cannot be used as a reason for cutting back international aid. In fact, the consequence of the pandemic is that in developing countries an additional 433 children are expected to die every single day, according to The Lancet. It is a cruel irony to argue that the pandemic means that the UK must abandon its millennium development goals commitments.
Malnutrition is a threat multiplier in developing countries, since those who are malnourished are likely to have lower immune systems, and, with a global health pandemic, the significance of a virus that preys on compromised immune systems could not be more profound. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope to see her embracing the need for the UK Government to do their bit on the international stage, tackling global malnutrition and leading the effort. It is the right thing to do.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing this important debate, which follows hard on the heels of the Government’s recent announcement of the cut to UK aid, and could not have come soon enough.
I pay tribute to Concern Worldwide for its long-standing commitment to eradicating malnutrition, as well as the all-party parliamentary group on nutrition for growth, chaired by the hon. Member for Glasgow East, which has continued to put pressure on the Government to prioritise the issue.
As a member of the International Development Committee, I was appalled that the Government saw fit to abolish DFID in the middle of a global pandemic that has put some of the poorest and most vulnerable people at further risk. DFID was highly regarded as a world leader in its field and an excellent example of global Britain. However, the decision to scrap the Department and slash our aid budget has damaged the UK’s standing among our international peers. I am sure Members on both sides of the House will be interested to learn the amount of expenditure on the rebranding exercise that went on between the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DFID earlier this year.
With more, not less, funding required to meet the increasing demands placed on many countries as a result of the covid crisis, there must now be a clear commitment from this Government to set out a timeline for a multi-year financial pledge to tackle global malnutrition. That means pledging a minimum of £120 million each year to support high impact nutrition-specific programmes over the next four years, which will directly benefit 50 million women, adolescent girls and children. I hope the Minister will make urgent policy commitments to increase the FCDO’s commitment to nutrition programmes.
My constituents are rightly proud of the achievements of UK aid, which has lifted millions out of illiteracy and poverty, and provided so much support to some of the poorest communities around the globe. They have been directly invested in that process. Indeed, data made available by ONE, a campaigning global movement to end extreme poverty and preventable diseases, revealed that taxpayers’ money from my Stockport constituents helped more than 11,000 children receive a decent education, 40,000 people have access to clean water and better sanitation, and more than 37,000 people be vaccinated against meningitis and pneumonia.
In 2020, it is shocking that we still have children in this world suffering from malnourishment and starvation. It is deeply troubling that the figure, far from going down, is instead forecast to increase from 47 million people to 53 million, according to the medical journal The Lancet. Furthermore, it is concerning that the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth summit, which was scheduled to take place this year, has now been delayed to the end of 2021. Several Members have made the point about that summit.
The Government’s recent spending review and cuts to the aid budget add to the complications and challenges around a meaningful financial commitment from the FCDO to tackle global malnutrition. In light of the Chancellor’s recent announcement to reduce spending from 0.7% to 0.5% GNI, I hope the Minister can assure the House that cuts will not impact nutrition programmes. The reality of not providing that funding is stark. Malnutrition is a leading factor in 45% of cases of death of children under the age of five globally, according to the World Health Organisation.
Furthermore, Save the Children estimates that malnourished children score an average 7% lower in maths and are 19% less likely to read at the age of eight, hindering their chances of reaching their full potential in later life. Nutrition is a cornerstone of learning and development, and must be protected. I ask the Minister whether this Government plan to break their manifesto commitment to stand up for the right of every girl in the world to have 12 years of quality education, less than a year on from the general election and at a time when child malnutrition is rising sharply as a result of the covid crisis.
Mr Davies, we had excellent news this morning that the first covid vaccine has been administered in the UK. I am sure that the vaccine will help us overcome the pandemic, but the reality is that it is scientific fact that vaccination is less effective on malnourished people. In the sixth richest country in the world, we have a moral obligation and responsibility to intervene to alleviate that terrible suffering. A reduction in our financial support is unacceptable and would have long-term ramifications for those who find our funding a vital lifeline. We have a duty to act, and we must do so now before it is too late for the millions of people who desperately rely on us.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak on this issue, which I have a great interest in. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for introducing the debate. He and I—like many others, I suspect—always feel persuaded to turn up to speak on issues at Westminster Hall that we feel are important, and it is one of those issues. I thank him for the chance to do so.
I have long been an advocate for our responsibility to fulfil our moral obligation and—I believe—our compassionate determination towards those less fortunate than ourselves through the 0.7% aid threshold. I am open about that and want to put that on record. As Christmas approaches, we are probably all thinking about the special food treats we are going to enjoy, some of them probably to our detriment—that is just by the way. Have we paused to think of those who perhaps will not have those opportunities to even have a small meal of some sort, while we enjoy the luxuries of what we have in this world? It is sometimes good to reflect on that and to realise our responsibility for compassion. We should be reaching out to those who are less well-off, indeed to those for whom a meal is not just a meal but their very chance of survival. As we have watched the repercussions of the coronavirus take hold, I have seen an increase in the use of food banks in my area. Food poverty is a reality for some families in this so-called western world, and in the western country in which we live.
Before the debate I had talks with some APPG groups, and I suspect that the hon. Member for Glasgow East probably listed their names, which was why they came to me. They discussed malnutrition, and we have malnutrition in this country in some areas. I would have been unaware of the figures they gave me for my constituency, to be truthful. It is about the food people are eating, the food poverty in which they live, and how we address those issues.
The first ever food bank in Northern Ireland, from the Trussell Trust, was initiated by church groups in my constituency, who came together with other groups. Over the years, that food bank has become an integral part of life for a great many people. People come to me regularly for pointers towards a food bank, and I can honestly say that without those initial injections of food at that time those people would have been under tremendous pressure. I thank God for all the food bank volunteers who have dropped food round at people’s doors and worked tirelessly to help the community. They must be saluted. I salute Richard and Natalie Porter and my local team at the Trussell Trust food bank established at the Thriving Life Church, along with all others making a difference to people in our community. For the record and for Hansard it is also important to thank all the churches and charities for all that they do. Those teams have set their goals to reduce malnutrition. Many of the churches in my area are involved in projects in Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Uganda, and Kenya. They do incredible work there, and we could not do without their work.
Will the Minister indicate in her response what could be done to partner and work with the churches and charities that have their feet on the ground and that may perhaps be able to allocate and distribute the food to the people who need it most? I also believe that we have a moral and personal obligation to reach out and help others. It is what we are. It is how we look at things, and it is what we wish to do. I congratulate the Government on their historic leadership on nutrition as outlined in the 2013 Nutrition for Growth summit and the recent review of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact into DFID’s, and now the FCDO’s, nutrition work. It is a known fact that covid-19 has caused malnutrition rates around the world to skyrocket. The focus has all been on covid-19 and some of the other things that we would focus on have not happened, so that is rather disconcerting. Up to 10,000 more children are predicted to die each month due to undernutrition in 2020 than were predicted prior to covid-19. Again, that underlines how important the debate is and underlines as well why we look longingly to the Minister and our Government for responsibility to help us address those issues.
The number of children suffering from wasting—being dangerously underweight—is likely to increase from 47 million to 53 million as a result of covid-19. Some of the adverts we have seen on TV, in particular for Yemen, where we see some of those malnourished children, are really very hard to watch. As yet unpublished data shows that stunted physical and cognitive growth as a result of malnutrition affects some 149 million children under the age of 5 and that the figure of 21.9% per cent before the pandemic is set to rise dramatically unless urgent action is taken. Now is the time to put the action that Government have promised in place. Let us be clear: the United Kingdom is committed and we know that. It is the third biggest donor to nutrition programmes in the world after the United States and Canada, when we look at average donor financing to nutrition between 2013 and 2017. Yet again, I take the opportunity to urge Government to continue displaying leadership in nutrition. They are doing it, we need to continue to do it and we need to encourage others who are not doing it to do it equally.
I read the APPG’s report on nutrition and it makes a number of calls. I support it in those calls, in that the FCDO should recommit to reach 50 million women, adolescent girls and children with high-impact nutrition interventions over the next four years; to implement the policy marker for the nutrition aspect of its work, which would encourage teams within the FCDO, beyond the nutrition team, to consider the impact they can have on nutrition; to utilise the tactical leadership of the nutrition team within the FCDO to ensure all teams within the Department understand how nutrition relates to their brief; and to develop a needs and evidence-based nutrition-sensitive investment case. So: recommit, implement, utilise and develop.
I know that the Minister will be aware that the Governments of Canada and Bangladesh are hosting the event, as others have said, called Nutrition for Growth: Year of Action. The purpose of the event is to launch 2021 as the year of action for nutrition. Would it not be great if we were able to turn things around in 2021 and have a programme where money could be committed and make things happen? All Governments and others around the world should step up in the fight against malnutrition. Given the UK’s historic leadership, which we greatly appreciate, is the Minister planning to attend the event or play a part in it if at all possible? I take the opportunity to urge her to use the event to make a generous governmental pledge to nutrition.
We can make a difference and I believe we must ensure that every pound of foreign aid finds its place in a place of need and is not lost in greed. This is a big responsibility, but I believe that the Government and the Department are up to the task. I look forward to seeing how best we can save lives, bring hope and encouragement for those who need it and fulfil a global vision of no child left behind.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and a great pleasure to warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for bringing forward this debate on a crucial issue at a crucial time. It is also a pleasure to follow so many constructive, sensible, warm-hearted and powerful contributions from across the House. There is a great deal of unity on this issue.
Malnutrition is a devastating condition in its own right, but it is also an aggravating factor in disease risk and a threat multiplier occurring with other conditions. By way of context, according to The Lancet, an additional 433 children each day are going to die as a result of the interaction between covid and malnutrition. This is a global pandemic that is affecting everybody, but it is affecting the poorest hardest. Public health has come to the fore like never before and global interconnectedness has never been clearer, so for the UK to be walking away from its commitment at this time is, to our mind, a matter of great regret. It is stark how, in the “2020 Global Nutrition Report in the context of Covid-19”, David Nabarro, the World Health Organisation special envoy on covid-19 has talked sharply of the real risk that
“as nations strive to control the virus, the gains they have made in reducing hunger and malnutrition will be lost.”
This is a timely debate and I am glad there is so much cross-party unity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East alluded to, the UK has a good story to tell on this. The UK has not been idle. Our concern is on the future direction of the UK’s policy and the people who are in charge of setting and influencing it.
The SNP conference at the weekend committed the SNP, in an independent state, to the 0.7% GNI commitment on overseas aid. That will be the cornerstone of our development policy; we believe it is a mark of global decency. Even with the powers that we have under the devolved settlement, the Scottish Government have pledged £2 million to UNICEF efforts in Malawi, Zambia and Rwanda.
DFID, as was, is based in East Kilbride. Scotland has a keen interest and support for international development and related issues. That is why we so much regret the decision by the UK Government to walk away from the 0.7% commitment. We appreciate there are budgetary pressures—there always are—but to blame the pandemic, which is affecting everybody worldwide and the poorest hardest, as a reason to walk away from that commitment is, to our mind, a matter of great regret. We hope that we will see a change of course. At least let us prioritise malnutrition within the existing spend. The UK remains, of course, a considerable overseas development player. We celebrate that but we are concerned about where it is going in future.
I will not rehearse points that have already been made, but will perhaps distil some of the very constructive suggestions we have heard. We believe that the UK must commit to a multi-annual financial pledge to malnutrition. The UK’s existing commitments expire in a matter of weeks. We hope and expect they will be continued, but we would like to see that multi-annual financial pledge. We would like to see commitment of a minimum of £120 million a year to malnutrition projects, and we would like to see malnutrition accelerated within existing spend in other areas.
We would also like the UK to back enthusiastically the postponed Tokyo 2021 Nutrition for Growth summit. We believe that global action is necessary and the UK can play a part within that. We would also like to see the UK implement calls made in The BMJ by 180 experts for integrated international guidelines on the human right to healthy, nutritious diets. Guidelines can help inform development policy, and the more coherent they are globally, the stronger that effort will be.
We are concerned about the future direction of travel of the UK Government, but it is not too late to change course. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. If we are prioritising spend to help the poorest and malnourished in our global society, she can rest assured of the SNP’s support.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and his co-sponsors for securing such an important debate on such a crucial topic. I also commend the work of the all-party parliamentary group on these issues.
We have heard powerful and passionate speeches: from my hon. Friends the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra); and from the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), who spoke powerfully of her experiences; the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith); and from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always makes a powerful contribution on such issues. It is good to see him back. I also take this opportunity to commend the work of my shadow ministerial colleague, Lord Collins, who has done much to highlight these issues and has campaigned for global action.
Despite the huge advances we have seen in agriculture, food science and distribution, it should be a profound shame to the global community, including this country, that so many continue to go hungry and malnourished globally and in this country. We have heard today of the wider consequences for education, women and girls, and wider health.
As a Co-operative Member of Parliament, this is cause close to my heart. I am proud to support the Co-operative party’s Food Justice campaign. Since the covid-19 crisis hit, it has been estimated that 8 million people in the UK regularly have trouble putting food on the table and half a million people are using food banks. I know all too well the reality for those facing food poverty in my community, having volunteered with and supported a number of local food banks and delivery schemes for the most vulnerable.
My concern and that of the official Opposition for those going hungry does not end at our borders. I have seen with my own eyes the stark face of hunger and near-starvation globally with the World Food Programme and others. As we have heard, that picture is even more stark today, despite decades of progress in tackling hunger and malnutrition. As the Co-operative party Food Justice campaign states, the big picture is not that there is too little food; the problem is that people simply have far too little money. Such is the inequality in our economic system that profound structural change is fully required to address that. As we have heard, malnutrition is a leading cause of preventable death around the world, and millions are affected by food insecurity. Despite the fact that we live in a world of plenty, one in nine still go to bed every night hungry or undernourished. That is one of the reasons why the United Nations made food security one of the key sustainable goals—the Minister is wearing the badge today. As we celebrate UN Human Rights Day this Thursday, we must remember the key human right to food and adequate nutrition, as defined by the United Nations.
The United Nations reports that, after decades of steady decline, the number of people who suffer from hunger has been increasing slowly since 2015, even before the current crisis and the coming climate change emergency. It is estimated that, staggeringly, nearly 690 million people are hungry—8.9% of the world’s population, up by 10 million people in one year and nearly 60 million in five years. The world is not on track to achieve zero hunger by 2030, and if recent trends continue the number of people affected by hunger and malnutrition will surpass 840 million by 2030.
We have heard about many of the causes of that increase: man-made conflicts, climate change and economic downturns. In recent weeks, I have had conversations with humanitarian agencies operating in South Sudan and Ethiopia—two countries that exemplify those challenges; millions in South Sudan are on the brink of famine. I was having those conversations on the very day that the Government decided to slash the 0.7% commitment—what a stark contrast! The covid-19 pandemic could double that number, putting an additional 130 million people at risk of suffering acute hunger by the end of 2020. Of course, malnutrition is linked to economic inequality more widely. Rates of being underweight are 10 times higher in the poorest countries in the world than in the richest.
We have heard many examples illustrating the global situation, and I will touch on a few of them. It comes as no surprise that, following six years of disastrous civil war, Yemen faces the most acute malnutrition crisis in the world. The statistics are absolutely shocking: 12% of the population are in a critical emergency and 13 million people—many of them children—are in food insecurity. In South Sudan, 44% of the population are at the most critical phase, and more than 5 million people are affected. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, countries across the Sahel and north-east Nigeria are also affected. In Zimbabwe, 45% of the population—more than 4 million people—are at risk. In Haiti, the numbers facing food insecurity are nearing 4 million—40% of the population.
Too many turn away and forget. I see it as a particular tragedy that 36% of the population of Afghanistan—more than 11 million people—face food insecurity. We see food insecurity in more than one in 10 of the population of Burundi, Ethiopia, Eswatini, Guatemala, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Somalia, Uganda and Zambia. Of course, there is a conflict ongoing in Tigray in Ethiopia, and the situation across east Africa and the horn of Africa is exacerbated by the locust pandemic, flooding and the impact of conflict on crucial harvests.
To put it simply, this is exactly the time when the world’s poorest need more investment in food security and nutrition, not dangerous and life-threatening cuts. We need more, not less, work on the fundamentals of nutrition and food insecurity. As the “Global Nutrition Report” outlines, we need to build equitable, resilient and sustainable food systems. We need to renew and expand our nutrition commitments at key moments, such as the crucial Nutrition for Growth summit in Japan next year, leading the way for other countries.
We heard that, next week, Canada and Bangladesh are holding a virtual summit to launch Nutrition for Growth’s year of action. Will the Minister or one of her colleagues be attending, and will the UK Government make a pledge? Will there be a continuation of nutrition finance at current levels at least through to 2022, to ensure that we do not face a cliff edge at the end of 2021? In what other ways are the Government working with donors around the world to ensure that new commitments are made at that crucial summit in Japan next year?
As has been said many times, the UK can rightly be proud of its record, under multiple Governments of different colours over many decades, on combating malnutrition and preventable deaths and preventing hunger, but promises to tackle malnutrition and hunger in the future are meaningless given how easily manifesto commitments are tossed aside at the whim of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. Will the Minister confirm whether, as well as the plan to scrap the 0.7% Act, there is a plan to scrap the International Development Act 2002, which ensures that our funding is targeted at those who most need it and are at risk of malnutrition and hunger?
I have some specific questions for the Minister. DFID funded a multi-organisation programme in south-central Somalia to prevent the worst effects of disasters and food insecurity in a country where 28% of children under five are stunted. Will that programme continue to be funded, or will it be cut? The Pakistan food fortification programme is doing critical work to enhance nutrition among women—in particular, pregnant women. Will that continue after 2021, or will that nutritional support for the poorest and most vulnerable women be scrapped?
The World Food Programme appealed for £4.9 billion in 2020 to respond to the covid-19 pandemic, yet only half of that has been secured. The World Food Programme has had to implement prolonged ration cuts, including in refugee and internally displaced people’s camps across east Africa, including in South Sudan and Syria. The World Food Programme is clear that its partners do not have the funding required to prevent widespread hunger and famine. What is the UK Government response to that World Food Programme appeal at such a critical time? Will the Minister tell us how much funding for global food programmes has been cut last year and this year, and how much the Government plan to cut next year?
As I said, I have witnessed the impact of hunger and malnutrition at first hand. I have stood talking to villagers in Malawi as they queue for hours, waiting for a few basic bags of grain, while I am able to return to my comfortable hotel in the evening and eat well. I have seen impoverished street children in Kabul in Afghanistan. I have met women from Zimbabwe forced to sell themselves for sex so that they can feed their children. I have spoken to young people who have had their education disrupted or ended completely by having to return to till the fields for meagre returns, simply to help their family subsist. I have met families who have been ravaged by HIV/AIDS, through want of not only medicine but basic nutrition. I have met those whose lives have been torn apart by conflict originating in battles over scarce resources such as food and water, which are likely to be exacerbated as the climate emergency gathers place.
I put it to the Minister that as global Britain, we have a choice, we have a moral duty, and we have an imperative to act in our common interest to lay the foundations for mutually beneficial growth, education and health, and to remove the conditions that drive conflict and migration, with people fleeing the poverty, hunger and malnutrition that we have heard described so passionately in today’s debate. This is not the time to undermine our commitments on nutrition and hunger, at the very time when all that progress risks reversal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
Let me start by saying that I am really grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for having secured this morning’s debate, and to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I thank everyone for their recommendations and the thoughts they have shared this morning regarding our future approach, and I am deeply grateful to all those who are working tirelessly on this vital issue. I am reminded of the APPG meeting that we held earlier in the year. I am also reminded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) of the many visits that I have made to Africa over the years with Project Umubano, where I have seen at first hand some of the work that is taking place—not just through Government projects, but through civil society organisations and other groups—to tackle a range of issues, including hunger and malnutrition.
Tackling malnutrition continues to be of importance for this Government. Between April 2015 and March 2020, the UK Government reached more than 55 million young children, adolescent girls and women in the poorest countries with nutrition support. I was pleased to see that the Independent Commission for Aid Impact recently commended us on our work, and noted that the UK had undoubtedly underestimated its reach and impact. Preventing and treating malnutrition remains fundamental to achieving the Government’s commitment to end the preventable deaths of mothers, newborns and children by 2030.
Malnutrition is the underlying cause of almost half of all child deaths and one in five maternal deaths. Even before the coronavirus pandemic, progress to reduce malnutrition was already far too slow, particularly across Africa and south Asia. There is concrete evidence that the indirect effects of covid-19 are increasing malnutrition risk and threatening to reverse the gains that have been made. My Department, the FCDO, is closely monitoring the effect on nutrition. Many countries are reporting significant disruptions to key nutrition services, particularly breastfeeding support, delivery of vitamin A and iron-folate supplements, and treatment for acute malnutrition. Those disruptions will undermine the nutrition of the most vulnerable women and children in the world, and increase the number of people who die.
At the end of 2019, 135 million people in 55 countries and territories already faced acute food insecurity. Experts have estimated that as a result of the pandemic, acute malnutrition has increased by 14%, resulting in an additional 125,000 child deaths. Good nutrition is central to health, educational outcomes and poverty alleviation. A two-year-old who has received the basic nutrients they need in their early years is 10 times more likely to overcome the most life-threatening childhood diseases. They are also set to remain in school four years longer than their undernourished counterparts and to go on to earn more and have healthier lives and families. Every £1 invested to prevent malnutrition brings returns of £16 in increased productivity, so it is imperative that steps are taken to stop the current deterioration and to help countries get on track to achieve the 2030 target to end malnutrition in all its forms.
The UK Government are addressing this global challenge in three major ways. First, we are prioritising and continuing foreign investment in essential nutrition services, with a focus on countries experiencing the greatest shocks, including the impacts of covid-19. This includes highly cost-effective interventions such as breast-feeding support and acute malnutrition treatment in countries such as Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen and Ethiopia. We are also supporting programmes to deal with the chronic drivers of malnutrition in countries such as Zambia and Malawi. I personally made sure that our support to the Power of Nutrition financing facility was prioritised, so that this essential initiative can continue to save lives and avert malnutrition in countries such as Tanzania and Liberia.
Secondly, in September, the Foreign Secretary appointed the UK’s first special envoy for famine prevention, Nick Dyer. This is a clear signal that this Government are not prepared to look away as conflict, climate shock and the coronavirus pandemic put millions at risk of large-scale food insecurity and malnutrition. Alongside this, we launched a £119 million package of support to avert famine and food insecurity, which included a new five-year £30 million partnership with UNICEF to transform how acute malnutrition is prevented and treated. This will enable at least 4.3 million children each year in Africa and Asia to access essential nutrition services.
Thirdly, turning to Nutrition for Growth and the Canada event, to which many Members have referred to today, we remain firmly committed to working with the Government of Japan as they prepare for the next Nutrition for Growth summit. 2021 will be an important year for galvanising action to address malnutrition and I look forward to joining the Government of Canada at their event on 14 December to launch the Year of Nutrition for Growth. I am grateful for their leadership and support on this important issue. However, it is very clear that the scale of the global nutrition challenge needs a wide and diverse coalition of support. It cannot and should not only fall to Japan, Canada and the UK to deal with this global challenge. An essential part of our role is making the case to broaden the support base. It is incumbent on our partner Governments, the private sector and the multilateral system also to step forward. Nutrition investment is fantastic value for money, as many Members have highlighted.
The House will be aware of the difficult decision that the Government announced recently to reduce the aid budget to 0.5% of gross national income. I am conscious Members have raised this point during the debate. I have to say this was a difficult, but temporary decision. It is our intention to return to the 0.7% target as soon as the fiscal situation allows. In 2021, we will remain one of the most generous G7 donors, spending more than £10 billion to fight poverty, tackle climate change and improve global health. We will also do aid better across Government; even though the budget is smaller, we will deliver it with greater impact for every £1 that we spend. Some 93.5% of UK aid will come under FDCO leadership—
Stephen Doughty
I do not doubt the Minister’s personal commitment on these issues, which she has shown over many years. Obviously, what we have heard about the aid cut is deeply concerning. I have some doubts that the cut is temporary, particularly given the scrapping of the relevant legislation, but I asked the Minister a specific question about the International Development Act 2002. Will she rule out changes to that Act, because it is the focus in that Act that ensures that our aid is spent, by whatever Department, on the most crucial challenges, such as nutrition and hunger?
Wendy Morton
I know that the hon. Gentleman will seek to press me on this matter. I reiterate that we will remain one of the most generous G7 donors, even though we will spend 0.5 % of our GNI rather than the 0.7%, and as soon as the fiscal situation allows, we will revert to 0.7%. It is a temporary reduction.
I still have a bit of time left, so I want to respond to one or two more specific points raised by hon. Members. One was the link between covid-19 and nutrition. It is an important secondary impact for us all to be aware of. Malnourished people are likely to be more severely affected by covid-19, and the wider impacts of covid-19 are predicted to increase malnutrition, particularly across Africa and Asia. Over the past year, nutrition services have been prioritising many FCDO country programmes, including in Ethiopia, Somalia, Zambia and across the Sahel, to help to reduce the negative impacts of the pandemic. We have also supported Governments in the Scaling Up Nutrition movement to adapt their own responses.
Some Members raised the issue of vaccines in this debate, and I think it is important to recognise that malnourished children have been shown to have a less effective response to some, but not all, vaccines. Clearly, averting malnutrition is a sensible strategy to underpin any vaccination programme.
Girls’ education was mentioned by several Members, including the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). The UK is a global leader when it comes to girls’ education. Helping poor countries to provide 12 years of good-quality education, particularly for girls, is a top priority for this Government. We know that for children to learn they need the right nutrients, and that malnutrition disproportionately affects women and girls, preventing many girls from attending school and hindering the potential of those who do. I recall on some of my visits to Africa actually teaching in schools and visiting schools and seeing the difference that a child having had something to eat could make to their ability to learn.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) touched on partnership working. Let me assure him that we work with a range of partners to deliver our nutrition programmes. In countries such as Nigeria, we work very closely with faith-based groups to ensure that we reach those in need.
Jim Shannon
If those church groups and charity groups that do very specific physical work in some of the countries that I mentioned want to be partnered with Government officials to ensure that that happens, is it possible for the Minister to give me some contacts, or give us all contacts, whereby we could perhaps bring them together?
Wendy Morton
I undertake to respond to the hon. Gentleman directly on that very specific point.
During the debate, we have raised the situation in various countries around the world that are experiencing food shortages and challenges with nutrition. I want to pick up on a couple of specific places. One is the Sahel, where our support will provide nutrition screening to 526,250 children and mothers in that region. That will include emergency malnutrition response treatment for almost 26,000 children with severe acute malnutrition. Yemen is a country that was specifically mentioned by several Members. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary warned in September, Yemen has never looked more likely to slide into famine. Food prices in some areas have risen by 20% since the start of 2020. The UK has shown leadership and responded to the crisis. We have committed £200 million this financial year, including an extra £30.8 million in new funding for famine prevention in September. That takes our total commitment to more than £1 billion since the conflict began in 2015. This financial year, we are providing the World Food Programme with £58 million to provide vital food assistance, meeting the immediate food needs of more than 500,000 Yemenis each month.
Preventing and treating malnutrition will remain a core part of what we do, given its vital contribution to health and wellbeing as well as to education and to ending poverty. I will be happy to update the House again on our approach to malnutrition in 2021, prior to the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth summit. There remains no doubt that addressing malnutrition in the poorest countries of the world is the right thing to do. Even in these difficult times, we will endeavour to do what we can to reach those most at risk. The real power of the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is that we can now tackle global challenges like this by combining our world-leading aid expertise with our diplomatic strength. In doing so, we will still be able to help millions of people escape the terrible impact of malnutrition.
David Linden
I thank everyone for the strong cross-party representation that there has been in the debate. No fewer than five political parties have contributed to a Westminster Hall debate. When our minds are sometimes on other issues, that is not insignificant.
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for referring to Lord Collins of Highbury. He has been a stellar champion in the other place and helpful to me and the hon. Gentlemen in the work that he does in the all-party parliamentary group.
All Members have put on record the need for the multi-year financial pledge. I very much welcome what the Minister said about her commitment to attending the Canada summit. I hope that the UK Government will take the opportunity to make an early pledge.
We heard excellent contributions, starting with that from the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who spoke about his regret at the reduction of the target from 0.7% to 0.5%. I hope that the UK Government will clarify when we will return to a target of 0.7%. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) spoke about the financial costs of malnutrition at £3.5 trillion. I have often thought that in order to explain to Ministers why the issue is so important, we should sometimes cite the economic cost. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that the financial cost is staggering. He said that for every £1 invested, we get £16 in return.
The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) is no longer in the Chamber, but she spoke about her experience of working in this field for 10 years and about working on the issue in Stormont. She was right to refer to the concerns of the World Food Programme about the prospect of a famine of biblical proportions. She also questioned how the UK Government’s recent move ties in with their commitment to a global Britain.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) was right to quote the former Prime Minister, David Cameron—not someone I would normally quote in the House of Commons. I was struck by the tweet that he put out on the day of the spending review when he said that we share this planet with some of the poorest people in the world and now is not the time to turn our backs on them.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) spoke about his experience on the DFID Select Committee and his regret that it has been abolished. Because of a malfunction with my hankies—hon. Members will see that I am falling apart with a cold—I had to leave during the speech of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I apologise to him. He was right to speak about a moral obligation and reminded us that many people across the world will not enjoy a Christmas dinner.
I say to the House—this point will not be lost on those watching in Scotland—that these days there is little to unite Members from the Scottish Conservative party and the Scottish National party, but the fact that the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and I have managed to put our parties’ politics on domestic issues and the constitution aside to campaign on nutrition should send a strong message to the Government. The biggest thing that divides me and the right hon. Gentleman is his belief that the UK and Scotland are somehow better together. I will never agree with him on that, but we can all agree that when it comes to the issue of vaccines in tackling malnutrition, we are very much better together.
When we applied for this debate, I thought about how it was not a covid-related issue—“My goodness; how will this look in Westminster Hall?”—but on the day when vaccines are being rolled out across the United Kingdom, we are reminded of the importance of good nutrition, so the timing could not have been better. I say to the Minister that we should not look at this issue in silos as we go forward. Let us tackle it as a team and make sure that we understand how vaccines and nutrition go hand in hand. That is why it is so important that we get a multi-year funding pledge. If the Minister commits to that, she will have the support of the whole House and every party in here.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s role in tackling global malnutrition.
Covid-19: Music Education
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on music education.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Although I have spoken in many Westminster Hall debates before, this is my first as the instigator of the debate.
When schools teach music and other creative subjects properly, our whole society and economy benefit. Although by no means a musician myself, I hugely enjoyed my experiences of music at school, which helped me develop a deep love for classical music. My family have been Methodists for over 200 years, and as the preface to the celebrated 1933 Methodist hymn book says,
“We were born in song”.
Music has been part of the national curriculum for children aged five to 14 since it was first published in 1988-89, and has been recognised as an important part of a broad and balanced curriculum by successive Governments. Music education needs that recognition again from this Government—perhaps more so now than ever before.
There is a wealth of evidence indicating that studying music builds cultural knowledge, creative skills and improves children’s health, wellbeing and wider educational attainment. Through classroom music, children and young people develop their skills in making and creating music through performing, composing, improvising, and responding critically, in an informed way, to music from a wide range of genres and traditions.
While classroom music forms the foundation of children and young people’s music education, it is hugely enriched by the provision of a wide range of extracurricular opportunities for young people to develop their musical interests, such as school orchestras, choirs and other ensembles. Altogether, this is an essential talent pipeline for the music industry, which is worth a staggering £5.8 billion a year to the UK economy. Schools around the country are already trying their best to continue to provide excellent music education, despite adverse circumstances, and they are bolstered by several bodies that are adopting innovative approaches.
As the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on independent education, I am aware that over 650 Independent School Council schools have music partnerships with state schools, and those partnerships allow students to attend music lessons at each other’s schools, host joint music events, and send teaching staff across to share their knowledge and expertise in both directions. This helps to foster strong working partnerships and connections that are increasingly important given the current circumstances.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to Westminster Hall for consideration, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the undisputed benefits of music within society are at greater risk now than at any time in history? Does he agree that the Government need to step into the breach? Covid-19 affects disposable income, which means fewer private music lessons, so we must offer music education involving various instruments in every school throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to ensure that we hold on to music’s positive benefits for society?
Andrew Lewer
The hon. Gentleman is right, because no one could have predicted the idea that someone could not blow through an instrument because that spreads particles and so on, and it means that so much new work now needs to be focused on this area.
The joint approach I am describing was also highlighted by the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference chaired by Sally-Anne Huang, and the Music Teachers Association, which is the country’s largest association of music teachers. They have made a firm commitment to work together to advocate for music in all schools. The vast majority of HMC schools already partner with state colleagues in music, but this is a new national partnership, which will allow co-ordination at an enhanced level, drawing attention to the essential role played by schools in the musical life of our nation. This month they launched the “Bach to School” teaching and singing resource led by Gabrieli Roar, which I would encourage all colleagues to investigate further via its website.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I declare a former interest as a professional classical singer who, like many performers, also held down a peripatetic teaching job in several schools for many years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that music is essential to build children’s confidence? It benefits a wide range of other academic subjects. The initiative that he described to keep music education going can also be found in resources that schools have innovated, such as #CanDoMusic. There is more scope to support children whose music education has been adversely affected by covid-19.
Andrew Lewer
I thank my hon. Friend not only for her point, but for my promotion to right honourable. I will reflect upon what she has said and how important it is that she said it, given that she is a voice of experience with a background in the subject, who has knowledge about the subject itself and its wider benefits. That is a key part of why I brought forward today’s debate.
In my own constituency, the Northamptonshire Music and Performing Arts Trust, led by Peter Smalley and comprised of over 300 staff, has worked with over 20,000 children and young people in the past year to deliver the promises of the national plan for music education. NMPAT employs a team of peripatetic staff who visit different schools to deliver teaching projects and musical experiences. Its headquarters is in my constituency; I have visited it and attended their concerts. I am looking forward to being able to go to those concerts again as a way of celebrating our re-emergence next year.
With limited experience in the delivery of online teaching, NMPAT reacted quickly to deliver a digital alternative, to ensure children continued to receive vital access to music education. NMPAT has asked me to specifically raise with the Minister its thanks for the job retention scheme, which has been a lifeline for the staff throughout the pandemic, ensuring children in Northampton and the county continue to receive the music education they deserve.
An issue that has been raised with me in numerous calls and in meetings, prior to securing this debate, is funding for the adjustments that NMPAT and others have had to make for the digital age and the creation of covid-secure environments. I hope the Minister will consider that in her remarks. Funding for 2019-20 has not been adequate to cover the costs of the current situation and there is a need for an uplift in 2020-21, back to parity to at least 2011 levels. That is even more pressing now we find ourselves where we are.
Even prior to covid-19, music education was facing significant challenges, including cuts to funding and widening gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students, particularly when it came to instrumental tuition, as we have already heard. There have been falling teacher training and recruitment numbers, and a continuing decrease in the uptake of music examination courses.
The pressure of accountability measures, such as year 6 SATs in primary schools and the English baccalaureate, or EBacc, in secondary schools, has meant that access to music education has been significantly reduced. For example, “Music Education: State of the Nation,” published in 2019 by the all-party parliamentary group for music education, found that more than 50% of responding schools were not meeting the curriculum requirements in year 6, citing the pressure of statutory tests as a contributory factor. Interestingly, those findings were supported by observations by Ofsted.
Since the introduction of the EBacc in 2010, there has been a significant decrease in the uptake of GCSE and A-level music. The figures from the Joint Council for Qualifications show a 25% decline in pupils taking GCSE music and roughly a 43% decline in those taking A-level music over the past decade. Ofsted’s annual report, which is hot off the press and was published on 1 December 2020, found that
“not all children were receiving a full and appropriate curriculum”
and identified “curriculum narrowing” as a concern. Where the full curriculum is not offered, that often results in inequalities of opportunity for the pupils affected.
The Department for Education’s own figures show that only 82% of the recruitment target for music teachers was reached in England in 2019-20, and the number of music teachers recruited into teaching music since 2010 has decreased by 53%. In the context of the delivery reductions due to covid-19, those trends are likely to deepen. I know that that will be a concern to colleagues here and to those in the teaching sector.
Jane Stevenson
Some of these statistics are worrying and make the national plan for music education even more important. Can the Minister commit to a date for a revised national plan? My hon. Friend also raised funding issues. Can the Minister give a date to agree future funding for music hubs, which face significant challenges over the next few years?
Andrew Lewer
I am sure the Minister has heard that.
The coronavirus pandemic has had and will continue to have an impact on all aspects of music education: curriculum entitlement, singing in schools, music making, and especially extracurricular activities, learning instruments and examinations. That has been captured by a report published on 6 December by the Incorporated Society of Musicians, titled “The heart of the school is missing”, which I strongly suggest that colleagues and the Minister read.
To measure the impact of covid-19, the ISM collated 1,300 responses from members of the music-teaching profession who work in schools across the UK. It reveals the detrimental impact that covid has had on music education. I will set out the headline figures. Ten per cent. of primary and secondary schools do not teach class music at all, even though it is a requirement in the curriculum. That is on top of schools reporting that, as a result of their lack of access to technology and the resources they need to adapt, many children were not given any music lessons throughout the closure of schools. Sixty-eight per cent. of primary school teachers and 39% of secondary school teachers stated that music provision had to be significantly reduced to ensure that key parts of the curriculum, such as those for exams, are covered due to time pressure as a result of corona restrictions. Extracurricular activities are no longer taking place in 72% of primary schools and 66% of secondary schools this year. That is partly due to the fact that it took time to get guidance on singing, brass and woodwind playing from the Government before schools resumed, and—much more difficult—a lack of access to well-ventilated spaces.
Singing and practical music making have all been affected. Teachers report that face-to-face instrument lessons are not continuing in 35% of primaries and 28% of secondary schools. Eighty-six per cent. of secondary music teachers report that they have had to rewrite schemes of work completely due to coronavirus. Sixteen per cent. of music teachers have had no access to specialist classrooms, and 43% have to move between non-specialist classrooms to teach some or all of their music. One teacher was even quoted as saying that they had been given 15 B&Q buckets to use as drums in their classrooms.
An important issue that has become evident because of that is the mental health of staff and the impact that covid has had on them. Many of the organisations that I mentioned highlighted music teachers’ mental health and wellbeing and the damage that has happened as a result of these disruptions and changes. Many of us are very aware of the mental health implications for virtually everybody involved in trying to keep life going as a result of the impact of the pandemic.
Although we face an unprecedented crisis, coronavirus also provides us with a pivotal moment for reflection and an opportunity to reset education policy. We need to begin to implement a strategy that will future-proof music education for future students and reverse the trend of music education being sidelined. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) said, the national plan for music education was first published in 2011. It established music education hubs, which provide opportunities to sing and learn instruments in addition to classroom music. Following a consultation in March 2020, a refreshed plan was due to be published this autumn, with the aim of levelling up musical opportunities for children from all backgrounds.
The Government are due to publish the new national plan for music education, and when that document is released, schools need to be informed of their role so that they are fully engaged as part of their own local music education hubs. I hope the Minister will consider that. The need for the joy of music to herald our emergence from this terrible time only serves to underline the need for particular departmental focus on it in the way I have suggested.
The pandemic also offers the opportunity to revisit the nature and purpose of assessments in ensuring that young people are equipped for the future. In the short term, the Department for Education needs to guarantee that pupils sitting music assessments in summer 2021 are not disadvantaged by the pandemic but are rewarded for their achievements.
Jane Stevenson
That steady progress, which takes a number of months or years, is an essential element of learning an instrument or taking singing lessons, and I am very concerned about the mental health of students who, no doubt, will feel deflated at not being able to make the progress that they have worked so hard to achieve. I seek reassurance from the Minister on behalf of those children who will sit practical music exams over the coming year and possibly next year. Will the grading process take into account the significant interruption to the progress of those many music students?
Andrew Lewer
My hon. Friend makes a key point about an area in which practical and helpful steps can be taken relatively easily. Concessions such as scaling down the requirements of the practical elements of exam courses have been put in place for music qualifications. However, the content and assessment requirements for many EBacc subjects have not yet been changed. That puts pressure on schools to focus their available time on prioritising those subjects, which can create an unnecessary and unhelpful hierarchy of subjects—and a questionable hierarchy at that.
I know that the ISM is concerned that Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools told the Education Committee on 10 November that, in 2021, exams could take place for core subjects, with centre-assessed grades for other subjects. If that happens, it would lead to a further devaluing of arts subjects, which in turn would cause severe damage to music departments that already feel under threat.
Furthermore, the Government must address the ongoing narrowing of the curriculum, which is happening as a result of reducing accountability measures both in primary and in secondary schools. We have an opportunity after covid-19 to build a curriculum that puts young people’s needs first and that champions creative learning as well as science, technology, English and maths. We need to capitalise on that opportunity.
In conclusion, the purpose of securing this debate was to raise awareness of a sector that in some instances gets overlooked. As I am sure the Minister would expect, I also have some general asks. As I mentioned earlier, funding for 2019-20 has not been adequate in the current situation and there is a need for an uplift in 2020-21, to attain parity with 2011 levels. This is not just a general request for funding, but a specific one because of the particular circumstances faced by this sector as a result of the restrictions that have been placed on it and the subsequent costs it has incurred. I ask the Minister to look at funding levels in the light of that experience.
School and music organisations need clarity on the national music grant funding from March 2021, and these additional costs need to be borne in mind. Music is a key entitlement for young people, and it contributes positively to the health and wellbeing agenda for the current generation.
I ask the Minister and the Department to remind schools of their obligations to provide a broad and balanced curriculum under the Education Act 2002 and the Academies Act 2010, of which music is a vital part. I also ask them to reinforce the scientific findings on, and the subsequent recommendations for, the safe delivery of curriculum and extracurricular music, and to look to a day—it will be a day on which we will all celebrate—when all of the restrictions will be stopped and we will abolish forever the expression “the new normal” and get back to a proper normal in which we can all live and flourish.
Finally, I am concerned that the Government have removed music from the list of the initial teacher training bursaries on offer for 2021 and 2022. The need to attract the finest musicians into teaching is the greatest that it has ever been, and schools are the only place where young people are guaranteed to receive music education. The surest way of achieving that is through the continuing recruitment of outstanding music teachers.
How important is all of this? It could not be more important. As Beethoven himself put it:
“Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy. Music is the electrical soil in which the spirit lives, thinks and invents.”
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) on securing this debate on such an important topic. I stress that the Government remain committed to music education during this very challenging time, for the reasons that he himself outlined—to build creative skills, health and wellbeing. Those things will all foster the next generation of innovators, creators, artists and much, much more.
Music and the arts form a vital part of children and young people’s education. In fact, the best schools in the country combine a high-quality creative arts and cultural education with excellence in core academic subjects. We are committed to ensuring that pupils in England continue to access both. Music education remains a central part of a broad and balanced curriculum. That is why it is a statutory subject, from age five to 14, in the national curriculum, and why pupils in maintained schools have an entitlement to study at least one arts subject in key stage 4.
Although only maintained schools are required to teach the national curriculum, academies are also expected to teach a curriculum that is similar in breadth and ambition. My hon. Friend referred to music teacher recruitment and concerns regarding bursaries. I am pleased to inform him that from 2020-21, the initial teacher training census shows that we have provisionally recruited 483 postgraduate trainee music teachers—that is 125% of the post-graduate ITT target for music. The bursaries and incentives are reviewed regularly to ensure that we are filling the skills gaps and needs. They might be put back in place at later dates but there are positive signs at the moment.
The Department for Education invested nearly £500 million between 2016 and 2020 on a diverse portfolio of music and arts education programmes. That includes £300 million for music education hubs that provide specialist music education services to around 90% of state schools. Almost £120 million has been given to the music and dance scheme that currently supports more than 2,300 exceptionally talented children and young people.
The Department works closely with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Together the two Departments co-fund a wide range of national music programmes for young people, led by the Arts Council, providing a total of £3 million in the financial year 2020-21. That includes seven national youth music organisations, such as the National Youth Orchestra and the National Youth Jazz Collective; the In Harmony project, which aims to inspire and transform the lives of children in six areas in England, through community-based orchestral music making; and the Music for Youth project, which provides opportunities for young people and families to perform in and attend festivals and concerts.
In January, the Department for Education announced a further £80 million investment in music education hubs for the financial year 2020-21, to ensure that all children, whatever their background, have access to a high-quality music education, which, as we have heard today, is so vital. I stress again that the Government remain committed to supporting music education. We will provide shortly an update on funding for the financial year 2021-22. I am afraid I am not at liberty to do that today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) referred to the national plan. As we know, the national plan of 2011 set out our vision for music education. We will be refreshing that and consulting widely. I urge everybody to input into that consultation. We can expect an announcement in the coming months.
The Government have continued to support schools to deliver a broad and ambitious curriculum, including music, since the start of the pandemic. In the previous academic year, our teachers worked tirelessly to support the majority of pupils through remote education from March, and priority groups of pupils were supported through the gradual easing of national restrictions from June into July.
Similarly, teachers and leaders of music education hubs, specialist schools and training centres funded by music and dance schemes, and the leaders of our national music programmes, transformed their support to allow children and young people to engage remotely in music making, overcoming those logistical and technical challenges highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South. They were able to support the remote learning. In addition, the Department assisted with the introduction of several initiatives for schools and parents, including establishing the Oak National Academy to provide direct curriculum support to schools from a range of online resources. Professional organisations such as Music Mark, the Incorporated Society of Musicians and the Music Teachers Association, along with the Musicians’ Union, also acted quickly to help their members.
The situation has been very different in the autumn term, with schools open, but we set out additional guidance, given the risk of infection in environments where singing and the playing of wind or brass instruments take place. That advice was informed by DCMS guidance on performing arts, informed by the latest scientific advice from SAGE, to give schools and educators the confidence to continue with lessons and workshops, given the importance of the activity. Guidance for schools includes comprehensive advice on music, drama and dance, including on social distancing, additional safeguards for singing and playing wind or brass instruments, groups for ensemble, and handling equipment and musical instruments. In parallel, the Department published advice on music and the performing arts in our guidance for all other educational settings, including out-of-school settings such as school clubs, tutors and other organisations that provide supervised activities for under-18s.
I recognise that the national restrictions brought new challenges for some providers of music education, such as private music tutors and performing arts organisations that run supplementary schools in the evening and on weekends. That face-to-face activity was permitted only if the primary purpose was to enable parents to work, seek work or undertake education or training, or for respite or care for vulnerable children and home-educated children. Those specific conditions have been an important part of reducing the spread of the virus and, as hon. Members will know, they have now been lifted and the general exemption for all supervised activity for under-18s applies to all tiers.
The past months have been challenging, to say the least, and hon. Members have pointed out the impact on music education and learning. However, I am encouraged by the resourceful response from our educators and I wish to thank all 120 music education hubs and their dedicated staff for all they have done to adapt and innovate in that time. The swiftness of their response as the pandemic escalated was, quite frankly, remarkable. Never has it been more important for children to have music in their lives, and the hubs helped ensure that that continued.
Music education hubs provide an important service to the vast majority of state-funded schools, with specialist teachers providing expert advice and support to classroom teachers, music tuition to individual pupils and directly supporting whole-class ensemble teaching—a cornerstone of a high-quality music curriculum. The Government recognise that one of the most significant impacts on the sector of the spring lockdown was the reduction in the money from schools and parents to music education hubs. That is why the Government took steps to ensure that music education hubs were eligible to apply for the Government’s £1.57 billion cultural recovery fund, launched by DCMS and administered by Arts Council England. As a result, 12 music education hubs secured a total of more than £3.5 million in additional funding.
We will also announce shortly an additional package of support provided by Arts Council England to struggling music education hubs, such as the Northamptonshire Music and Performing Arts Trust mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South. He also flagged that it had benefited considerably from the covid job retention scheme, which is important to note.
All of that, once again, demonstrates the importance the Government place on music education and that we have stepped up, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) requested. I hope that hon. Members present are left in no doubt that the Government’s commitment to music education is solid. I will end by once again thanking all of the teachers, those working in music hubs and the music education sector at large for their hard work throughout the past few months, which has enabled so many children to continue to access, enjoy and learn music, no matter their background.
Question put and agreed to.
Future of Pensions Policy
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of pensions policy.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. There is an old saying that people should not talk about politics or religion; I sometimes wonder whether that extends to the topic of pensions as well. While saving for a house or car is seen as exciting and a real achievement—and rightly so—the same enthusiasm and planning is never given when people are saving for their retirement. It is time such attitudes around pensions and planning for retirement changed. Pensions are becoming increasingly important and we need to talk about them, both here in Parliament and in the wider public domain, if we want people to feel empowered to make their own decisions about their future, and secure a retirement that they deserve.
People are living longer, and the state pension age has increased, but discussions and debates around pension policy and infrastructure have not moved on in any significant way. A recent study found that 22 million working-age adults do not feel that they understand enough about pensions to make decisions about saving for retirement, highlighting that we need to do more to ensure that people feel informed and empowered to do that saving.
The fact that 5 million people in retirement are not satisfied with their financial circumstances proves that more needs to be done to ensure people take steps earlier so that their later years are more comfortable and secure. Only 38% of seven to 17-year-olds say that they have learned at school how to manage money, which showcases that the lack of knowledge and awareness about savings and pensions starts right at the beginning. This tells us that we need to be having frank and honest conversations about pensions much earlier in people’s lives. It is not enough to start discussing savings and retirement at 60; it needs to be happening in education, in the workplace, at key moments in life, and also here in Parliament.
Today’s debate, I hope, is the first of many important and crucial conversations around pensions and how we, as parliamentarians, can look to shape pension policy in a positive way in the years to come. I am going to touch on a couple of broad themes, the majority of which the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), can respond to, while I appreciate that some of the topics—although relevant—may be for the Treasury to consider rather than my hon. Friend.
Although it is hugely important to start conversations about pensions and retirement as early in life as possible, it would not be right to hold a debate on pensions policy without first looking at how we can help pensioners who may already be struggling. Sadly, pensioner poverty is a real problem across the UK. While it may have decreased over the past 20 years—I commend the efforts of the Minister and the Department in their work on this—Age UK found that 1.9 million pensioners are still living in poverty in the UK. That means that over a quarter of pensioners, despite having worked all their lives, paid their taxes and contributed to our economy, are now living their later years facing more challenging decisions than they necessarily should, wondering whether they can afford to turn the heating on or pay their bills, and watching how every penny is spent.
It does not have to be that way. Many pensioners will be eligible for pension credit: a financial lifeline that tops up their income and prevents them from having to make those difficult decisions, such as keeping warm in their home or having a good meal. Pension credit is also a gateway to other benefits that make a real difference to pensioners’ quality of life, including cold weather payments, NHS dental treatment and, topically, free TV licences for those over 75. Quite simply, pension credit gives older people the financial stability and security to live their lives in a much more worry-free manner.
It is also important to note that, while pension credit makes a huge difference to many individual pensioners’ lives and well-being, it also benefits the whole of society. Research from Independent Age estimates that the cost to the Government of those eligible for pension credit, but not taking it, is around £4 billion a year in increased NHS and social care spending, so it is imperative that we either get the implementation of this benefit right, or reform it altogether.
The question is: does the benefit work effectively for the people it is supposed to serve? Currently, it is not working nearly as effectively as it could, with uptake stagnating at around 60% for the past 10 years. It has never been more than 70%. To put that into perspective, around four in every 10 eligible pensioners are not collecting the free money that is due to them. That means that, at present, around £3.5 billion that is allocated to eradicating pensioner poverty is not reaching older people each year. That is, in part, due to awareness of pension credit being low, despite many advertising campaigns by successive Governments. It seems that wholesale reform is necessary to help reach the people it is designed to help.
The low take-up of pension credit is also due, in part, to the way it is assessed. Instead of being an automatic benefit provided to those who need it, pensioners have to make a claim when they reach the appropriate age, which considers their income level and savings. That is problematic for a couple of reasons, not least that the process can be seen as daunting, overly complicated and difficult to navigate for pensioners. Also, by taking into account people’s savings pots, it discourages long-term responsible economic actions such as saving because people will become ineligible not only for pension credit, but for other gateway benefits I mentioned earlier on.
We need to have a fundamental change in how pension credit is assessed and claimed. We should be looking to help those who need it most by ensuring that financial support is accessible and fair, taking away the blame on people who fail to make that claim. One way to do that would be by making pension credit a full or partial auto-payment benefit, so that no claim has to be submitted, and basing it solely on income levels, which Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs really should be able to track to ensure that no one is unfairly at a disadvantage for having prudently saved throughout their working life.
While successive Governments have taken steps to raise the profile and take-up of pension credit, as seen through the work to make it claimable online during the pandemic, we need serious, fundamental change if we want pension credit to play its part in eradicating pensioner poverty and helping the poorest households. I want the Government to consider their role in boosting take-up by making it an automatic benefit that solely considers income.
While pension credit is one important issue that the Government should review as we look to bring positive change, many other areas would also benefit from innovation and further development. One such area is the auto-enrolment regime. Auto-enrolment was introduced by the Government to improve pension savings in the UK, and it has worked, reversing the decline of workplace pension saving. Prior to the start of auto-enrolment, the number of eligible employees who enrolled was 10.7 million. That has now increased to almost 19 million—almost 90% of those eligible.
While that confirms the success of its original aims, instead of engaging the wider public in taking an active role in their workplace pensions, being auto-enrolled has meant that the vast majority of savers assume they will automatically have a large pension pot when they retire. However, that is often not the case, and we have added a layer of what I will call complacency risk into the mix of other issues to consider. It is the risk that people will assume that the pot they are building up is going to get them a particular lifestyle in retirement, which may not always match reality.
Do not get me wrong; auto-enrolment has been fantastic in getting pensions moving again. I really believe that we should be looking at what has been done so far as a starting point rather than an end game.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I accept entirely that this is a legitimate discussion about the future progress of automatic enrolment, which has transformed savings among women and young people to the extent that 80% are now saving, up from 40%. He is right that we are doing better than we have previously done, but it is the suggestions for the future that clearly need to take us forward. I support entirely the direction of travel that he is taking us on.
Rob Roberts
I thank the Minister for his intervention. The suggestions for the future are about to unfold before his very eyes, as he may have anticipated.
Analysis by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association suggests that the current contribution rate of 8% is simply not enough for people to have a good standard of living in retirement. I fear that will be the case for many people in several years’ time who have been auto-enrolled into workplace pensions and assume that, as the rate is automatically set by the Government, that means they will have a comfortable pension pot when they retire. Unfortunately, many people are simply not engaged enough with their pensions to realise that until it is too late, despite them being fundamental to their future. I fear auto-enrolment has created the complacency I mentioned earlier.
To combat that issue the PLSA has proposed an increase in the minimum contribution level, to at least 12%, and I agree. Forty-three per cent. of savers do not know how much of their monthly salary they should be saving, in any case, and the increase would benefit a great many individuals, by increasing their savings further. Additional changes could include reducing the starting age to 18 and removing the lower earnings limit, so that every penny of earned income counts towards pensionable pay. According to the Association of British Insurers that would have the potential to save a further £2.5 billion in pension pots. It would not only increase the number of years over which an individual saved, and consequently increase the pot; it would emphasise the importance of saving from a younger age.
What else can we do with auto-enrolment? Why not think a little more outside the box and create a savings culture in the UK? If covid has taught us anything it is the importance of preparedness and planning for every eventuality. One of the bedrocks of financial planning is having an emergency fund in place, but putting money away each month is perhaps easier said than done—there is always something else to spend it on.
We could look at including a savings element in auto-enrolment. Why not, when payroll makes a deduction for the relevant amount for a pension, put 1% into a savings pot at the same time? There could be an auto-enrolment ISA, and people could be given the ability to increase the percentage to what they can afford. Creating a savings culture on the back of pensions policy could be one of the more pleasant side effects of covid. Many people might be more open to having emergency funds to combat future challenges.
Another area of pension policy that could benefit from further positive change are the annual and lifetime allowances. Bearing in mind that that is a Treasury issue and not necessarily one for the Department for Work and Pensions, I shall not labour the point, but there is no need for an annual allowance if there is a lifetime allowance. Saving should be encouraged, and individuals should not be penalised for taking on extra work and saving more into their pensions. That happened to doctors recently, leading to them not taking on shifts and procedures because of the danger of a significant tax bill. A potential solution to that issue would be to remove the tax penalty for breaching the annual allowance, but keep the restriction on the amount of tax relief available to current limits. There would be no additional cost to the Exchequer, and people would be able to continue saving into their pensions in the same way. Yet those who were unnecessarily penalised under the limits of the annual allowance would not be at a disadvantage. As I have said, it is a Treasury area, and I am sure that the Minister will take great pleasure in passing it along.
Wider change is needed in the pensions industry, and one way to achieve that and encourage people to engage earlier with pensions is by improving the accessibility and reach of financial advice and guidance. Despite having been a financial planner involved in the pensions industry for many years prior to coming to this place, I admit that the topic of pensions can be complex. I can see how, for many without such experience and knowledge, pensions could be viewed as hard to understand or even, God forbid, a boring subject—a terrible thought.
I welcome the Government’s push for a simpler regime, which is coming down the line, to make statements more comprehensible for both the consumer and professionals. Members would not believe the wide range of disparate information that pension providers send out to customers, making it impossible not only to understand what they have but to make accurate comparisons between providers. It is currently extremely complicated, and I look forward to simpler statements that will put the consumer in charge. I keep my fingers crossed that that policy will not be several years in the making, as the wheels of Government tend to take rather an age to turn.
It is right to empower individuals to make their own decisions about their futures, but we should ensure that before they make such life-changing decisions they feel informed and supported, and have considered their own unique circumstances. Advice and guidance about pensions needs to be accessible, affordable and available. Despite the benefits that financial advice can bring, only 8% of all UK adults have received it. That is, amazingly, an increase on previous years, but it is still shockingly low, and it puts individuals’ retirements at risk. Whether that is because people feel that financial advice is unaffordable or only for the wealthy, or because they feel it is a risk and do not trust the financial services industry, we need to work actively to change those perceptions and show that financial advice is for everyone.
I can assure the public that the vast majority of advisers whom I have worked with will treat someone’s £30,000 pension pot with the same care and diligence that they will treat someone’s £300,000 pot, because each sum is just as important to the individual concerned. Indeed, the smaller pot can be considered to be much more important to that individual in many ways, because it will often be a lower-earning individual’s only pension provision, and so the risks of it running out too early are more significant.
If we do not promote the need for and the benefits of financial advice, I worry that we will have a retirement crisis on our hands 20, 30 or 40 years down the line. Recent data shows that 35% of the adult population say they do not have a pension. Of those who do have one, 36% are not sure how much is in their pot. Even more worryingly, the uncertainty around pensions goes further than uncertainty about individual circumstances, with almost half the population admitting that they do not have a clue about how much income they would need to retire comfortably. That clearly shows that widespread advice and education regarding pensions and retirement are urgently needed if we want people to be able to live out their later years in financial security and comfort.
In the past, these types of financial decisions and risks were shouldered by employers, pension providers and life insurance companies. Now, however, with the introduction of greater flexibility and freedom to the pensions marketplace, it is increasingly down to the individual to decide these matters, which is a wonderful thing in some respects, but worrying in others. We should not really place all responsibility for such important decisions on to people themselves. Instead, we should ensure that people feel supported and know where to turn for help and advice.
Financial advice is not only needed to help people feel more informed and aware when they make decisions that will affect their lives; it also adds real value to people’s pensions, providing them with a better retirement in the long run. A recent report by the International Longevity Centre found that those who have sought professional financial advice are better off by an average of £40,000 in their pension pot compared with those who did not seek advice. That is not an insignificant amount of money. Ensuring that financial advice is seen as a viable option for people is not only the right thing to do, but crucial if we want people to have the best possible future, as well as the peace of mind that they are making the right decisions to benefit themselves.
Most importantly, how can we make sure that people are accessing the right financial advice and support? Forcing people to access support is not an option. Some people will not even take a vaccine to save lives, for goodness’ sake, so mandating things just because people have an in-built aversion to being dictated to does not work.
One option, however, is to encourage individuals to use guidance services, such as Pension Wise, the free and impartial guidance service that was set up in 2015. Accessing guidance is often the first step towards accessing full financial advice and should be greatly encouraged. Seeking guidance helps people to gain a good initial understanding about their options and also helps to boost their confidence in their ability to do things such as avoiding pension scams, which, sadly, are all too common.
In addition, we know that financial guidance is a great enabler for the full advice process. Data from Pension Wise’s user evaluation report recently found that 36% of customers who booked an appointment with Pension Wise went on to speak to a financial adviser in the following three months, compared with only 22% of non-users. That highlights the fact that we need to emphasise the benefits of these services, and ensure that people use them as early as possible to improve advice take-up and improve the financial outlook for many individuals in the UK.
Currently, it is far too easy to opt out of taking this free guidance from Pension Wise. Many studies over many years have shown that individuals need several exposures to information before they start taking action, so perhaps we need to start them on that journey a little bit earlier, so that they are engaged in the process when the time is right.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on his speech, which shows his great expertise in this important policy field, and he is right to press on this issue of financial advice. However, does he agree that the education systems of the respective countries of the UK should play a greater role, so that our children are financially capable when they leave school? When it comes to pensions in particular, the earlier that people start saving for their pension, the better. Interventions need to happen far earlier than they do now.
Rob Roberts
Absolutely—that is a very salient and very welcome intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I completely agree.
We need to start financial education in schools about the more basic things: what is a current account? How does it work? What is an overdraft? What is a credit card? The number of people leaving school and university who are already in massive debt before even taking into account things such as university fees is staggering. If we are not getting people on the right footing, I completely agree that we should be looking into developing that. People need to start the journey earlier.
During my research for this speech, I came across an article from years ago with a picture of a young-looking fresh-faced pensions Minister: my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham. He was supporting the concept of a provider’s mid-life MOT. Engagement with the UK population as a matter of course when a person hits particular ages could be a transformative idea. Imagine the benefits of speaking to someone aged 45, when they may be in a more stable home and employment situation after those expensive years of having young children, and providing that person with some guidance on what they should be looking at from a financial point of view! That could have a significant impact on their outlook on pensions and financial planning for their remaining 20-plus years before retirement.
Guy Opperman
I am conscious that this job has aged me a great deal and that I look different from the fresh-faced photograph taken in 2017 when I first got it. I have no idea why I have aged so much in the job—aside from putting on the lockdown stone.
On the mid-life MOT, I point my hon. Friend to the Aviva trial and the various other trials done by the private sector. The mid-life MOTs started out as an HR benefit to employees. Their benefit to employees was found to be good, but the benefit to the business and to wider state in terms of wealth, work and wellbeing—the three things on which it is measured—was utterly transformational. I encourage all businesses to follow the initiative of those companies and the public sector to follow the initiative of the DWP, which also pioneered the mid-life MOT.
Rob Roberts
Absolutely; I thank the Minister for his intervention. It was in the Aviva article that I saw the fresh-faced youthfulness of the Minister, although he has now turned into an advert for Just for Men. It is working well for him.
The Minister is absolutely right. Adding a health review to that mid-life MOT process could also have untold benefits: it could catch illnesses early and could encourage people to change their lifestyle before problems arise. I completely endorse the Minister’s support of the mid-life MOT process and encourage him to work across Departments to put something together in that space that could drive real change in financial and medical wellbeing.
The banking and financial industry has developed and adapted to the 21st century, and in the same way the financial advice sector needs to undergo wholesale reform and change. Financial advice is often viewed as too expensive, or individuals worry that they do not have enough to invest. Those outdated perceptions of the sector need to change. To do that, the sector needs to become more transparent and to move towards set fees on an hourly rate, or towards a project fee basis. That would help make access to financial advice easier and more affordable.
There is a large amount of worry and mistrust around the financial services industry. It would certainly help boost consumers’ trust and confidence that they were getting the right advice if the advice sector were made more transparent. The inherent unfairness of percentage-based charging is clear. It is simply wrong to charge double the fee for handling a £200,000 investment compared with a £100,000 investment; it literally takes no more time and no more resource to do the work.
Even factoring in slightly more indemnity risk to the adviser for advising on a higher sum would certainly not justify anything like a doubling of the fee. I firmly believe that the public should seek out advisers who charge fees expressed in pounds and pence, and who give a quotation for services based on time expected or a fixed project fee rather than a percentage-based amount.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that many providers who give pensions advice should actually be putting their fees and charges explicitly on websites and other promotional materials, so that people can see what the costs would be from the start of the process?
Rob Roberts
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is now incumbent on advisers when they see clients for the first time to give them an initial disclosure document, which sets out the fees and charges that the client can rightly expect to pay. The disclosure of fees should always be completely upfront and agreed to by the client, before any work is undertaken—that is an absolutely vital part of the process, for sure.
Too many consumers are missing out on the potential opportunities that advice can bring because of a lack of understanding or a perception that advice is too expensive. It is time to develop the financial advice sector and make it work for consumers. I urge the Minister to continue to develop awareness of financial advice and guidance services, and make them as accessible as possible so that the advice gap around pensions can be closed.
One area of pensions where the advice gap is intrinsically linked is costs and charges associated with pensions. In many cases, the associated costs and charges, whether the annual management charge or underlying fund charges, are too much of a focus for consumers, advisers, the regulator and policy—to the detriment of the performance and quality of the actual pension. Instead of focusing on which contract is the cheapest, more time and guidance need to be shared that consider the end result and outcome. This is what will be available to pensioners and what will impact the quality of their retirement.
Even though pension costs may be more expensive, if a contract has the propensity to generate higher returns, it will give a better end result for the individual. In addition, as many people do not seek financial advice regarding their pension, many will lack the knowledge to understand the full impact of any costs and charges, which often leads to people choosing the cheapest contract which may not benefit their situation. The principle of having lower charges and less of a drag on performance is a noble principle, but it does not always work out that principles follow through to superior outcomes. It is the outcomes that people can spend in retirement, not the principle.
Finally, it would not be right to hold a debate that seeks to improve people’s future in retirement without considering how to ensure that the pension industry is becoming green and playing its part in protecting the environment. Given that pension funds—long-term investments—hold around $20 trillion in assets globally, they are an integral part of socially responsible investing and can play a major part in helping the UK to reach net zero. I commend, in his absence, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), whose campaign has led to the UK’s first green investment bond, which is on the horizon.
According to the Make My Money Matter campaign, sustainable pensions are 27 times more impactful in reducing your carbon footprint than stopping air travel and following a plant-based diet combined—27 times! Looking across the whole fund universe, we see that relatively few pension funds have fully embraced socially responsible investing or incorporated environmental, social and governance factors into their processes. While some have suggested that the Government should force private pension schemes to invest in a socially responsible way, that feels like an over-reach—an inappropriate and counter-productive use of power—as it may well encourage disinvestment. The bottom line to keep in mind is that pensions are there to provide retirement income first and foremost; if we can save the planet afterwards, that is an extra bonus. But 68% of UK savers want their investments to consider people and planet alongside profits, while 71% would opt for a fully or partially sustainable pension if they had the choice, showing the demand for socially responsible investment of pensions.
The Pension Schemes Bill has recently created a taskforce on climate-related financial disclosures that puts the consumer in charge and increases the transparency of pension funds regarding investments. There is clearly a demand in the UK for socially responsible investing within pension funds. The Government aim to facilitate that, as shown with the taskforce, and I commend them for it and look forward to seeing how it develops.
As I said at the beginning, pension policy is a topic that can often be overlooked. It is overly complex, too technical and not relevant to the many immediate, pressing issues of the day. But it does not have to be overlooked. Pensions policy is an incredibly important topic that will impact all of us in later life as we look to retire, and it is the responsibility of all of us to look at how we can shape it positively to provide the best retirement for as many people as possible. The contributions and sacrifices that our older citizens have made throughout this pandemic, and indeed throughout their lives, are considerable, and it is only right that our policies recognise and reflect that hard work and allow them to live out their retirement in comfort with the peace of mind that their pension will see them through.
I look forward to the contributions of colleagues, including the Minister and the shadow Minister. Although great strides have been made through the Pension Schemes Bill, there is more to do if we want our pensioners to have the retirement they deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me say that if we take no more than seven minutes per Back Bencher, it will all go swimmingly.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) on securing this incredibly important debate.
We have rightly spoken a lot over the past few months about how deeply people have been affected throughout this pandemic—people who have lost jobs, businesses that are worried that they are going under and the 3 million people who have not been able to access covid support. I am here today to speak up for my pension-age constituents who are struggling too.
As we have heard, since 2010 at least an extra 400,000 pensioners have been pushed into poverty, and a generation of women born in the 1950s were betrayed. That left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans, with sometimes devastating personal consequences, including for people I have spoken to in Luton North. The people who have written to me have done the right thing in life: they paid into the system and worked hard, and now they want their Government to be there when they need it. They include people such as my mum and her generation of friends—the WASPI women.
One Luton North constituent wrote:
“I am 65 years old and I am due to receive my state pension next year—at the age of 66.
I am currently struggling financially. I was due to receive my pension at the age of 60. I have worked my whole life and then I stopped as I became a carer for my elderly mother.
I am not entitled to apply for any benefits. With the current covid pandemic it is even more difficult for me to consider working. I suffer from a lot of health problems. I was diagnosed with TB last year and since had been receiving treatment for it.
I have never struggled so much financially before as I am now and the pandemic has made it even worse for me.”
I wish I could say that that was a one-off, Minister, but I am afraid that my inbox has been full of similar letters.
Jonathan Edwards
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that very important issue. I have also received numerous pieces of correspondence over the years in relation to that group of women. The anger about the injustice relates to the goalposts being changed late in their lives.
What in her view is the way forward to help address the problems faced by those women? Some are campaigning for bridging pensions or early access to their state pension. Is her view that that is the way forward, or does she support an alternative strategy?
Sarah Owen
That is something that I will come to later in my speech. Whatever the future of our pension policy is, that injustice must be addressed.
The pandemic has had a devastating impact on older people in this country, in terms of isolation, their mental and physical health, and their finances. I want to put on the record my thanks to wonderful organisations such as Age Concern in Luton, which has been there every step of the way for older people in my constituency.
However, it should not be this way. The Government should not be turning their back on pensioners. I was truly appalled by the decision this year to scrap free TV licences for over-75s, which added yet another financial burden and barrier to accessing important information, especially at this time. What are the Government going to do during the pandemic to help those pensioners who, like so many others, have found themselves struggling to make ends meet?
As we enter one of the worst recessions since records began, what guarantees will the Minister give to protect pensions in the future? The recent findings from the Pensions Policy Institute show that single mothers, carers, disabled people and black, Asian and minority ethnic groups had pension wealth of just 15% of the national average, and that 81% of carers and 21% of disabled people are currently shut out of being automatically enrolled in a workplace pension. What is the Minister doing to tackle that huge savings gap, which is scandalous?
It is clear that even before the pandemic many people already felt a deep sense of unfairness about our pension system. Parliament has debated the issue, in a full Chamber, time and again, because of the strength of feeling among the 1950s women we represent who have been ripped off by this Government.
As a new Member, this is my first opportunity to raise the countless emails that I know we have all received on this issue and the massive number of conversations we have all had. I had many conversations on doorsteps at the time of the election. One gentleman came out of a mosque and said, “I wasn’t sure how I was going to vote, but I’m definitely voting for Labour now, because my wife has told me that you have promised that we will see justice for the WASPI women.”
I would like to give that hope to every family because this is not just about women—it is also about the families supported by those women. Any future reforms of pensions policy must come with justice for the 1950s women who lost out when the Government changed the pension age. Again, this is all about fairness. Those women worked, paid in and did the right thing, then had part of their pensions taken away. I ask the Minister whether the Government’s line from last year still stands. Is there no money for the WASPI women or will that change? Dignity as we grow older should not be an optional extra; it should be the very basic that the Government should provide. In one of the richest countries in the world, we should not have any older people living in poverty.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) for securing this important debate and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
This is an important debate on a subject that should be talked about more by more of us. My hon. Friend mentioned the number of people who do talk about pensions. We could have done with seeing a few more people here today representing their constituents to discuss the future pensions policy of this country, which is incredibly important. I am sure my hon. Friend will thank all hon. Members here for participating; it is testimony to those who really care about the issue that they are here today.
The matter affects the lives of millions of people in our country. It is very complex and complicated for people to navigate. My Southport constituency has an incredibly high level of pensioners. We not only have a high number of our own but people come to retire to our beautiful seaside resort, so I quite often talk about pensions with people there.
I will discuss a few issues on pensions policy. A number of points have already been made but I want to reiterate some of them in my speech. I will first say that the introduction of the Pension Schemes Bill was welcome. It contains meaningful and impactful measures that will go a long way to address the challenges faced by pensioners. We know, for example, that people might hold at least 11 different jobs during their working lives and will have paid into a multitude of different pension pots. Someone is more likely to have 25 different name badges from companies than a gold watch after 25 years of service.
Most people will only realise when they reach that stage in life of coming up to retirement that those pension pots are theirs and are available, and they need to know how best to utilise them. That point is often too late. People might not realise that sometimes it is possible to take out funds, that the funds might not have been invested in the right way or might have been invested in a way that that person did not want. Information from pension providers, not just the annual update but more regular ones, is really important. Employers should also talk about pensions on payslips, whether they are physical or virtual, asking whether someone is getting the right pensions advice. That could be done every month for those who are paid monthly or every week for those paid weekly. There should be something there specifically talking about pensions, so that people are informed and reminded every step of the way, because people are obviously very busy.
The pensions dashboard is welcome. It will simplify pension information and bring it to one place. It will empower people to do more than they have previously been able to do, with pieces of paper given on an intermittent basis.
Another area of the Pension Schemes Bill is green pension investments. The UK is the first major economy to put climate risk and disclosure into statute for pension schemes. I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about that last week. It is a new area for pensions, but the generations coming up are more inclined to support green issues and might want their pensions to be invested in some of those companies, so we should empower them to do that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn set out, people should receive a good retirement. The Government have shown through the Bill that they understand the issues facing pensioners; I genuinely believe that they are responding to them. When we talk about pensions, however, we are talking about the end of the process—when people will receive one or what time of life they will retire. We need to start talking about pensions at the beginning of people’s working lives when they start a job or a career and, hopefully, start saving for their retirement. As he said, it may not be the sexiest subject to speak about, but it is one of the most important. If somebody gets it right or wrong at the start of their career, it can be life-changing. Of course, as has been said, we should also look at points in time where we can have an MOT of where our pensions are.
Education in schools is critical and it should be there for all children in all schools. My financial education was about opening a bank account, credit cards, overdrafts and how to fill in a cheque, which was a cause of great excitement for many fellow pupils. I must say that I am still excited about it; I still use cheques. That being said, there should have been, and there should be now, more emphasis on pensions and what that will mean in later life. If we do not start explaining the long-term value of saving for a pension, we will never do it when people get close to the point of receiving one. That is really important. I know that the Minister is committed to lifelong financial education, and there is no better advocate of that than him in the Government, but I would like to see more of that happen when he speaks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.
On pension credit, which has also been brought up, I know that the Government are doing all they can to ensure that people who are eligible for pension credit, who have paid into the system throughout their lives and done the right thing, receive it. Pension credit ensures that the pension of those who receive a weekly income is brought up to the minimum amount, which is an absolute lifeline to many people. As has been said, many people do not claim everything they can. We should encourage people to claim what they are entitled to.
Recent research commissioned by Independent Age shows that we must work harder on that. If the level of pension credit uptake was boosted to 100%, it could lift 450,000 pensioners out of poverty. Whether they are buying groceries or heating their homes, it is important that people in older age are living a life, not just existing, and that they do not feel shut away from society in any way. In 2018-19, £1.8 billion of pension credit was not received by those eligible for it. The low uptake of pension credit costs the taxpayer £4 billion a year in additional unavoidable NHS and social care spending. In an area that we are looking to reform and make better, we could prevent that high level of spending by giving people what they are entitled to.
Renewing our focus on increasing uptake would save the taxpayer money, as I have said, and people in all parts of our country would have a better standard of living. DWP representatives have already confirmed that the technology is there for greater automation of benefit provision and that the data required is largely already held by the Government. Hopefully, we can unlock that to get the process going. We need to build on that and work towards meaningful solutions for those in pension credit scenarios.
The key things that I would like the Minister to take away include education, of course, which is where we can start to build a better pensions policy and framework. If people have better education, they can take control of their lives. In later life, we need to look at the pension credit issue. We should also have an eye on innovation, technology and green industries and ensure that they are promoted to people now, because there is no better time for them to be thinking about it, in terms of their future and the future of our planet.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate this afternoon, Mr Hosie. I thank the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) for securing it.
The insecurity and inequality that people experience throughout their working lives is amplified in older life. I certainly see that in my constituency, where, regrettably, insecure work mars the lives of many people. It was in the city of York that Joseph Rowntree first introduced pensions in his factory in 1906, ahead of the Old Age Pensions Act 1908, which came into effect on 1 January 1909—on pensions day, as it was known. It was Seebohm Rowntree’s work in this field that brought about that Act, so my city has a real investment in today’s debate.
We need to ask what the problem is that we are trying to solve around pensions. Are pensions simply part of reward packages and used as a recruitment and retention tool by employers? Are employers really interested in the economic fortunes of their former employees once they have left their employment? How do we address the serious issue of pensioner poverty, and are pensions fair and equitable or dependent too much on past income, which we know is inequitable in itself? Today, 1.9 million older people live in poverty, which really amplifies how pensions have gone wrong, and we therefore need to look at how we address those issues.
I view this issue through the prism of women and their experiences of the inequality that is already built into their working life by the pay gap. They are more likely to be in part-time employment and more likely to be carers, and there is also the serious issue of underemployment. In fact, since the start of the pandemic, 70% of people who have lost their jobs are women. We therefore need to understand why so many women are in pensioner poverty.
Young workers and black workers are more likely to be in insecure jobs. Disabled people lose out altogether and fare worse. Inequality is hardwired into our pension system, exacerbating the unfairness of employment. I observed over the years as a trade union official how we needed to bring redress into our pension system, which is an issue I would welcome the Minister looking at specifically.
On state pensions, many countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Australia have far better statutory provision in later life, as can be seen in the quality of life that people experience. The Netherlands pays 95% of average earnings, Denmark 66%, Australia 58% and the UK just 29%. Insufficiency is also built into our pensions system. We have heard much about the pension credit system, but take-up is only 60% , with £2.8 billion not claimed. I therefore support automation. Data can be shared and the technology is there to tackle inequality and enable people to access not only their pensions but, as we have heard, TV licences and other such benefits. It is really important that the gap is closed with the mechanisms we have available to achieve that.
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Lady is making a very well informed speech, as is typical of her. Does she agree that much of the drive over recent decades to increase the state pension age has been driven by the fact that life expectancy has been increasing? However, there is evidence that that is reversing and life expectancy is starting to fall. If that is sustained, the UK Government need to look at pensions policy and perhaps reverse the pension age increases that we have seen over recent decades.
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Of course, that was the basis on which the Cridland review undertook its exercise of looking at how to address an ageing population, so he is right that the Government need to look at that issue.
Turning to employer schemes, we have seen a change in the schemes over the years from more beneficial schemes such as the defined-benefit schemes, first from final salary to career-average earnings schemes. There has also been a rapid move to defined-contribution schemes, where more risk is placed with the worker. Therefore, people’s lack of engagement in the complex world of pensions is ever more understandable. Of course, auto-enrolment in some of the pension schemes shows insufficiency, which the hon. Member for Delyn drew out, but the employer contribution of just 3% is hardly that of an employer investing in their workers’ future. I would urge, if we are looking at raising the sufficiency of stakeholder schemes, a greater employer contribution into those schemes, as opposed to the burden being placed on the workers’ shoulders.
I would also like the Minister to look at the number of pension schemes. Many countries have just a few hundred pension schemes altogether; we have more than 10,000, and we know that many of those schemes are struggling. I have looked at the charity sector, where, among the top 50 charities, there is now a deficit of £1.5 billion. We know that in other sectors, people move from job to job to job and therefore have no time to build up a pension pot with a company. If we moved to a more sectoral model, that would give individuals a lot more scope to build a pension for their future, and a model of sectoral bargaining could shape such pension schemes. I think it would be helpful to look into that.
As I have mentioned, equality needs to be brought to the fore, not least because of the impact in terms of women in poverty in later life. Economic events impact on pensions so much. We therefore need to address those issues, but we also need to recognise that in later life, people from areas of deprivation are more likely to be in poor health and so working longer is not always relevant. We need more flexibility to be built into pensions in later life, but we also need to ensure that individuals do not lose out because they work in different ways.
I echo the support that has been expressed for more financial education. I, too, was at the event that Aviva held on work, wealth and wellbeing. It was particularly about people having an MOT to check on them—to check their mental health as well as their physical health—and to look in mid-life at the opportunities and the finances ahead. We need to ensure that such opportunities are open to everyone.
Finally, I want to draw attention to the importance of building confidence again in the pensions system. At a time when people have so little dispensable resource, they will be making choices about whether to invest in their longer-term future or to buy essentials, such as a meal for their family. We therefore need to ensure that we address the poverty today as well as the poverty tomorrow. The WASPI women are one example of a group that certainly made the right choices, yet was badly let down by the changes brought about by Government decisions. We need to build confidence in our system to ensure that there are fair choices for people in the future.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) on securing the debate. This autumn has demonstrated that there is a considerable appetite in the House for discussion of pensions policy. We have had the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2020 and a landmark piece of pensions legislation in the Pension Schemes Bill, with amendments yet to be considered in the House of Lords. Not content with all that debate, we now find ourselves, thanks to the hon. Member for Delyn, looking to the horizon of pension policies yet to come.
Of course, that is entirely the right approach, for two reasons. First, pensions are, by their very nature, a long-term product, so the policy decisions we are making now will have an impact quite literally decades down the line. Let us say that someone is in their early 20s, has just started their first permanent job and is making their first pension contributions. They will not be drawing down their pension for another 45 or even 50 years, most likely, so the legislation and regulations that we make now—those, for instance, that are part of the Pension Schemes Bill—will have an effect stretching all the way to 2070 and beyond. That really is long-term policy making.
Secondly, this century poses new challenges of huge proportions. Those challenges of course include automation, an ageing population, with increasing life expectancy—I note the comments of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) on that—and the climate emergency. I would not normally choose to quote Donald Rumsfeld, but when we consider the profound and unforeseen impact that a global pandemic has had on our society this year, we have to recognise that it is not just the identifiable factors that we need to be concerned about; it is also the “unknown unknowns”.
An incredibly important matter when it comes to long-term pensions policy is the triple lock. It was a decade ago that the Liberal Democrats helped introduce the triple lock on the state pension, and I pay tribute to the then Pensions Minister and former Liberal Democrat MP Steve Webb, who was instrumental in that. The triple lock has been a huge success and an incredibly popular measure: indeed, since its introduction, it has been adopted by all major parties, although I note with concern that there has been some speculation that the Government may look to scrap it in future. I hope that rumours of its demise are greatly exaggerated, because I do think that the triple lock plays a crucial role.
During the debate about the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill in October, I spoke to the issue of intergenerational fairness. That issue has become very clear over the past few months, during which young people have had to put their lives on hold to stop the spread of a virus that does not always pose the same threat to them as it does to older people in our society. Of course, it is young people who will bear the brunt of the current and future economic costs, not only because of the immediate impact on the jobs market that we are seeing, but because they will be saddled with the debt accrued into the future.
Some say that the triple lock is making the gap between the generations grow even further because, on the face of it, a large sum of money is being spent on older people. However, as I made clear during the debate on the uprating Bill, it is increasingly the case that many working-age people are unable to save adequately for their retirement. It is certainly the case that defined-benefit schemes, which many people were historically enrolled in, are being used far less frequently. That all means an increasing reliance on the state pension. As such, it is vital that we make sure the state pension is strong, not only for this generation of retirees but for the next one and the one after that. I continue to urge the Government, as I did during the passage of that Bill, to ensure that the triple lock is retained, now and in the future. We need to ensure a good deal for the generation of people who are currently only starting out in work. The choices we make now will have an impact decades into the future.
However, pensions policy is not just about the long term. As we have heard from other Members, there are many steps that can and should be taken to ensure that pensions work better for people who are about to retire, or who have retired already. Pensioners are feeling real financial impacts now, including the Equitable Life scandal, the situation experienced by the WASPI women and the issues with plumbers’ pensions, which I raised during the debate on the Pension Schemes Bill last month. There is also the fact that many British pensioners overseas have their state pensions frozen, and the Government have not committed to uplifting those pensions, at the very least for the duration of the covid pandemic. This has been a hugely difficult time for many of those pensioners in many different countries. We might just have taken a huge step in relation to pensions through legislation, but these campaigns continue, and it is imperative that the Government actively engage with them. Many of those campaigners are disheartened that the chance they felt they had to resolve those issues through the Pension Schemes Bill was missed, and feel that they remain unheard.
Another issue that I hope the Minister will address is that of married women who have been underpaid their state pension, having not been upgraded to their full pension when their husband reached state pension age. They could potentially be eligible for thousands of pounds in repayment from the Department for Work and Pensions. This is an issue that Steve Webb, whom I mentioned earlier, is working to highlight and resolve. We know that at least 1,900 women have been paid out to, but the Government have not yet said how much money has been paid out in total. We urgently need to know how many women the Government estimate have potentially been underpaid. It is so important that these women are informed as soon as possible that they have been underpaid.
Many Members have talked about pension credit; we need to inform people of what they are due. I hope the Minister will address that in his response, because so far there has not been sufficient clarity from the Government about the scale of this problem and what has been done to address it.
Finally, I come back to the Pension Schemes Bill, because it has not yet been passed. Amendments are still being considered by the Lords, and while the scope of possible changes to the Bill is now limited, I do hope the Government will be willing to engage and potentially to restore some of the additions made to the Bill. As the Minister knows, I am particularly keen to see further clarity on the issue of open defined-benefit schemes, and I hope the Government will continue to engage with my colleague Baroness Bowles on that issue—in fact, I believe they are doing so today.
Guy Opperman
On that particular point, the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that, provided this debate ends on time, I will go straight into a meeting with a cross-party group of Lords about clause 123 and open DB. I will be making the point that the Pensions Regulator will be very happy to meet the Lords to engage with them and ensure that they have an opportunity to fully comprehend what the proposed regulations are going to be. I will also make the point that we remain very supportive of DB on an ongoing basis.
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the Minister for that intervention. I only became aware of the meeting today, while I was sitting here, a short time ago, and I thank him for his response. There is still an opportunity to make the Bill even better than it is, and I urge the Government to take that chance. That Bill lays the foundations for the future of pensions policy.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I thank the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) for securing today’s debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) would have been here today but for her recent health issues. Other Members will be pleased to hear that she is showing good signs of recovery, and I know that everyone will join me in sending our best wishes to her.
Members should be in no doubt that the Scottish National party believes that pensions policy should be in Scotland’s hands; this would let our Scottish Parliament set a policy that reflects Scotland’s circumstances. That opportunity to do things that work better for people in Scotland will come with independence, which more and more people recognise as the best future for Scotland.
For now, while the SNP broadly supported the Bill, we believe that improvements can be made, including in managing the roll-out and risks of pensions dashboards, protecting existing defined benefit schemes, tackling the injustice of section 75 debt, and improving automatic enrolment. However, pensions policy must address more fundamental issues; as the hon. Member for Delyn said, pensions policy should be a simple matter, allowing people to save up during their working lives to finance their retirements. Instead, it is notoriously complex; it is of such complexity that many people switch off, leaving their biggest asset—their future security—in the hands of others. Adding new options, such as collective money purchase schemes, increases that complexity.
One of the questions facing the UK is: why has the pensions bar been set so low compared with other countries? A 2017 report by the OECD found that UK pensioners get the worst deal of any OECD country, retiring on just 29% of nation average earnings, compared with an OECD average of 63% and an average for EU member states of 71%.
As the UK’s population ages, this leaves much of the population with little choice and limited purchasing power. Even the triple lock, which the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) spoke about comprehensively, has had a limited impact, with the value of the basic state pension increasing by less than 1.5% of national average earnings since 2011.
Recognising that pensions are too low to support a lengthy retirement should be the beginning of a serious programme for change. The SNP has long supported the establishment of an independent savings and pensions commission to ensure that pensions and savings policies are fit for purpose. Such a commission could prevent changes being announced with no assessment of impacts, and without communication of the changes being made properly, as happened when the 1950s-born WASPI women had their state pension age changed with little or no notice or information, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) noted. The increase in state pension age beyond 66 also does not take into account the demographic challenges we face in Scotland, but it seems that we in Scotland, just like the WASPI women, are getting a message—that is, that this Government and this Parliament are not listening.
Ahead of the spending review, the Chancellor was warned that the proposal to reform measures of inflation would result in more than 10 million pensioners losing out if he moves to a lower inflation measure. Where was the public debate around a so-called technical adjustment that could take an estimated £60 billion out of UK pension funds?
For many people on low pensions, pension credit could be the difference between living in poverty and simply keeping their head above water. However, pension credit take-up has stagnated at around 60% for the last 10 years; more than 1 million pensioners are missing this lifeline, which also opens access to other vital benefits.
Despite only recently taking responsibility for some benefits, the Scottish Government have already published a benefit take-up strategy and are working to increase awareness of and access to Scottish benefits; I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) has done a great deal of work on this. The UK Government need a similar take-up campaign and a strategy for reserved benefits, including pension credit. I wonder whether the Minister will commit to putting such a campaign in place, to ensure that people are aware of benefits and can access those to which they are entitled.
In the midst of great uncertainty, protecting people’s savings and eliminating pensioner poverty is more important than it has ever been. Young people whose lives and prospects could be irreparably damaged by covid and Brexit face losing out on vital lifetime savings. We have heard that there are significant gender, ethnic and regional disparities in pension incomes that a pensions and savings commission could address.
A 2018 study by the Chartered Insurance Institute noted that, by the time a woman is aged 65 to 69, her average pension wealth is £35,700, which is roughly a fifth of that for a man of her age. That is a shocking figure and surely reflects the number of women who have not saved for a pension because of low earnings. The SNP supports automatic enrolment, but far too many have been left behind. The UK Government need to extend the coverage. That could be done by reducing the earnings threshold to the national insurance primary threshold, bringing almost 500,000 people—mostly women —into pension saving, and by lowering the age threshold from 22 to 18. Saving from the first pound earned would also reinforce the importance of starting a savings habit early, but that can be afforded only if we extend the real living wage.
One of the reasons for pensions complexity is the need for reassurance that funds held over long periods of time will not disappear or promised returns fail to materialise. That is why pensions need strong consumer protections. For too often, Governments have failed to deliver that. George Osborne failed to do so when he introduced so-called pension freedoms in 2015. The SNP voiced its opposition at the time, highlighting the risk to people of transferring funds out of their pension to their detriment. Unfortunately, the evidence is that this has turned into yet another Government-initiated scammers’ paradise that will further inflict damage on the reputation of the UK financial services sector.
I want to address the biggest long-term challenge we face in future pensions policy. What will happen to pensions if we allow the assets on which they depend to be significantly devalued or rendered unusable by climate change? The SNP supports industry calls for firms to include climate change-related disclosures in their annual reports. It sounded as though the hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) might agree with that. We are committed to putting that on to a statutory basis.
The SNP also supports moves to introduce an easy-to-understand system of climate-friendly external audits so small investors can better understand the climate-related risks of investments, including the risks facing company pension schemes. It was hugely disappointing that the UK Government prevented occupational pension schemes from being required to develop a strategy for aligning investments with Paris agreement goals and net zero emissions targets. With COP26 coming to Glasgow next year, perhaps the Minister could share with members what advice the Department for Work and Pensions has received from the Committee on Climate Change on the role of pensions in tackling the climate challenge. If no advice has been received, will the Department ask for it?
I would also like to ask the Minister to address the issue of frozen pensions that we have heard about already. Half a million UK pensioners living overseas do not receive an increase to their UK state pension with the value frozen when they leave the UK or when the pension is first drawn. This means that their pension decreases in real value year on year. Because it only applies in some countries, we now have significant inequality built up and, for instance, a disproportionate impact on groups such as the Windrush generation.
I will finish by highlighting the issue of inequality. That is the topic that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) was particularly concerned about. It was brought to my attention by a constituent who was allocated a share of her husband’s police pension as part of a divorce settlement. Having become unable to work owing to ill health, she was told that although her ex-husband had retired early and drawn his share of the pension, she is unable to do so until she turns 60. She was shocked to find that such discriminatory regulations are expressly permitted under section 61 of the Equality Act 2010. Does the Minister agree that this seems wholly inappropriate in 2020? Will he tell me what he thinks can be done to address that issue?
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I welcome this debate in which I speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). I congratulate the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) on securing the debate and on his broad-ranging opening remarks on the need to support pensioners and on the uptake of pension credit, the scourge of pensioner poverty, the sufficiency of pension savings and many other issues.
I thank other Members for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) spoke powerfully about the plight of the WASPI women. I also thank the hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore), my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain).
Hon. Members are right to say that pensions are all too often seen as a distant, complex topic. It is vital to make them easy and accessible to understand, particularly to engage younger people in savings choices early in their life. A pound saved at 18 is worth much more in retirement than a pound saved at the age of 30 or 40, or later. I welcome the many contributions on the importance of lifelong financial learning and literacy.
Ensuring that everyone, no matter their background, occupation or gender, has dignity and security in old age should be the fundamental objective of pensions policy. However, the complex and long-term nature of pensions policy decisions, and the long-term careful planning of public finances, mean that those ambitions are best realised through political co-operation and consensus. That is why, in government, Labour introduced the Pensions Commission in 2002, to provide a comprehensive analysis of the UK pensions system, assess how it was developing over time, and make recommendations on the long-term funding of pensions. Indeed, the commission charted a new direction in UK pensions policy and gained widespread consensus on reforms that might previously have been regarded as unthinkable.
I am proud that, for instance, it was the last Labour Government who created auto-enrolment, which has transformed the lives of millions, with 10 million more people now saving into a workplace pension. I give credit to the Government who took office in 2010 for their work to drive forward auto-enrolment. However, I think that we are all concerned that an estimated 12 million people may still be under-saving for retirement. We welcome the review of the policy that was commissioned in 2017 and its recommendations that the age threshold for auto-enrolment should be lowered from 22 to 18 and that the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band should be removed so that contributions are payable from the first pound earned by an employee. The Minister told us in Committee that the review will be implemented in the mid-2020s; but could we have confirmation that the intended legislation will enact those two proposals? If possible, can we have further detail on the timeframe?
Guy Opperman
I welcome the cross-party tone of the hon. Lady’s speech, and I hope it continues. Automatic enrolment is of course a classic example of a policy instituted by Labour, brought forward under the coalition and finally taken forward under the Conservative Government. We would definitely seek to take the action in question in the current Parliament, because we have said it would be brought forward by the mid-2020s; but many of the other policies that the hon. Lady is talking about, such as the state pension age increase brought in by the Labour Government in the Pensions Act 2007, are cross-party decisions, which I hope she continues to support.
Seema Malhotra
The Minister knows, indeed, the importance that we also give to cross-party consensus on such important strategic directions in pensions policy, and that we have worked closely with him on many measures in the Pension Schemes Bill. There could not be a more important time for us to work together to protect people’s financial security in retirement, because even though the Government have refused to publish their dossier on the economic impact of coronavirus, we know that the economic fallout is vast. Indeed, according to the OECD the pandemic has compounded the challenges for retirement savings, including pressures such as ageing populations, slow growth and low returns, which will continue long into the future.
Furthermore, the fall of major employers puts the pensions of entire workforces at risk. An example is the uncertain status of the 10,000 members of the Arcadia defined benefit pension scheme, where there is an eye-watering deficit of about £350 million. The Government must act to ensure that those workers get the pensions that they are owed. It is Labour’s firm view that Sir Philip Green and Lady Green owe a moral responsibility to the employees to fill the pensions shortfall. They must not allow their workers to go into Christmas not only having to deal with the consequences of losing their jobs, but fearing for their pensions.
The pandemic also brings an increased risk from pension scammers preying on people who are worried about the impact of the current economic uncertainty on their savings. That is why Labour fully supported the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) to the Pension Schemes Bill, to protect people better from risky transfers and improve the provision of advice, to stop people falling prey to scammers. We regret that the Government did not support my right hon. Friend’s amendments, but welcomed assurances from the Minister that regulations will be brought in to ensure that trustees should not have to proceed with a transfer where there are good grounds for believing that a proposed transfer involves moving pension savings into a scam.
On auto-enrolling people into pension guidance appointments, Pension Wise is an excellent service with high satisfaction ratings, but only one in 33 of those eligible to use it do so. Surely, it is more important than ever that people make use of impartial guidance appointments and we would welcome concrete proposals by the Government to improve take-up of these appointments.
On pension charges, at a time when millions are struggling, it is vital that pension costs and charges are reasonable and transparent, and that people receive value for money. Research by PensionBee found that 70% of non-advised draw-down customers pay more than 0.75% a year in charges costing them £40 million to £50 million extra a year and more than £175 million since the pension freedoms were introduced. The long-term impact of high costs and charges for income draw-down could be significant. It is argued that putting costs and charges on the simpler annual statement would confuse people. Instead of being provided with specific information about how much they are paying, they would be signposted to what could be pages and pages of information about charges. We note that the Minister has said that costs and charges information will only be displayed on the pensions dashboard in the longer term, but we would welcome any discussions about a guarantee for value for money as well.
I return to climate change, which is a very important area for future pension policy. The investment decisions taken by pensions involve trillions of pounds—the kind of money that can catalyse significant change when used responsibly, from investing in infrastructure to green technologies. Labour’s amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill sought to ask pension funds to demonstrate how they are helping us get to net zero emissions. It is hard to see how the Government can achieve their own climate goals while excluding trillions of pounds of British capital from those efforts. By voting against our amendment, we believe the Government missed a chance to mobilise pension funds to protect the planet and support the drive to net zero. This is despite the fact that there is clear public support for such a move. The Government must use all the tools at their disposal to channel pension funds into investments that benefit people and the planet.
Finally, I highlight the particular challenges faced by specific groups where injustices need further action. On the former ASW steelworkers, the Minister is aware of their desperate plight. Many worked for decades, paying 100% of their pensions, only to find years later that they only received half of what they were entitled to. They have been fighting for their full pensions for 20 years. Will the Minister confirm when he plans to meet the ASW steelworkers, as he has committed to, and will he work to find a cross-party solution?
I once again raise the plight of the WASPI women, about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) spoke so powerfully. Labour also found recently that 15,000 1950s women are claiming universal credit—the pandemic will have made this worse. It is unacceptable that 1950s women have been forgotten by the Conservative Government, both within the crisis and before.
Finally, on the issue of pension underpayment for married women, it feels as if almost every week a new story comes to light of the DWP’s mistakes in paying women their full pension entitlements. It is particularly concerning that many of those affected contacted the Department and were wrongly told that their pensions were correct. This is simply not good enough.
Every single one of the issues I have addressed relies on an effective departmental delivery of pension entitlements, yet this issue raises profound questions about the ability of the DWP to do just that. Labour called for an inquiry into the mismanagement of pensions payments earlier this year. It is time for the Government to take urgent action on this growing scandal, to make sure that every woman affected is paid the pension to which she is entitled and to redress the root causes of the mistakes made.
In conclusion, putting future pension policy on a long-term footing necessitates careful planning and a consensus-driven approach. Labour stands ready to support the Government where they bring forward proposals to protect people’s pensions and savings. However, we urge the Government to take action to address the clear cases of pension injustices that I have highlighted, as well as those likely to emerge through the pandemic. We also call on the Government to take a greater role in ensuring that funds are invested in a socially and environmentally beneficial way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) on securing this important debate, and I look forward greatly to summing up about 35 different points, in copious detail, in exactly nine minutes, and I undertake to try to write to hon. Members where I am unable to do so.
Starting with one particular point, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) was mentioned; I also had a brain tumour and collapsed in the House of Commons in 2011, and I wish her tremendous good fortune in her recovery. We miss her, and I look forward to her coming back to this place, causing me difficulties and posing important and genuine questions, which I am sure she will continue to do. We all send her our best wishes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn secured an important debate, the fundamental point of which is that pensions play a vital part in all our constituents’ lives, and it is right that we debate these matters and champion their causes on an ongoing basis. While the Government’s immediate priority is the conquering of covid and to build back better, and we have a plan for jobs taking things forward, we are also clear in our desire to ensure that we protect people’s pensions and support people in saving for their retirement. It is timely and right that my hon. Friend raises these points, and I will attempt to address them in a bit of detail.
I will first touch on the fundamentals of the state pension and the fact that we now spend £126 billion on pensioners—the highest that has ever been in this country—of which the state pension is £102 billion. The state pension has gone up by £1,900 in real terms since 2010, thanks to the triple lock and various other measures, and we are in a position that material deprivation for pensioners has fallen from 10% to 6% in 2018-19. Average pensioner incomes have grown significantly in real terms over the past two decades. Average weekly income in 1994-95 was £165 a week at 2018-19 prices, after housing costs, compared with £320 a week in 2018-19. Clearly, there is more to do, and my hon. Friend rightfully raises the issue of pension credit.
The policy was introduced by a previous Chancellor, Gordon Brown, under the Labour Government, and successive Governments have had a variety of strategies, advertising campaigns and initiatives to try to boost take-up. It is patently clear from the available statistics that, even with significant advertising campaigns, take-up of pension credit has been between 60% and 76%. For example, the Labour Government spent over £14 million after the launch of pension credit and the take-up went down, if not remained static, that particular year.
The reality is that we need to work with trusted partners, and that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to institute a variety of campaigns. We had a nationwide campaign in spring last year to boost pension credit. We also have the online pension credit claim facility, ensuring ease of access for anyone wishing to make a claim. A whole host of other matters are under way to take the pension credit take-up forward, but I would particularly inform the House that, following a cross-party meeting with the House of Lords, we have reached out to the BBC and to Tim Davie, its new chief executive, to see whether the BBC can do anything to improve and expand on that particular process. I will put on the record in the Library the letter that Baroness Stedman-Scott and I have written to Mr Davie to see to what extent we could significantly enhance the take-up of pension credit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn raised the idea of an automatic entitlement to pension credit. I fear that is something that is simply not possible on the data available to the state at this stage. There may be a time in the future when such data and capability exist, but it is not possible at the present stage.
I turn to the point he raises on automatic enrolment. Many things were said not only in respect of the cross-party nature of this particular problem, but also the desire for a better outcome. Automatic enrolment has ensured that the participation of private-sector eligible women has increased from 40% to 86%. That is equal to men, I should say. For private-sector eligible 22 to 29-year-olds, it has gone up from 24% to 85%. In 2019-20, working people will save an extra £18 billion into workplace pensions as a result of those reforms. All Members of Parliament will find that there are many thousands of constituents and employers who are doing the right thing and providing the 8% automatic enrolment.
Of course there is more to do. We will be instituting the lower earnings threshold from the age of 18. The Government have made it crucially clear, following the 2017 review, that that is what we will do, and without a shadow of a doubt that will be brought forward. I hope it is at some stage in this Parliament, but obviously these matters are somewhat beyond my control.
Speaking of things that are beyond my control, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn raised the very important issue of lifetime allowance on tax relief pension savings. He waxed lyrical about a point that I am delighted to say that I am going to raise with the Chancellor personally. I look forward to the Chancellor addressing it at the Budget statement in March if he feels so inclined. I hope my hon. Friend’s plea is taken on board, but clearly that is a matter entirely for the Chancellor.
On automatic enrolment, my hon. Friend raised a very interesting issue that I want to touch on: the idea of a 1% saving added on to the automatic enrolment in the future. There is no question but that we want to look at the possibly of having a rainy-day fund, whether it is a 1% add-on to whatever the future of automatic enrolment is. I am looking at that personally. Clearly, there are many decisions to be made about the future of automatic enrolment, but without a shadow of a doubt trying to improve the financial capability, resilience and inclusion of this country is massively important.
On that issue, we talked about the mid-life MOT, which we back totally. I met the new chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority to discuss how we can improve the capability of individuals from the age of 47. Apparently that is when men are in their mid-life; for women, it is later. The reality is that we want tremendously to improve the mid-life MOT as an option so that we address wealth, work and wellbeing at an early stage.
I have about a minute left. Simpler statements will go forward on state pension age increases. As I indicated to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), that is a Labour party policy that the coalition and Conservative Governments have continued to implement, and there are no plans to change that. We have an ongoing review of costs and charges, and clearly great work is going forward.
I am deeply grateful to the House for the opportunity to address pension policy. There is no question but that these are serious issues. The Government are absolutely zeroed in on trying to make pension policy work. I totally dispute the claim that we are not doing anything on climate change. With COP26 coming up, we are leading the way. We are the first country to legislate for net zero and for the taskforce on climate-related financial disclosures. We lead the way on all matters, including green gilts. I believe very strongly that climate change and pensions will go hand in hand under this Prime Minister’s leadership. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn for this debate.
Rob Roberts
I thank the Minister for summing up. I am interested to hear about using the BBC to enhance pension credit take-up. I suggested that very thing to my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary just last week at Department for Work and Pensions questions, so it is good to know that there is movement on that. I was very pleased to hear about auto-enrolment, changes to age limits, losing the lower earnings limit and adding a savings element—all very good.
I thank all hon. Members. There seemed to be wide-ranging agreement on things such as promoting the idea of automation where we can and financial education. That may include not only knowledge of facts but the skills, critical thinking and analysis that will serve our young people well. There was cross-party support and agreement on many issues, although sadly not for the comments of the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on Scottish independence. That is for another day.
I appreciated the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) channelling her inner Donald Rumsfeld and trying to tackle the unknown unknowns. I think we will allow our mortal Minister to tackle the known unknowns before we give him any powers of clairvoyance. That is definitely a wise thing to be doing. I appreciate everyone’s contributions, including that of the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of pensions policy.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
In order to allow for the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am briefly suspending the sitting.
Marine Renewables: Government Support for Commercial Roll-out
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the commercial roll-out of marine renewables.
It is a pleasure to be here in Westminster Hall—not least because somebody thought it would be a good idea to turn off the heating in Portcullis House today—and to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. This debate is both timely and—for a half hour Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall—very well attended. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members present.
I say timely because it follows hot on the heels of the speech by the Prime Minister last week, where he announced plans for a green industrial revolution creating 250,000 jobs. That has the potential to be a highly significant milestone on the road to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. The speech included many laudable goals, and it is my experience from many years in the House that where ambitious targets are made and married to genuine political commitment, that building cross-party consensus in the House for them is not a difficult process; I do hope that we will be able to do so.
If what we got from the Prime Minister last week was the strategy, then today I want to focus the attention of the House and the Minister on one very important tactic: marine energy. The generation of electricity using wave and tidal power is an industrial sector in which the UK has the ability to lead the world. Much of what I want to discuss today will not be new to the Minister. It follows on from a briefing he had in the House from leading industrial developers in the sector earlier in the year, organised by the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy and tidal lagoons.
What is needed now is the finely tuned support mechanisms from Government to turn technical feasibility into commercial application. I declare a very obvious and particular constituency interest. Living in an island community, one is acutely aware of the power of the sea and never far away from it. It can affect just about every aspect of life. Orkney is home to the European Marine Energy Centre, the undisputed world leader in testing wave and tidal devices, both domestic and international. Others envy that status, but it will not last for ever without the positive signals of support that I seek to get from the Minister today.
The Minister will be aware that the EU is already looking at ways to ramp up its efforts to exploit the opportunities that marine renewables present. History tells us that, although we have an advantage having done the groundbreaking research and development work, there are plenty of other places in the world where that could be deployed commercially, as happened with the development of onshore wind.
Although my constituency is currently central to this emerging technology, even now this is not an industry confined to any one constituency, region or nation of the United Kingdom. Work is ongoing in engineering workshops and university research centres throughout the country, from Strangford lough to the Isle of Wight, from the Pentland firth to the south-west of England, this is a truly UK-wide industry. Of course, on the mention of Strangford lough, I give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As an Orangeman, there is only one green revolution that I will support, and it is this one. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the movement of the tide is as sure as the sun rising and setting? Projects such as the tidal energy generator in Strangford lough, which is a pilot scheme, has given my constituency a glimpse into tidal potential that should be further explored.
Mr Carmichael
I absolutely agree, and I would add to that list of tides and sunsets the attendance of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) at Adjournment debates in the Chamber and Westminster Hall. I think the chairman of the APPG wished to intervene.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and allowing me to intervene as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy and tidal lagoons. As he and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have highlighted, this is a resource of enormous potential across the UK.
We have representatives here from Wales. It is true to say that Bardsey will become the first island in the world to be entirely powered by tidal stream. The other projects in Morlais, Pembrokeshire and Perpetuus Tidal Energy Centre on the Isle of Wight, which is one of five centres funded through the Government’s TIGER project, give an idea, as the Minister is aware, of the potential. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, with COP26 in Glasgow next year, if the contracts for difference auction were to be just beforehand and marine energy to be given a fraction of the capacity there, that would be a fabulous project to highlight at COP26?
Mr Carmichael
I absolutely agree because, as I am about to illustrate, we have a nascent industry. It is growing but it is in a position to undertake that important role for the UK on the world stage. According to the UK Marine Energy Council, there are currently 22 tidal stream and 23 wave developers active in the UK, with an estimated investment to date exceeding £500 million of private capital in developing marine energy technologies, and £70 million in direct public support.
Estimates of support suggest that the tidal stream could deliver £1.4 billion gross value added by 2030, while the figure for wave is £4 billion by 2040. Those figures, plus the thousands of jobs that would come with them, are a tremendous prize. There are currently tidal stream sites with an aggregated output of 1 GW under development in the UK, awaiting a positive signal from the Government. The industry is ready to move, the technology is there, the private investment is primed but it does need a helping hand from Government at this critical stage.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman and I worked together in Government, and he knows that my constituency in Pembrokeshire is one of those hot prospects for the development of marine renewables in the years ahead. Does he agree that this area has been discussed a lot? It is very easy for everyone to be in agreement about the rhetoric, and how good these things would potentially be in the future, but what we need now is some practical steps that help build investor confidence to unlock the projects and see actual, practical growth in the sector.
Mr Carmichael
I absolutely agree. I have been watching and engaging with this industry since I was first elected in 2001. Candidly, we have seen a few false dawns over that time, but it is clear that we have got to that point, where it is so tantalisingly close, that we are now looking at that missing link to get us over the line.
I will offer a couple of illustrations from my constituency. Orbital Marine Power is at the forefront of this industry, and the most recent prototype successfully generated 3.25 GWh into the UK grid during a 12-month period of trials at the European Marine Energy Centre. Orbital has raised £7 million of construction debt finance through the Abundance crowdfunding platform to finance the building of a commercial tidal generator for deployment in spring 2021. Orbital and its investors are now awaiting the right signals from the Government to go fully commercial.
Orbital illustrates well the opportunity that we have here. Some 80% of the Orbital machine currently under construction is from UK suppliers. It believes that this could increase to 95% if the correct market conditions were put in place. The contrast with wind power, which has relied overwhelmingly on imported machinery, is almost too obvious to mention—I say almost, because nothing is ever too obvious to mention in politics.
The same runs true of Nova Innovation, which deployed the world’s first offshore tidal array in Shetland. Construction of the Shetland tidal array had over 80% UK content, including 25% of the supply chain spend in Shetland. Operation of the array has seen 98% UK supply chain content, with over 50% of project expenditure going to companies in the northern isles, such as Shetland Composites, which made the blades for Nova’s turbines and is now one of the top tidal blade manufacturers in Europe. Nova expects this high local content to be replicated at its other UK sites in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the south of England.
If we can be world leaders in the domestic application of marine renewable technologies, we will also be in pole position to become the leading exporters to the world. Make no mistake: these devices are substantial pieces of engineering, so the potential for jobs and green industrial benefits is enormous—I would say, parenthetically, that this is the point at which we should be looking at export finance support for these companies, so that when we get to that point we are not having to play catch-up.
The missing link, however, has long been one that would give wave and tidal energy the chance to develop commercially to the point at which it would, like other renewable technologies, outgrow the need for subsidy. To get to that stage, it simply cannot be linked in with other renewable technologies—often better established—and told to compete.
That brings me to my first ask of the Minister. We need a bit of fine tuning of the Government’s approach in the next CfD round. It is welcome that tidal and wave technologies will be in pot 2 for the forthcoming CfD round, with offshore wind in a separate pot 3. That learns from the failures of the past, and goes some way to addressing the most obvious weaknesses, which pitted so many technologies at very different stages of development against one another.
What the industry is really looking for is a pot within a pot—in other words, an allocated amount to be competed for by tidal and wave developers at a price that will not only make their projects economically viable and able to attract investment but, importantly, will do so in a manner that does not interfere with the overall objectives of the CfD round. The ability to create that ring-fenced refinement exists within legislation already. It is imperative that we act now. As we know from other renewable technologies, once the process of a commercial roll-out in underway, the costs drop like a stone.
As well as having an immediate effect, the creation of a tidal and wave-specific allocation would provide a clear and long-awaited policy signal and will pave the way for private investment, and not just in the technologies but in the infrastructure required to support the deployment. It is worth remembering that, by definition, most of that work will take place in coastal communities, from the Cromarty firth and the Clyde to the north-west and south-west of England, many of which have suffered badly for years as a result of post-industrial decline, even before the impact of the current pandemic.
My second ask of the Minister is one that he has heard before. The Government should support technology developers by implementing a complementary proposal that would support technology developers not yet able to participate in the CfD process. The innovation power purchase agreement would allow a developer to sell electricity to an electricity supplier at a strike price to be agreed with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
I understand that that is not a BEIS responsibility and that it sits with the Treasury, and we all know that the Treasury is not always the easiest Department to deal with, so I offer it to the Minister as his opportunity for glory. This emerging industry needs a champion inside Government, someone who will prosecute the case with the Treasury so that the potential that we have all spoken about today can be realised and something that he has heard about can then become a reality. He could be that champion for the marine renewable industry. I can think of nobody better for the role.
In short, what the marine energy sector needs today from the Government is not a handout, but a signal of support that can in turn be used to open the door to private investment and to create a platform for a vibrant industrial sector that ticks all the Government’s boxes: clean energy, technical innovation, world leadership, export potential, industrial regeneration, a genuinely British product, and economic benefits for hard-pressed coastal communities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. It is an opportunity to turn the rhetoric of the Prime Minister’s speech last week, and the Government’s laudable aspirations for levelling up, into a genuine political reality. If the Minister will take on that cause and fight it for us, he will have the support of all parties and all parts of the country.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I had not intended to speak, but now I am on my feet, and why give up the opportunity? I will put on the record again how excited I am by some of the developments off the west Wales coast. There is no shortage of projects coming forward and companies with various track records, but lots of good ideas and good intent for this new industry, which we have debated and talked about a lot in recent years. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, we are on the cusp of seeing those developments come to fruition if the right conditions are put in place.
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
The only other point that I will make, before I allow the Minister to respond, is that in a constituency such as mine, for the last almost 50 years, the economy has been heavily dependent on oil refining. We as a country, and as a Government, have now made a commitment to bring forward a ban on the sale of new diesel and petrol engines, and we are moving away from a carbon-based economy. Constituencies such as mine are vulnerable to the big strategic changes that we are mandating as part of our efforts to meet the global challenge of climate change. There is a duty on the Government to help bring forward replacement jobs—high-quality jobs and apprenticeships—in new exciting clean technologies.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I particularly thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate—he and I have an awful lot in common, both in our commitment to marine energy and because we come from island communities. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that projects such as Morlais and Minesto on Ynys Môn need to have bespoke Government support packages?
Stephen Crabb
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend is a very active and vocal champion for energy developments in her constituency, and she has put her point on the record very effectively.
I will now allow the Minister to respond to the debate.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I am delighted to be able finally to respond to the debate. There have been some really interesting interventions, and it is a shame that we have only had half an hour for it. It is also a real pleasure to participate in this debate with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins.
I will address the two points made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and then I will address some of the wider concerns relating to economic opportunities and the levelling-up agenda. First, the right hon. Gentleman gave me two challenges: the first was to look at the pot structure of the CfD round; and the second was, as he put it, my bid for glory within the Government, by championing the cause of marine energy. He will know that I have a real interest in this subject. I have seen the APPG on marine energy and tidal lagoons and its chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), a number of times on this issue, and I have also attended APPG meetings that the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and I have had the privilege of hosting here in Parliament.
To begin with, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the pot structure, and I pay tribute to him for actually attributing some degree of good policy on the part of the Government, because we split the offshore wind element—the offshore wind competition—into a separate pot, and we have allowed marine tidal projects and remote island wind projects, which may be of interest to him, to remain in pot 2.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the competition was unfair, but of course when we set up the pot structure we did not know that it was unfair, because we had not seen the progress in the development of offshore wind. And all I will say to him now on this issue is that I am very sympathetic to ideas, as he put it, of having a pot within a pot. That means that within pot 2 there would be a reserved quantum for marine projects, particularly tidal projects, to be able to compete for. I can assure him that that idea is being considered.
Having said all that, however, there is an issue, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, about the actual costs—the initial costs of marine technology and how we can support such technology. This is very much a chicken and egg situation, because people who are keen supporters of marine energy technology would say, “Well, if you don’t support it, how are you going to bring the costs down?”, and of course, our friends in the Government, including within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and, in particular, the Treasury, would say, “Well, if something is going to cost £250 per megawatt-hour and nuclear is at £92 per megawatt-hour, there is a discrepancy there.”
Obviously, public money must be well considered and looked after, and the challenge is very much on the industry, as I have said to industry players and champions on separate occasions. The challenge is for them to show how these costs can come down. If they can, then I am sure that the Government would be very willing to support the technology.
We have initiated a marine energy call for evidence. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that there was a whole debate about the Swansea Bay lagoon. When the development consent order for that lapsed, the Secretary of State said that we would have a call for evidence and we are engaged in that process. I fully recognise the economic opportunities for the coastal communities that he represents so ably, and I also pay tribute to the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, which, as he reminded us, is a world-beating centre. Of course, it initially enjoyed Government support, as he will well remember, because he was in government at the time. It is something that I would be very willing to engage with him on.
Mr Carmichael
First of all, I understand the point the Minister makes about the operation of CfDs. When I was in government in 2011 and 2012, when the CfDs were introduced by the Energy Acts, we did not really know how they would work, so we have learned from the experience. Every time there is a development pot, one technology emerges, which is why the ring-fencing is important. On the issue of the evidence, will the Minister look at the figures that I have given him today relating to the private sector investment that is primed and ready to go? Surely there could be no better indicator of technological ability than the willingness of the private sector to put its money into it.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The right hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. The private sector is willing to go, of course, provided it is supported initially by the Government. That is exactly the kind of conversation we should be having. He made some good points in his opening speech. One of the phrases that stuck in my mind was that we should “open the door” to private investment. That is exactly what the CfD round has done. That is exactly what we would hope to achieve, should we go down that route with regard to marine energy. No Government in the world can simply spend their way to creating the industry. The trick is to create the financial incentives, as we have done with offshore wind, to allow us to open the door to private investors.
I pay tribute not only to the right hon. Gentleman, but to the communities he represents and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb)—I am glad I got the constituency right; I knew it was not Ceredigion. He made the point well. He represents a community that has clearly been under a huge amount of economic pressure and even distress with covid, and the green industrial revolution represents a real answer and a real chance to build back better, to level up, and to increase and widen economic opportunity across the country. It is rare to see three constituent countries of the United Kingdom represented in debates in Westminster Hall. I do not think we have Scottish representatives here.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Forgive me; I saw straight through the Scottish representative. In this debate, we have representatives from all four countries of the United Kingdom. That is significant, and points to the fact that the levelling-up agenda is geographically extremely diverse. The green industrial revolution and green energy topics engage all four of our constituent nations. It is an excellent debate for that reason.
The Government remain absolutely committed to renewable energy, and that was highlighted specifically by the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan. We believe that the only way we can get to net zero by 2050 is through innovation. Tidal technology is part of that innovation. The only caveat is that it cannot come at any cost.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire referred to eternal waiting and eternal words and rhetoric. We must have this dialogue and we must at least show a pathway to reducing costs, and if we can do that—I am sure we will be able to do that—we will in the short term be able to put flesh on the bones and realise in fact some of the aspirational rhetoric exchanged across the House for many years.
Richard Graham
The Minister has been generous in his support for renewables in general, and for marine energy specifically. As referred to by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), he has been willing to see representatives of the industry and hear ideas for the future auction. Will he, at the same time, try to find a few moments to look at the innovative purchasing agreement proposed by the industry, allowing a tax reduction basis but with nothing rewarded till it has been delivered, in terms of energy? Will he commend it to his friends at the Treasury?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that that is something I will be looking into. With regard to my BEIS commitments specifically, we can potentially get some movement on the auction. I do not know, and it is part of a discussion. Once that is up and running, perhaps we could have a further debate and a further push on tax treatment in the way he describes. I would clearly be happy to raise that with Treasury colleagues, although the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland knows from his experience in Government how fraught some of those conversations can sometimes be. BEIS will certainly look at the auction seriously. We hope to push forward with that innovation.
Question put and agreed to.
Nagorno-Karabakh
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Nagorno-Karabakh is one of those places that few people can pronounce properly, let alone spell, let alone locate on a map, yet in recent months it has been the location of a bloody war involving thousands of fatalities and casualties; bombardment of civilian areas and destruction of towns and cultural sites; the use of internationally banned munitions; and now a return to ethnic cleansing. It has involved not just Armenians and Azerbaijanis, but global powers such as Russia and Turkey, with significant implications for geopolitics far beyond this remote area of the southern Caucasus.
I declare an interest as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for Armenia. I am well aware that this has been a long-running dispute between Armenians and Azeris over many years, which was only contained during the days of the Soviet empire, and which flared up again in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. I am also aware that most of the international community recognises Nagorno-Karabakh as, most recently, largely Azeri territory, and I do not want to reopen that centuries-old argument. Whatever one’s view on the future government of Nagorno-Karabakh—as part of Azerbaijan, as an independent state per an earlier referendum result, or as part of an extended Armenian state—I hope we can all agree that engaging in a bloody war and an almost medieval-style battlefield invasion is not the way to resolve the dispute. However slow and problematic it has proven, a legitimate, internationally supported resolution process has been in place, namely the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Minsk group. The current status of that group is rather unclear after the conflict, with the boots on the ground now provided by Russian troops, and others supported by Turkey.
I am not going to go through the whole history of the conflict—certainly not in an hour-long debate. The recent military action started at the end of July, when Azeri forces launched unprovoked attacks at various points on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border in the north-east corner of Armenia, far away from Nagorno-Karabakh. That attack was defended against robustly by Armenia. It was accompanied by bellicose statements from Azeri Government Ministers, especially the Ministry of Defence, which raised the prospect of the Armenian nuclear power station at Metsamor being within the range of Azeri missiles. It was followed by deliberately provocative joint Turkish-Azeri military exercises close to the Armenian border and words of encouragement from the Turkish Government under the slogan, “Two countries, one nation”.
I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on behalf of the all-party group and that letter was published. I received chastisement, as I would call it, from the Turkish ambassador, who criticised me for the deeply biased tone of my letter that failed to reflect the current situation in the region. He said that he had irrefutable evidence, both circumstantial and concrete, that clearly indicated that the current aggression and violence were once again started as a result of Armenian actions. When I asked him what that was, he failed to produce any evidence—concrete, circumstantial or otherwise. I think it is widely accepted that this conflict was started, completely unprovoked, by Azerbaijan, yet there was hardly a whisper from western powers, including, I regret to say, the United Kingdom, beyond the usual diplomatic niceties about returning to the negotiating table. That was clearly a prelude to the serious assault on Nagorno-Karabakh that started on 27 September—again unprovoked.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This might seem a conflict in far-off lands, but the diaspora communities here have brought it to our attention. I know that he knows my constituent Annette Moskofian, from the UK branch of the Armenian National Committee, the ANC. The Hayshen centre and the Navasartian centre are also in my constituency, and they played a vital part when it felt as if the eyes of the world were looking elsewhere.
Tim Loughton
Absolutely. I know that there is a large Armenian community in the hon. Lady’s constituency and I pay tribute to Annette Moskofian—I will supply Hansard with the spelling later—and the work of the ANC, which so ably represents the Armenian community here.
The invasion took place almost 100 years to the day since the Turks invaded the newly independent republic of Armenia against the backdrop of the Armenian genocide, which the Turks still deny took place. On 27 September, Azerbaijan launched sustained air and artillery attacks as well as an infantry offensive along the entire line of contact with Nagorno-Karabakh, indiscriminately shelling civilian populations and peaceful settlements, including the capital Stepanakert. We should remember that Nagorno-Karabakh has a population of just 146,000, 91% of them Armenian in origin. They are supported by the small country of Armenia, which has a population of just 3 million. It was attacked by oil-rich Azerbaijan, which has a population of 10 million and a defence budget of almost $2 billion annually. It spent $1.6 billion on a defence deal with Israel alone—almost the equivalent of a single year’s budget. That attack involved the use of F-16 Turkish fighter planes and rocket launchers brought in from Nakhchivan, which neighbours Turkey. Turkey has one of the largest standing armies and is one of the largest spenders on defence in the whole world.
During the 45-day bloody conflict that followed, countless soldiers on both sides lost their lives; bodies are literally still strewn across the battlefields, making it difficult to tot up the numbers. I was reminded by the International Committee of the Red Cross that 5,000 people are still unaccounted for from the conflict back in the 1990s. The Red Cross also estimates that there have been 150 civilian fatalities and more than 600 injuries. Fourteen thousand civilian structures—homes, schools, hospitals and heritage sites—were damaged or destroyed, and there were attacks on churches full of people at prayer.
The most worrying aspect of the conflict has been the use of Israeli so-called kamikaze drones—silent killers that hang over a battlefield; before anyone knows they are there, they explode their deadly cargo. That was a gamechanger for this conflict in a notoriously impenetrable mountainous area of the world. Also worrying was the use of banned cluster bomb munitions—the so-called Kinder surprise ribbon bombs. They have ribbons on them and are often picked up by children who think they are a trinket, only for them to explode. Those cluster bombs were used on a maternity hospital, schools and Shushi Cathedral, as witnessed by journalists from The Telegraph and other western representatives. They were delivered in Russian-made 9M55 Smerch rockets, described by Amnesty International as “cruel and reckless” and causing “untold death, injury and misery”. Also deeply worrying about this conflict was that Turkey, a NATO member, illegally transferred NATO-grade director drones to a non-NATO member country for use against civilians. That did, at least, attract a cancellation of export licences for certain defence items from Canada, Austria and the United States.
Most worrying of all was the importation by Turkey of thousands of jihadi insurgents brought in from Syria and Libya. Videos have been circulating of them openly involved in the conflict, and in some cases openly parading the decapitated heads of executed Armenian soldiers. It is reported they are paid a bonus—literally—for the heads of members of the Armenian military. Armenian families report having received gruesome videos of the mutilated bodies of their relatives, which were sent to them by these terrorists. Apparently, it is advertised in northern Syria that those who sign up for settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh will be given a parcel of land.
The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said
“reports indicate that Turkey engaged in large-scale recruitment and transfer of Syrian men to Azerbaijan through armed factions, some of which are affiliated with the Syrian National Army”.
Chris Kwaja, who chaired the working group, added:
“The alleged role of Turkey is all the more concerning given the similar allegations addressed earlier this year by the Working Group in relation its role in recruiting, deploying and financing such fighters to take part in the conflict in Libya,”
The report said:
“The way in which these individuals were recruited, transported and used in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone appeared consistent with the definition of a mercenary, as set out by relevant international legal instruments”.
That is the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner speaking; it is not just hearsay.
This is deeply worrying. After 45 days of bloody conflict, a ceasefire was signed on 10 November, brokered by President Putin and the Russians. The Armenian Prime Minister signed this declaration clearly under duress, without any reference to the President, Ministers or Parliament, because it was a fait accompli imposed by Russia and Turkey. Under its terms, the indigenous Armenian population from three regions were given just days to evacuate their lifelong homes. The Russians gave nine Armenian villages just 48 hours to leave their ancestral homes, without any chance to organise their exodus or get support from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, for example.
The Russians and Azeris continue to draw arbitrary borders without involving representatives from Armenia or Nagorno-Karabakh itself. What has become an island of remaining Nagorno-Karabakh territory is to be connected to Armenia through a narrow Lachin corridor under Russia-Azeri control and a new link between Nakhchivan and Turkey in the west, and Azerbaijan in the east has been carved out of land in the south of Armenia itself.
Baroness Cox, who has been an extraordinary champion of the Armenian nation and people, recently visited the war zone—I think it was her 87th visit to that part of the world. She reported back on what she had seen in deeply distressing terms:
“Lines of refugees taking their belongings heading for the safety of Armenia carrying whatever possessions they could … taking with them livestock, even digging up the graves of loved ones fearful for their bodies being desecrated after they had left and torching their houses so they would not fall into the hands of the Azerians”.
This is ethnic cleansing pure and simple. No Armenian feels safe in lands that have been their homes for years; they are being intimidated out, to be replaced by Azeris and jihadi terrorists. That should raise serious security alarm bells for the west as well.
Genocide Watch declared a genocide emergency alert last month, but the cleansing continues apace. We had a briefing from the International Committee of the Red Cross through the Inter-Parliamentary Union last week. It calculated that there have been many thousands of military casualties, but the figure is still unknown because the bodies are still unretrieved. It has no idea of the number of detainees on each side. It is hard to access those prisoners, but there have been reports of torture and executions. Russian peacekeeping forces and Turks in some places actually turn out to be Syrian mercenaries.
Why is that small population in a remote part of the world significant? It is significant because we should all take an interest when a nation and the peace-loving people in those territories are persecuted in an unprovoked way. It is also significant because of the geopolitical implications. Turkey has extended its influence eastwards to the Caspian, in an unholy alliance with the Russians. Russia has reasserted its influence over former Soviet republics and effectively stamped on the independent credentials of Armenia, one of the few democracies in the area. Russia will effectively exert control over the Armenian military, take over Armenian oil projects, effectively gain a military base in Nagorno-Karabakh and take over Armenia’s foreign policy. Those are all significant shifts in the spheres of influence in that volatile region. Russia has been extending its influence in Ukraine, Turkey and Syria, getting a taste for territorial expansion by force or stealth.
The Azeris will be given free rein to continue the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh and the suppression of its Christian culture. In the past 15 years, Azerbaijan has been more aggressive in destroying UNESCO-protected Armenian world heritage sites than even ISIS was in Syria. Not a single church or Armenian cross stone has survived in the historic Armenian Nakhchivan area. More than 189 churches and 10,000 Christian crosses have been blown up by the Azeris.
Israel does not come out of this well either. It is trading high-tech weapons, which have made the strategic difference in the war, for energy. It relies on Azerbaijan for about half its oil. It supports an Azeri President who embraces militiamen who behead prisoners, mutilate bodies, destroy churches and engage in anti-Christian campaigns. As the US writer Michael Rubin put it,
“Armenia is a democracy, while Azerbaijan has become a family-run dictatorship. Armenia embraces religious freedom while Azerbaijan works with Islamist extremists.”
Yet few have come to the aid of Armenia in the past few months. Armenia and the Armenian people in Nagorno-Karabakh are the victims in all this.
All this happened when the US was somewhat preoccupied by the controversy over the presidential elections. There have been minimal sanctions on weapons, and everything I have described has largely gone unchallenged. I welcome the meetings that we had with the Minister, and I acknowledge the calls by the Foreign Office for an end to the conflict, a return to the negotiating tables, and respect for human rights. We have also given some aid in the region. However, when a UN motion was proposed to prevent intervention of third parties in the conflict and to denounce the presence of Syrian mercenaries in the region, which was so important, it was reported that the United Kingdom Government stood in the way of the proposal. I would welcome a response from the Minister on that.
Where has been the condemnation of the use of Syrian mercenaries? Where has been the condemnation of the illegal use of cluster munitions? Where has been the condemnation and pressure on Turkey, a NATO member and ally, which has allowed NATO-grade weapons to be used against a democratic, sovereign country—Armenia—and is now exercising a worrying extension of its power into the Caucasus and beyond? I am afraid that the silence has been deafening. Many in Armenia are claiming that their ally, the United Kingdom, has let them down, and I can see why.
We urgently need western peacekeepers in the region to monitor ethnic cleansing and the activities of the Syrian mercenaries. We need a proper investigation into war crimes and the treatment of prisoners. We need to consider the future independence of Nagorno-Karabakh, which the citizens voted for many years ago and which was recently supported in the Parliaments of France, Holland and Belgium. I think it is time, at last, to recognise the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Turks—a century-old outrage in which between a million and a million and a half men, women and children were massacred by the Ottomans, in the first genocide of the modern age. I should tell the Minister that, with Members of both Houses, I have prepared the Armenian genocide 1915 to 1923 recognition Bill to commemorate the Armenian genocide through official recognition and remembrance, and to put formal recognition of that genocide on a statutory basis. I hope that there will be considerable support for that measure in both Houses.
Terrible things have happened in the southern Caucasus. They are no less terrible because of the remoteness of a country that few know about; but those terrible things, perpetrated specifically by Azerbaijan and its Turkish allies, need to be acknowledged, called out and punished. I ask the Minister to start that process today.
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
I do not intend to impose time limits, but I ask Members to bear in mind that I would like to start Front-Bench speeches at eight minutes past.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
I shall be brief, Mrs Cummins. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing the debate, which is an important opportunity for us to raise the dire situation faced by the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is a pleasure to follow him in the debate.
I take a keen interest in the conflict for many reasons, but in particular as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Armenia, a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and someone who grew up hearing the horrific stories of the genocide of Armenian people in Turkey. As the hon. Gentleman set out, Nagorno-Karabakh is an autonomous region of Azerbaijan with an Armenian majority population. Since 1994 it has been controlled by Armenians as a self-proclaimed independent state, although neither country recognises that statehood as yet. On 27 September this year, after some alarming escalations during the summer, the worst violence in the region since 1994 erupted. By 13 October around 1,000 people had been killed, as Azerbaijani forces advanced past the line of conflict established as part of the 1994 ceasefire.
The conflict has caused a humanitarian crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh. There are reports and evidence of numerous violations of international law by Azerbaijan, including the use of banned cluster bombs, the murder of elderly and disabled civilians, and the torture and humiliation of captured Armenians. Perhaps most shocking of all, Turkey, a member of NATO—an organisation founded to ensure a lasting peace in Europe based on common values of individual liberty, democracy and human rights and the rule of law—has been providing military support to Azerbaijan. Turkey has recruited and transported jihadi mercenaries to bolster Azerbaijan forces who are using Turkish weapons and war planes—in particular, drones.
The military attack on the people of Nagorno-Karabakh has been accompanied by a campaign of hate speech towards Armenian people in Azerbaijan and in Turkey. Garo Paylan, one of the very few Armenian Members of the Turkish Parliament—if not the only one—has said:
“Armenian-origin citizens have become scapegoats and the object of rising racism and hate speech”,
adding:
“The current climate reminds me of previous anti-Armenian pogroms.”
Paylan commented that Turkey’s Armenian community, and citizens of Armenia who live in Turkey, no longer feel safe.
Any conflict that leads to loss of life is a tragedy, but a conflict in which civilians are deliberately targeted, international law is ignored and the involvement of a NATO member, abandoning all pretences of neutrality, is making things worse rather than better is a conflict of which the west should sit up and take notice. To be fair, we must acknowledge that the US, France and other EU countries have raised concerns about the transportation of mercenaries, but the UK, unfortunately, has been conspicuous only by its silence. The broad lack of interest from the west has resulted in Armenia being forced to agree a peace deal devised by Russia and Turkey and—I kid you not—potentially with Turkish troops being deployed to Nagorno-Karabakh to keep the peace.
The scale and horror of this conflict cannot be laid out in the few minutes that I have today, but the urgency of the need for action is only matched by the moral imperative that sits behind it. That those responsible for the atrocities listed should be charged with delivering a lasting and equitable peace is unconscionable. The UK Government and the international community must act, so I ask the following questions today.
Will the UK Government condemn Azerbaijan for using cluster bombs on civilians? Amnesty International has reported that there is growing evidence that Azerbaijan used cluster bombs in Nagorno-Karabakh. In particular, the capital, Stepanakert, was attacked with cluster bombs, resulting in an unknown number of civilian deaths. The use of cluster bombs violates the ban on indiscriminate attacks and violates international law, as we know. Are the UK Government aware of the above reports that Azerbaijan used cluster bombs in Nagorno-Karabakh? Do the Government consider such violations of international humanitarian law to be unacceptable? If so, will the Minister condemn those breaches?
Will the Government use their influence to put pressure on Turkey, a NATO member, to remove the mercenaries from the region and stop its effort to relocate mercenary families from Syria? Will the UK support the Minsk Group re-engaging for a final settlement for the status of Nagorno-Karabakh?
It is reported that British-manufactured parts were used to build Turkey’s Bayraktar unmanned aerial vehicles —drones—that were used extensively by Azerbaijan during the war. How do the Government trace the unsolicited sale of British military IP by Turkey to third countries?
The failure by successive Governments, including my party in government, to recognise the Armenian genocide, despite all the evidence, has led to yet another such experience for Armenians in the region, who are once more being removed from their ancestral land. Will this Government follow most countries in the world and our allies and finally recognise the Armenian genocide?
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on his excellent speech, with which I fully agree. I grieve for the suffering, particularly of civilians, in any conflict, but because time today limits me, I want, in speaking of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, to highlight only two points. These have been highlighted to me today by Baroness Cox. They are in her report, “Grief and Courage in Nagorno Karabakh”. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will read the full report, because there is much more in it, but Baroness Cox particularly wants me to highlight these two points.
The first is the urgent need to secure the return of Armenians still held as prisoners of war after the ceasefire and to ensure that ongoing atrocities against them do not continue. The second is the need to ensure that Azerbaijanis are held to account for the atrocities committed both during and after the conflict. I therefore ask the Minister these questions. What action are our Government taking, both by themselves and with international partners, to prevent the further abuse of Armenians held captive, to secure their release and to bring to justice those responsible for war crimes during this conflict? What assurance can the Minister give us that investigations into alleged war crimes, particularly those classed as genocide by Genocide Watch, as we have heard, will be carried out by a properly constituted, neutral and recognised international body?
It is heart-rending to hear in Baroness Cox’s report of multiple accounts of brutality inflicted on military and civilian prisoners of war, despite the ceasefire, and equally heart-rending to hear in the report from the Nagorno-Karabakh human rights ombudsman, who states that there is evidence of
“the deliberate targeting of civilians, ambulances, hospitals, religious sites, electricity, gas and water infrastructure and the use of chemical incendiaries”.
The information has been sent, but
“we have received no adequate replies from major aid organisations…We are totally isolated.”
What information can the Minister give us about what aid from the UK has reached those in need of help in the area and how is it being applied?
Baroness Cox’s report states:
“The scale and ferocity of these offensives has intensified the justifiable fear among local people—who are 94% Armenian Christians—of the possibility of ethnic cleansing from their historic land, with grave implications for the region.”
She goes on to say:
“we remain deeply concerned by the lack of international engagement with, and balanced reporting of, the suffering of civilians in Nagorno Karabakh.”
While the report cites the history of oppression of Armenian Christians over the past century, it also states that attempts by some
“to present the latest escalation of violence as an Armenian aggression—or to suggest”
that Armenia is equally culpable
“for the violence and civilian destruction that has taken place—are manifestly untrue and dangerous. It would be entirely against the interests of Armenia to initiate the recent war.”
I quoted that because yesterday evening I had the privilege of speaking with a member of a family from Armenia. That person now lives in the west, but has family still there. That individual echoes the concerns of Baroness Cox in such a way that, time permitting, I want to cite in some detail from an email I asked that person to send to me and received this morning. They call for the
“urgent release of Prisoners of War and the freedom for the Armenian soldiers who are in hiding to return home.”
The message states:
“The majority of soldiers who fought at the frontlines were newly drafted 18-year-old boys, only 2-3 months experiences in the military. They were only equipped with 20th century weapons to fight a 21st century military. The reality in Artsakh is that the 150,000 Christian population was in no way prepared to face a 21st century invasion—it was an uneven battle. Armenia’s military was weak and unprepared for drones, mercenaries, F-16s and military intelligence backing Turkey and Azerbaijan military forces. Around 5000 Armenian military men were deployed to the frontline, majority of them 18-year-olds who had just enlisted in the summer.”
Indeed, the writer’s 18-year-old cousin, now injured and missing, was one of them. The email continues, saying that the young men are
“in desperate need to return home. We believe they are alive either as prisoners of war facing daily humiliation and torture, or they have been in hiding in desperate and immediate need of medical attention. There are hundreds of young men and women in hiding who are unable to obtain food, security, care for their wounds, and basic human needs. Azerbaijan officials have placed a price on their lives. Their new demands since the ceasefire agreement have been to either exchange Armenian soldiers for more land or for a ransom to be paid for each soldier. Red Cross negotiations and efforts have failed to set these men free. Will the British Parliament voice the immediate need to release these men from these dire, inhumane conditions?”
In the same email, the writer grieves at the continual violation of the ceasefire against
“servicemen, women and civilians who face annihilation where their lives, homes, churches, heritage and their culture are being destroyed in front of the entire world.”
The writer comments that not only is aggression not part of Armenia’s Christian way of life but Armenia does not have the practical means or resources to be an aggressor. They say that the military invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh should be yet another wake-up call to Christians around the world following the demise of Christian populations in other parts of the middle east.
The writer also expresses concerns that not only is Azerbaijan actively removing the Christian population; it is also going about the potential rewriting of the region’s history, citing the example of the 9th-to-10th century Armenian monastery at Dadivank, which is today being presented by Azeri officials as an ancient Albanian site. Finally, the writer also comments that in order to protect human lives the Armenian people ought to have the right to self-determination on lands that they have called home for nearly two millennia.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate my good friend, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), on setting the scene so well. He and I share many concerns. It is also a pleasure to follow another good friend, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).
Behind everything, two superpowers, Russia and Turkey, are both playing for their own advantage and using the Armenians as the meat in the sandwich, so to speak. Something that sticks in my head is from the report of Baroness Cox—also vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief—who recently visited Nagorno-Karabakh. Her words are telling.
One family whose son was captured by Azeri forces said that his phone was stolen by his captors, who posted an image of his beheaded body on his own social media account for his family and friends to see—brutality, criminality and absolutely detestable action.
Similar concerns were expressed by the Armenian human rights ombudsman, Arman Tatoyan, who told Baroness Cox:
“We have video evidence of torture and mutilations...Azerbaijan have returned 29 military bodies and few civilians—DNA was needed to identify four bodies. But it refuses to provide the list of current prisoners…and continues to withhold information and access to prisoners from the Red Cross.”
Turkey, which is behind Azerbaijan, has totally ignored what is acceptable in the rest of the free world. I do not know if anyone in this place could read such information and remain untouched; that would be impossible. I certainly wish to see what more can be done—not simply to ensure that the ceasefire remains in place, but to see a return of soldiers home to their loved ones.
In the short time that I have, I also wish to express great concern about the attacks on civilians, on innocents and on churches—the dispersal of the Christian community, ethnic cleansing and despicable criminality. Those involved in murders and the extreme violence should be accountable for their war crimes. The exact numbers are unknown. Armenian officials in Yerevan told Human Rights Watch that Azerbaijan holds dozens of Armenian prisoners of war. Armenia is known to hold a number of Azerbaijani POWs and at least three foreign mercenaries.
I read carefully the response of the Minister for European Neighbourhood to the ANC. Clearly, there is more to do than to applaud a ceasefire—the ceasefire was despicable. Will the Government, in recognition of our obligations under the Geneva convention, uphold everybody’s values and demand that Azerbaijan ensures the safe return of all prisoners of war? Furthermore, will they commit to set up a commission or working group to support local efforts accurately to determine the number of captives and monitor their return?
I think I have spoken more quickly today than I have ever spoken. There is more to be said, but not enough time to do it. I appeal for POWs to be returned to both nations, but it is clear that the horrors faced by too many families have not ceased with the ceasefire. We must intervene where we can and use any and all diplomatic pressures at our disposal. I am sure that you, Mrs Cummins, would join the rest of us in beseeching the Minister for action, and for support for this war-ravaged nation—in particular for the Armenians, who have been despicably and unbelievably treated.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I commend him on an excellent and balanced speech. It is a great pleasure to follow so many thoughtful and passionate contributions from all parts of the Chamber this evening.
The dreadful upsurge in the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh has seen 2,700 deaths that we know of and, as we have heard, there is concern that it could be worse, so we should be glad of the ceasefire. It is very much to be welcomed, but our concern is very much that it is good news for now. In particular as we see the refugees return to their homes, we could see tensions escalate again.
Armenia handing over the disputed regions of Kalbajar, Lachin and Aghdam has impacted upon upwards of 90,000 refugees. Many thousands of people are affected, and a huge effort remains to be done in clearing the munitions to make the area safe going forward. We therefore believe that there is a need for international observers of the process—not just from one country, not least when it is not impartial itself. We need the international community to remain engaged in peace-building within the region. I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister this evening that the UK will play its role within that coalition and take a greater role than, frankly, we have seen hitherto.
We can learn some conflict lessons from the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan, in global terms, does not have a huge defence budget: 2 billion US dollars is a considerable sum of cash but, globally, is not huge. Yet by buying in advanced weaponry from other places, in particular armed drones and GPS-guided ballistic missiles, it was able to turn the balance. That is indicative of the threats that we face here and will face in future.
I would be grateful if the Minister reassured us that those evolving threats will be very much a part of the ongoing integrated foreign and defence review. I hope that the UK Government, in that review, will take good note of the SNP submission that we need to work, globally, towards closing the loophole and grey legal area in which lethal autonomous weapons operate because the issue is of global significance.
The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh has cooled for now—that is to be welcomed—but there could be plenty of others; this will be an ongoing global issue, particularly because those weapons are so easily deployable, worldwide, to various places. The UK could do much to close that legal grey area, and I would be glad of an assurance from the Minister that we will work towards that. She can rest assured of the SNP’s support in that project—I will soon lodge a 10-minute rule Bill to help that discussion—because we believe that it will calm tensions in Nagorno-Karabakh as well as elsewhere. There is much to be done, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. It was great to hear the very strong introductory speech from the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Armenia, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and that of the vice-chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark). I look forward to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend’s remarks about the banned cluster bombs and the potential violations of international humanitarian law.
As we have all heard, the conflict has had all the hallmarks of a truly dreadful modern international conflict: the use of heavy weapons in civilian areas, the involvement of third-party competence and regional powers, the impotence of several international organisations to facilitate peace at the beginning, an unfolding and tragic toll on the civilian population, the destruction of homes and infrastructure, and, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, the destruction of places of worship. Despite all that, the humanitarian catastrophe in Nagorno-Karabakh, and the wide-ranging regional geopolitical consequences, have really not had the attention that they deserve from the global community.
Dr Huq
British people with dual nationality have been caught up in a situation where people have been displaced or lost their homes—it is freezing cold at the moment—and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, illegal weapons are being used against people in the form of cluster bombs. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that there has been no full British ambassador in a couple of years, since the last one left, and that that just adds to the impression that the conflict is deprioritised for this Government?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She has been a real champion, together with our hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), in making the case not just for the diaspora here in the UK, who are really suffering, but for what is happening on the ground.
I have only three questions for the Minister, because I know that we are keen to hear her reply. Will she tell us what is happening with respect to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, which, earlier this week, were unable to access all the detained combatants, and have struggled to begin the tragic process of returning the deceased to their families? What role are the UK Government playing in that effort? Will the Minister address that immediate and pressing concern? In addition, the impact of covid-19 brings an extra difficult dimension to the conflict, adding further pressure on the health authorities in both countries in coping with the injured and the displaced.
My second question is on the role of Turkey, which many hon. Members have mentioned, including the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who was eloquent in his questioning of Turkey’s UK armaments. Has the Minister—as I have as shadow Minister, together with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who is shadow Minister for the Middle East—confronted the Turkish ambassador about the situation and the potential use of Syrian and Iraqi fighters? Turkey is an ally of the UK and is part of NATO; we should be able to have those frank conversations and hold our friends to account.
Finally, will the Minister tell us what she is doing with respect to Russia’s role and in bringing in the international community? This is not just about leaving it to Russia, which of course traditionally has the military pact. What effort is being made to breathe some life into the Minsk format and reinvigorate it so that the UK can play its role—for example, by tabling a proposal for a new resolution at the UN Security Council? Of course, all hon. Members want the conflict to stop and the peace process to be successful. We should all get behind the peace process, not just leave it to Russia’s protection of the Lachin corridor.
Jim Shannon
Does the hon. Lady think that NATO has a key role to play? NATO members should adhere to rules and regulations. If members do not adhere to them, as in the case of Turkey, is it not time for their position in NATO to be reconsidered?
Catherine West
As all hon. Members are aware, Turkey does an enormous amount for refugees. It has been a welcoming force for Syrians in the last five years of terrible conflict. There are many things on which we can work together and be friends. In this regard, however, the use of that kind of weaponry and the bringing in of other mercenaries from the middle east was just a cocktail for aggression and conflict. That is why I felt that I as a shadow Minister had to go, along with the other shadow Minister my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, to make those representations. I am sure we will hear that the Minister has done that as well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
In the time available, I will endeavour to answer as many questions as I can. If I am unable to cover the odd point, I will come back to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I am grateful to him for securing this debate on an incredibly important topic. I pay tribute to him for his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Armenia. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have illustrated, it is a very sensitive and complex issue. I assure my hon. Friend that I am conscious of the strength of feeling in the House.
The Government welcome the cessation of fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Since the fighting broke out, we have been pressing both sides on the need to end the fighting, to secure a humanitarian ceasefire and to ensure a lasting peace settlement. I have made those points directly to the Foreign Ministers of both countries. The impact of recent fighting on innocent civilians has been absolutely devastating and it had to stop. We acknowledge that both sides had to make difficult decisions to reach the peace settlement.
The Government will continue to support both Governments and the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk group—France, Russia and the United States—to ensure a sustainable and fully negotiated settlement to the conflict. Only that will ensure stability, security and peace for the people of that region. It is important that all further agreements and decisions are made under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk group and with the involvement of the co-chairs: France, Russia and the United States.
Despite not being a member of the OSCE Minsk group, the UK was diplomatically active throughout the conflict. I spoke three times to the Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Bayramov and the Armenian Foreign Minister Mnatsakanyan during the conflict. I also spoke to the new Armenian Foreign Minister Ayvazyan at the end of November. I delivered strong messages of de-escalation and urged a return to the negotiating table under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk group.
The conflict came at an extraordinarily difficult time for both countries as they tackled the covid-19 pandemic. As hon. Members have pointed out, the approach of winter has further exacerbated the humanitarian situation. The internally displaced persons from both sides have required significant support, which will need to continue as the weather deteriorates. In late October, the Foreign Secretary announced £1 million in funding to the International Committee of the Red Cross to support its efforts. The Government continue to consider what further support we might provide, including in the key areas of de-mining, reconstruction and reconciliation. We are aware of the challenges in getting access and we are pushing that point. I am happy to come back on that but we are aware of it. The UK Government welcomed the news of the ceasefire. The security and safety of civilians is paramount.
Dr Huq
I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me and the shadow Minister recently. Does she have anything to say about consular assistance to our citizens? France, the US and Russia are involved in the Minsk process, but there is an impression that this country is dragging its feet. Could the Minister step up our efforts?
Wendy Morton
I assure the hon. Lady that we absolutely support the efforts and the work of the OSCE Minsk group. If there are specific consular cases, I will probably need to come back to the hon. Lady, if I may.
Turning back to the ceasefire and the importance of the safety and security of civilians, during my recent visit to Moscow I met Deputy Foreign Minister Titov and noted the role of Russia in the negotiations. I welcomed its efforts to deliver the ceasefire. There are many details that still need to be clarified. It is essential that any further developments and agreements are made by Armenia and Azerbaijan and are in their best interests. However, this initial agreement paves the way for future discussions through the OSCE Minsk group. We note that the agreement does not mention the future of the Nagorno-Karabakh region, and consider that to be a matter for the OSCE Minsk group co-chairs to facilitate discussions, in the light of the Madrid basic principles.
During the hostilities, I also held discussions with the Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister Önal. I urged Turkey, as a member of the OSCE Minsk group, to support fully efforts to secure a ceasefire and return to negotiations. Since the cessation of hostilities, I have spoken again to Deputy Foreign Minister Önal, welcoming the news of the ceasefire and urging full engagement with the OSCE Minsk group, as the primary format through which a peaceful and lasting settlement should be negotiated.
Wendy Morton
I will try to make progress because I am conscious that I do not have a huge amount of time and there are a lot of questions that I want to try to answer. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister also spoke to their Turkish counterparts during the hostilities and delivered similar messages.
Colleagues have asked about the role of foreign fighters during the conflict. I assure them that the Government remain deeply concerned by reports that foreign fighters were deployed. However, we have seen no conclusive evidence on that matter. We are aware that Turkey gave strong diplomatic support to Azerbaijan. Turkey and Azerbaijan have long-standing strong relations and describe themselves as one nation with two states. President Aliyev himself has referred to the use of Turkish-made drones by the Azerbaijani army, yet we have seen no evidence of direct Turkish involvement in the conflict. We will continue to raise any concerns we have on the matter directly with the Government of Turkey.
Wendy Morton
I will endeavour to resume where I left off. We were discussing the engagement with and involvement of Turkey. I was just going on to say that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister also spoke to their Turkish counterparts during the hostilities and delivered similar messages to mine.
Members have also raised the issue of alleged desecration of cultural heritage. I am conscious that they have raised that issue with me previously, and I also know that many Members of the other place attach significant importance to it. The Government have been clear to all parties that the desecration and destruction of cultural heritage sites is appalling and wholly unacceptable. When I spoke to Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Bayramov and Armenian Foreign Minister Ayvazyan in November, I expressed deep concern over these reports. Our embassies in Baku and Yerevan have continued to engage on this matter, and we fully support the efforts of UNESCO.
I know that many right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the videos that purport to show war crimes committed by both Armenian and Azerbaijani troops. I want to be clear that this Government’s position on war crimes has not changed: where we have irrefutable evidence that war crimes have been committed, we will call them out and take appropriate action. In this case, the evidence is not irrefutable and we know that some of these videos are several years old or doctored. Nevertheless, I have raised concerns with both Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Bayramov, who committed to a full investigation, and the former Armenian Foreign Minister Mnatsakanyan.
Wendy Morton
I will try to finish these points, given that I am almost running out of time. Members have raised points that I want to cover, including about the UN Security Council and the direct question whether the UK had vetoed a UNSC product, to which the answer is no. Although the UN Security Council was united in seeking an end to the conflict, it was unfortunately unable to agree the text of a statement.
The issue of prisoners of war has also been raised. I spoke to the Armenian and Azeri Foreign Ministers following the ceasefire agreement, and highlighted the importance of returning prisoners of war. I also highlighted the International Committee of the Red Cross as the primary mediator through which prisoner exchanges should take place, but we continue to monitor that situation very closely.
The issue of cluster munitions was raised. We are deeply concerned by reports that both sides used cluster munitions during the conflict. The reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which seek to verify the deployment of these munitions by both Governments, are incredibly concerning.
I will draw this debate to a conclusion. While the Government welcome the recent peace deal, I assure right hon. and hon. Members that we remain deeply concerned by the humanitarian situation in Armenia and Azerbaijan. We remain committed to utilising the diplomatic and humanitarian tools at our disposal to see lasting peace and recovery in the region. Since the cessation of hostilities, I have continued to engage with our partners. The UK and the international community have repeatedly welcomed the cessation of hostilities and stressed the importance that all further discussions are held under the auspices of the chairs of the OSCE Minsk group. The UK will continue to raise with the relevant parties any concerns we have over the protection of cultural heritage, the role of external factors and the humanitarian situation.
Tim Loughton
In the interest of us all not freezing and being able to get to the next Division in the House, I simply thank everybody for taking part in this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Written Statements
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Taxation (Post-transition) Bill
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The Government have today tabled resolutions for the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill as part of their preparations for the end of the transition period.
The Bill will take forward changes to the tax system to support the smooth continuation of business across the UK. It will ensure legislation required for the purposes of VAT and customs and excise duties to support the practical implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol is in place by the end of the transition period. It will also implement further changes to the tax system which are required ahead of the end of the transition period, including the introduction of a new system for collecting VAT on cross-border goods.
The Government will introduce Finance Bill legislation in the spring, following the next Budget in the usual way.
[HCWS628]
Unacceptable Behaviours Progress Review
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Today the Ministry of Defence is publishing the Unacceptable Behaviours Progress Review and its response, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
The Progress review was conducted by Danuta Gray, Non-Executive Member of the Defence Board and Chair of the People Committee. The review assessed progress made by implementing the Wigston review’s 36 recommendations in the single services, UK Strategic Command and Head Office.
The review found that good progress was made over the past year. To further accelerate progress, it made an additional 13 recommendations, many of which build upon Wigston recommendations. I welcome the report and accept the recommendations in full. We will be considering how to best take the recommendations forward. We remain committed to preventing and reducing instances of unacceptable behaviour and supporting our people when instances do occur.
While there is clearly work still to do, over the past year we have issued new policy guidance on unacceptable behaviours, introduced a new whole-force bullying harassment and discrimination helpline, introduced active bystander training and ensured our personnel have access to professional mediation services. We are also making reforms to the service complaints system and will be rolling out the first changes in the new year.
[HCWS629]
Avian Influenza: Housing Measures for Kept Birds
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
Further to my statement of 12 November, high pathogenicity avian influenza continues to circulate in the UK and Europe. There are now eight confirmed cases in England in kept birds and a large number of findings in wild birds across 19 counties.
Public Health England advises that the risk to public health is very low and the Food Standards Agency has said there is no food safety risk for UK consumers.
Given the high risk of incursion to captive birds we are adding a housing measure to the avian influenza prevention zone (AIPZ). This will take effect from 14 December. It will require all keepers to house their birds or otherwise keep them separate from wild birds. Keepers have until 14 December to ready their birds for housing.
The addition of the housing measure has been co-ordinated with the devolved Administrations and Scottish and Welsh Governments are introducing a similar measure. In practical terms, this means the additional requirement to house birds applies to the whole of Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, as in GB, there is an avian influenza prevention zone in place and the case for further measures on housing is kept under review.
There are rules covering the free range sector in these circumstances. Eggs may continue to be marketed as free range providing the birds are not housed continuously for more than 16 weeks. There are similar rules for poultry meat for 12 weeks. Eggs or poultry can continue to be marketed as organic regardless of this additional housing requirement.
The key to protecting the sector and reducing the risk of further increase in cases is for all keepers to adopt the highest possible standard of biosecurity.
We continue to urge bird keepers to be vigilant for any signs of disease, ensure they maintain their biosecurity, seek prompt advice from their vet and report suspect disease to the animal and plant health agency (APHA), as they must do by law.
We strongly advise keepers to register on the poultry register so as to receive notifications and disease alerts. This is mandatory for all those with flocks of over 50 birds. Registration is easy and can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bird-gatherings-licences
Officials examine the evidence about the risk on a daily basis and review their risk assessment at least once a month. The need to keep the housing requirement in place will therefore be continually under review.
[HCWS631]
Covid-19 Vaccine Roll-out: Contingent Liability
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of honourable and right honourable Members to bring to their attention the contingent liabilities relating to the contract signed between HMG and Pfizer/BioNTech for their covid-19 vaccine.
On 2 December, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) gave its authorisation for use of the covid-19 vaccine being manufactured by Pfizer/BioNTech. With deployment of this vaccine beginning this week, I am now updating the House on the liabilities HMG has taken on in relation to this vaccine via this statement and departmental minute laid today.
The agreement to provide an indemnity as part of the contract between HMT and Pfizer/BioNTech creates a contingent liability on the covid-19 vaccination programme, and I have laid a departmental minute today containing a description of the liability undertaken.
It has been and is the Government’s strategy to manage covid-19 until an effective vaccine/vaccines can be deployed at scale. Willingness to accept appropriate indemnities has helped to secure access to vaccines with the expected benefits to public health and the economy alike much sooner than may have been the case otherwise.
Given the exceptional circumstances we are in, and the terms on which developers are willing to supply a covid-19 vaccine, we have taken a broader approach to indemnification than we usually would. Global approaches differ, but we are aware that many other nation states are offering indemnities as part of their contractual arrangements, or other means e.g., the US PREP Act, which provides immunity from liability to vaccine developers.
Even though the covid-19 vaccines have been developed at pace, at no point and at no stage of development has safety been bypassed. The independent MHRA’s approval for use of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine clearly demonstrates that this vaccine has satisfied, in full, all the necessary requirements for safety, effectiveness, and quality. We are providing indemnities in the very unexpected event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures that have been put in place.
Developing a vaccination against covid-19 has been an extraordinary feat which has been delivered at great pace. Given the pace of vaccine development and our ambition to deploy the vaccine as soon as it has been authorised, it has not been possible to provide you with normal 14 sitting days to consider this issue of contingent liabilities.
I will update the House in a similar manner as and when other covid-19 vaccines are deployed.
[HCWS630]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. I will not read out the formalities, with which we are quite familiar, but draw noble Lords’ attention to the microphone system. Microphones are no longer turned on at all times, in order to reduce the noise. 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. Okay, let us begin. The time limit is one hour.
Social Security Co-ordination (Revocation of Retained Direct EU Legislation and Related Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security Co-ordination (Revocation of Retained Direct EU Legislation and Related Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations, which concern policy areas of my department and Her Majesty’s Treasury, and apply UK-wide, were laid before both Houses on 16 November. They are required to clear the way for the legislation which will implement our new system of social security co-ordination with the EU, EEA states and Switzerland.
The current EU social security co-ordination regulations—I will refer to these as the SSC 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; they set out which member state is responsible for the payment of social security benefits; they require the export of some benefits to claimants resident in the EU; and they provide for the aggregation of social security contributions when claiming certain benefits and the state pension. These rules require equal treatment for citizens across the EU, overriding any domestic legislation. They have continued to apply to the UK throughout the transition period.
As the Committee will be aware, the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act came into force on 11 November 2020, Section 6 of which provides a power to modify these SSC regulations, which have been retained in UK law. Before I go into the detail of the draft regulations, I will provide the Committee further details on the context in which they are being made. I hope noble Lords will forgive the lack of originality in what I am about to say, which is very similar to the update provided by the Minister in the other place yesterday.
As I have stressed to your Lordships on a number of occasions, citizens covered by the withdrawal agreement and related agreements with the EEA and Switzerland will be unaffected by these regulations as long as they remain covered by those agreements. Arrangements in this area for UK and Irish nationals moving 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 social security relationships the UK has with nations outside the EU. This 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 negotiations. The Government have been clear about this, including as the ISSC Bill passed through Parliament and in public communications.
As the Committee will be aware, negotiations with the EU are at a very advanced stage. It is the Government’s position that new rules, whether or not there is a future agreement, should take effect from the end of the transition period. These 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.
I will now summarise the regulations we are debating today. Part 1 sets out that the regulations come into force at the end of the transition period, with the exception of some amendments being remade in Part 4. These amendments will come into force on the day after the day on which the regulations are made.
Part 2 revokes the EU SSC regulations retained under Section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the unilateral fixing statutory instruments made under Section 8 of that Act. The fixing SIs were brought forward to prepare for a scenario in which the UK did not leave the EU with a withdrawal agreement and would have enabled the UK to operate some of the retained SSC regulations unilaterally, so far as possible. This revocation is in line with the approach the Government set out in the draft illustrative regulations shared with the House during the passage of the ISSC Bill.
This means that the rules for those individuals who are not covered by the withdrawal agreement and move between the UK and the EU, EEA states and Switzerland after the end of the transition period will be determined by any new international agreements in place or, in the absence of an international agreement, the respective domestic law in each country. For UK benefits this means, for example, that the UK will no longer export child benefit to children living in the EU, with the exception of Ireland, delivering on the manifesto commitment. For national insurance contributions this means that, where no reciprocal agreement applies, the rules on payment of national insurance contributions for individuals moving between the UK and the EU, the EEA and Switzerland will be the same as the rules for the rest of the world.
These regulations make four limited savings from the general revocation of the retained SSC regulations in Part 3. First, they save the retained SSC regulations on the co-ordination of benefits in kind; namely, health- care, which is a policy competence of the Department of Health and Social Care. DHSC has made separate secondary legislation in respect of the reciprocal healthcare aspects of the retained SSC regulations.
Secondly, they save the existing debt recovery provisions which will enable the UK to collect overpaid HMRC benefits and social security contributions on behalf of a foreign social security authority where the individual or employer is present in the UK, as part of a reciprocal agreement on social security. Full details of the specifics of these provisions have also been set out in public correspondence.
Thirdly, they 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. I can confirm that it is the intention of the UK and Gibraltar 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 later be revoked.
Fourthly, they save provisions relating to aggregation and uprating of the state pension in the absence of agreements being in place with the EU, EEA states and Switzerland by the end of the transition period. This saving will provide for continued state pension aggregation and uprating in those countries 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 agreements on social security with individual EU countries instead; even where such negotiations are progressing well, the saving may be needed for a short period beyond March 2022 to finalise and implement bilateral agreements. For this reason, the saving is not time limited. However, it is a strictly interim measure targeted at those who move to the EU, the EEA and Switzerland after the transition period, while future arrangements are put on a reciprocal footing.
Part 4 makes related amendments in other EU exit legislation. This includes bringing forward the day on which amendments will be made to Section 179 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the equivalent Northern Ireland Act. These amendments were previously made by the Social Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the equivalent Northern Ireland regulations, which are not revoked by this instrument. These amendments were otherwise due to come into effect at the end of the transition period.
While the UK has left the EU, we are not leaving the European Convention on Human Rights; in my view the provisions of the Social Security Co-ordination (Revocation of Retained Direct EU Legislation and Related Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 are compatible with the convention.
In summary, these regulations make changes to prepare the statute book for the end of the transition period, particularly in relation to preventing the unilateral export of benefits, delivering on the manifesto commitment to prevent people claiming child benefit for children living outside the UK. They also 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 this be needed. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, for the information of those on remote calls, the first 90 seconds of the Minister’s speech were lost, but I think the gist of the speech was contained. If there are any particular issues that noble Lords wish to tease out during the questioning, I am sure the Minister will be happy to respond in her summing up. I call the first speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I understand she is having technical difficulties, so we will come back to her. We move on to the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this SI has been prepared by the Department for Work and Pensions. It will ensure that, aside from some specific saving provisions, the EU SSC regulations, which are retained on a unilateral basis under Section 3 of the EU withdrawal Act, will not take effect in domestic law from the end of the transition period in the areas of DWP and HMT policy. Now that the UK has left the EU, it is necessary for the new arrangement to be in place from the end of the transition period.
The Government published their approach to negotiations on 27 February 2020 in which they set out their intention to negotiate a future EU-wide agreement on social security co-ordination. The UK is now able to negotiate social security co-ordination arrangements with the EU as a sovereign country, ending free movement. The Government are also in discussion with EEA and EFTA countries and Switzerland about future social security arrangements that will apply between the UK and those countries after the end of the transition period. Thousands of UK citizens work in the EU and other countries in Europe. Similarly, thousands of citizens of the EU and European countries work in the UK.
Can the Minister inform the House that the formalities have been properly laid in the UK, the EU and other countries, so that businesses and individual consultants are not disadvantaged? I particularly wish to highlight the banking and insurance industries, which have thousands of offices in the UK and EU, employing thousands of professional people. If simple processes are not in place at the end of the transition period, a very chaotic situation could arise that affected the property and job markets across Europe. Surely we must not create another problem while we are fighting Covid-19.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the next speaker is the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. She is not there, so we will move on to the next speaker and come back to the noble Baroness later. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of these regulations. I am also grateful to her for giving me access to her officials, who have been a source of very helpful briefing throughout this process.
Ministers have explained previously that their intention was to revoke the provisions of the social security co-ordination regulations at the end of the transition period, the idea being to clear the decks for the implementation of the contents of a deal with the EU and/or with the EEA and Switzerland. I have repeatedly asked the Minister over the year to spell out what will happen to social security co-ordination after the transition period for those outside the scope of the withdrawal agreement.
Ministers have consistently declined to answer questions on the grounds that the Government aim to get a deal, and that if we can wait until then we will be told everything. We are now here, three weeks before the end of the transition period, debating regulations that terminate the current co-ordination provisions, and we still do not know what is to replace them because we still do not know if there will be a deal.
Can the Minister tell the Committee how, if there is a deal, its provisions will be enacted in law? Specifically, how will Parliament get to examine the content and implications of the deal? If there is no deal, anyone moving between the UK and the EU, including the EEA and Switzerland, will be in the same position as somebody currently moving between here any other country in the world, except of course that we have agreements with many other countries, and far more people move between the UK and the EU and the EEA than anywhere else. According to the House of Commons Library, last year there were some 3.7 million EU nationals living in the UK and the best part of a million UK nationals living elsewhere in the EU, excluding Ireland.
If we end up without a deal, what will the position be? It is good to have it clarified that the regulations save provisions relating to the aggregation and uprating of the state pension. So if there is no deal in place by the end of the transition period, there will at least be continued state pension aggregation and uprating in the EU and EEA states and Switzerland up to the end of the next financial year and potentially for a wee bit longer, if necessary, for ongoing negotiations.
The intention is presumably that, in the absence of an EU-wide agreement, the UK would seek to put in place reciprocal arrangements with individual European states instead. Just for the record, can the Minister confirm that in the absence of a deal with the EU, this means that if a British pensioner moves to France in January she will find that her state pension is uprated in April as though she had never left the UK? Will there be any reimbursement of healthcare charges for her, or indeed for anybody getting long-term exportable benefits? Will there be any healthcare coverage for someone making a short stay in an EU state from the UK after the transition period? What will happen to those affected by Covid, such as students who started their courses virtually, intending to move physically next term? What will be the impact on their entitlements?
The fact that nothing else is safe will leave people moving between the UK and the EU very exposed. The obvious exception is Ireland, with which we now have an agreement, and we are told that there is an intention to have a deal with Gibraltar. These regulations save the intended SSC regulations on social security between the Governments of the UK and Gibraltar. Can the Minister confirm—I apologise if she did this in her opening remarks—whether the extent of those savings is just on uprating and aggregation, like a state pension, as it is with the EU as whole, or whether it is broader for Gibraltar?
The other outstanding areas relate to things such as double payment or aggregation of national insurance contributions. I understand that, at the moment, if there is no deal, the rules that apply to any other country in the world that does not have a reciprocal agreement with the UK will also apply to those moving for work between the UK and the EU or EFTA or Switzerland. I presume they will pay NICs for 52 weeks and then be subject to the local regimes. Could the Minister confirm for the record that someone in that position would therefore end up being potentially liable to paying contributions in both countries, while being insured in the UK only?
Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum says that no impact assessment has been prepared for this instrument, but that, when negotiations are concluded,
“DWP intend to publish … an update to the social security co-ordination impact assessment published during the passage of the … Act.”
Can I ask the Minister why no impact assessment was prepared? How soon after negotiations are concluded will DWP update the impact assessment published during the passage of the Act? If there is a deal, can the Minister assure the Committee that we will see an impact assessment for any measures brought forward to implement the deal and an updated impact assessment for these measures before the provisions of any deal are implemented?
This entire process is highly unsatisfactory. We are three weeks from the end of the transition period and Parliament is being asked to approve regulations that remove the transitional provisions without any clarity as to what will replace them. That leaves uncertainty for anyone moving between the EU and the UK who is outside the scope of the withdrawal agreement. It leaves us, as parliamentarians, with no knowledge as to when, how or even if Parliament will get to scrutinise and debate what is coming next. I deeply regret that Parliament has been put in this position, but I look forward to hearing any further clarification the Minister is able to give.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. We have been unable to connect with her because of various technical reasons, for which I apologise. I return to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. I hope we can now speak with her.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for her presentation. I and others supported efforts to restrain the transfer of widespread powers to Ministers under the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020. The DPRRC recommended the removal of this clause from the Bill.
This order, as the Minister has said, is laid through the powers of the Bill, which are seen by many to be excessive and undemocratic in their scope and the authority they give to Ministers. Revocation of the clauses in this order dismantles the system of reciprocal arrangements for future workers from the EU or the EEA. The social security regulations are widely recognised as a well-established system of administrative co-operation between countries that ensures the effective operation of the co-ordination rules, dispute resolution and secure data sharing. Although the order and the revocation of these clauses from UK law does not apply to existing EU citizens living in the UK or UK citizens in the EU, it is a retrograde step to inhibit and hinder workers, many of whom are essential to the UK.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, I wonder why there is no impact assessment on, for example, how this will affect the care services or the National Health Service. Has there been any consultation with caring services or the NHS? If so, why are we not seeing the results? What about businesses dependent on workers from the EU and the EEA, such as the tech industries, aerospace and the automotive industry?
As others have said, the exercising of these powers underlines the inadequacy of the procedure for amending primary legislation and the use of the wide-ranging powers the Government have given themselves. Important questions arise here, as the messages the Government are sending out at the moment are at best ambiguous and at worst undermining of confidence in the future of the UK economy. The value of and benefits from trade deals and investment depend on the quality of the relationship between Governments. Trust and confidence are key factors.
The whole issue of good faith and trust is in question due to powers the Government have given themselves in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The revoking of the social security regulations adds to the lack of international confidence in the UK. If we are unwilling to ensure future arrangements for such things as pensions and benefits to citizens from other countries —people who bring their essential skills and experience to work here—how can other countries, business and investors have confidence in the UK or its economy?
If these revocations and the revocation of the fixing arrangements that were put in place in case of no deal are agreed, there will be a policy vacuum. How is that to be addressed? What are the Government’s plans, and what is the timescale? Are we talking about reciprocal arrangements between each EU country? Presumably that will take quite a long time. Are we correct in assuming that this will be addressed through secondary legislation and that Parliament will have no role to play in future agreements?
It will be important to reassure future trade and investment partners of the robustness of the arrangements underpinning the UK economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, said, it is important that this does not end in chaos in our new global context. I would welcome some understanding of how the Government will address this and in what timescale. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We have been having some gremlins today, but we will try to return now to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
Thank you. My sincere apologies: I am jinxed on the IT front today. I am on the phone.
I repeat the objections to the powers in Clause 5 of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, which became Section 6 of the Act, which I and others expressed during the passage of the Bill. I cited then the reports of our Delegated Powers Committee, which were rightly damning about the extent of these powers, which include Henry VIII powers.
The committee said in its 49th report of January 2019 that this provision was
“an inappropriate delegation of power”
and that
“the clear impression is that the Government are seeking these powers in order to avoid … having to prepare a detailed bill implementing their policy once it is settled, and any future arrangements with the EU are concluded”.
In its 22nd report of August 2020, the committee said that it was a “significant open-ended power”.
This statutory instrument fully illustrates the problem. If these regulations were just tidying-up measures, they could have been done under Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. In fact, they make new policy, and that should be done by primary legislation.
This instrument brings forward the day on which amendments will be made to primary legislation: the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and its Northern Ireland counterpart. The Explanatory Memorandum says that these amendments are
“for the purpose of implementing, and giving effect to, reciprocal agreements with international organisations”.
Such organisations include the EU.
Can the Minister tell us what other international organisations it is envisaged signing reciprocal agreements on social security with? Can she also tell us what will fill the void as far as the EU is concerned? As I said in Committee on the Bill, and I apologise for quoting myself:
“There is a range of possibilities for a future arrangement on social security co-ordination, from ‘skinny’ coverage … to something much more similar to the present coverage. The draft agreement that the UK Government published in May 2020 was quite limited. They already said that they would stop the export of child benefit, and expect that arrangements regarding disability and unemployment benefits will change and are less likely to be comprehensive in future. They forecast that some benefits would be available for a time-limited period.
Altogether, these would be quite substantial changes. One other that pensioners fear is the possibility of no uprating in pensions for UK citizens resident in EEA countries in future. Certainly, the draft text of the agreement published by the Government in May did not cover cash benefits other than state pensions. It also did not cover healthcare costs for pensioners in EEA countries, where they now get a so-called S1 form, which enables them to get healthcare coverage.”—[Official Report, 16/9/20; col. 1363.]
I assume, as perhaps I did not understand at the time, that that issue is covered by regulations from the Department of Health.
Can the Minister now tell us what we can expect as content for a social security agreement with the EU? Can she also explain why these amendments to primary legislation will be made the day after this instrument is made, rather than on what the Government call IP completion day but the rest of us call the end of transition; namely, 31 December? By the way, if there is an implementation period for any deal that is reached this week, the Government will have a challenge as to what to call it.
The idea of the four fixing SIs was apparently to ensure that the retained EU social security co-ordination regulations were operable in the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal. Unless the Minister knows something I do not, whether the UK is leaving with or without a deal is currently unresolved. If we leave with a deal, might we again need the fixing SIs, and indeed the five EU regulations to come back into UK law?
The Explanatory Memorandum recalls that EU law, including the five social security co-ordination regulations, will continue to apply to the EEA citizens covered by the withdrawal agreement, and that hence that law continues to form part of domestic law for those purposes. Thus, the Explanatory Memorandum says that this instrument has no impact on anyone covered by the withdrawal agreement.
However, can the Minister explain how revoking the EU SSC regulations in this instrument ensures that they are retained in domestic law for the purposes of the withdrawal agreement? I have not understood—that is probably my limitation—how those Chinese walls work legally and legislatively.
I would also be grateful if the Minister could explain a little more how the savings in Part 3 of this statutory instrument are to work. She referred to this in her opening speech, but I do not quite understand how we revoke the amendments for some purposes but we save them for others. It is a bit of a jigsaw, and I find myself in some difficulty in trying to understand it all.
Leaving those questions aside, the bigger issue is that what is created by the revocation of the five EU regulations which until now were retained law, along with revocation of the four fixing SIs of 2019, is a void. The Government propose to fill that void without any reference to Parliament whatever; they propose to use the amended power in the 1992 Act to implement by Order in Council any reciprocal social security agreements reached and to amend or modify retained EU legislation in order to give effect to them. So Parliament will have no role at all in assessing or agreeing such agreement, which is a perfect illustration of how the Brexit slogan of “take back control” meant only take back control for the Executive. This instrument, as foreseen by our Delegated Powers Committee, is a democratic travesty.
What proposals are there to consult the public and not just the Social Security Advisory Committee on the content and implementation of any new reciprocal agreement? Surely, the Government do not intend to shut out the public as well as Parliament. I thank noble Lords for tolerating my IT problems.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, Lady Ludford and Lady Janke, and the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, for their contributions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock asked about process and timing. I recognise that it is late in the transition period, but that is the nature of EU negotiations. Good progress has been made in this area, and we hope to get the deal over the line. 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.
While I acknowledge the points on the timing of the process, I have set out the baseline provisions that will apply on the state pension and national insurance contributions. There will be no unilateral measures in relation to other benefits where long-standing domestic rules do not already provide for this. These affirmative resolution regulations offer an opportunity for the House to scrutinise and approve the baseline that would apply in the absence of future agreement. The Government’s position is that it would not be appropriate to continue unilaterally to operate EU rules after we have left the EU and the transition period ends, in doing so creating different dates of change, additional cohorts and complexity for staff and citizens.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, talked about plans for bilateral agreements. As I set out, the Government would seek to put in place reciprocal agreements with member states swiftly if no agreement can be reached with the EU. As the Minister in the other place set out, securing reciprocal provisions on the state pension and national insurance contributions are priority areas for the DWP and HMRC but cannot be effectively operated on a unilateral basis. We would prefer a single deal with the EU, of course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked how the future agreement would be implemented. The mechanism by which any future agreement will be implemented in the various circumstances we could yet find ourselves in remains under review. These regulations ensure—this is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, raised—that the Government can use existing powers for this purpose between now and the end of the year, should this be required.
We expect a number of social security benefits to no longer be exportable to the EU in future; this is in line with long-standing UK policy on certain benefits. Certain benefits, such as disability and unemployment benefits, are not exportable when an individual permanently leaves the UK even when there is a social security agreement in place, and in line with communications which the Government published on GOV.UK before the summer.
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Janke, raised the subject of impacts. As the Minister said in the other place yesterday, the Government remain committed to publishing an updated impact assessment once the outcome of negotiations is known. I can confirm that those impact assessments will be brought forward. Those covered by the withdrawal agreement are not impacted by this instrument. The measure does not impose any costs on business and ensures that once the SSC rules cease to apply between the UK and the EU, businesses can apply the standard rest of the world rules for national insurance where there is no reciprocal agreement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the question of students. The Government have provided guidance to all UK universities via Universities UK to make them aware of the need to communicate to EU students who have moved to start their courses in person in the UK by the end of the transition period that they will need to apply under the points-based immigration system. They will not be covered by the withdrawal agreement’s provisions on social security co-ordination and will be subject to any new reciprocal agreement with the EU or any individual member states.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also asked about Gibraltar. I can confirm that the Government will seek a bilateral agreement with Gibraltar similar in kind to that agreed with Ireland.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Janke, raised the issue of healthcare. While that is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care and not in scope of these regulations, the Government will assess their options for reciprocal healthcare if we do not achieve an EU-wide agreement. The Department of Health and Social Care is aware of the concerns of people with pre-existing health conditions and is carefully looking to the impact of any loss of necessary healthcare provisions.
On matters of governance, the UK’s proposed legal text, published in May, contains provisions on dispute resolution, data sharing and administrative co-operation between social security authorities. As is standard practice in international social security arrangements, we have been clear when it comes to future arrangements that there should be no CJEU oversight. We remain in close collaborative discussion with member states in this area through the administrative commission, which the UK continues to attend and will continue to attend in an observer capacity.
These 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 negotiations. For the reasons I have set out, that would not be desirable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked what would happen if there was no deal. If a British pensioner moves to the EU, the EEA or Switzerland in January 2021, their state pension will be uprated in April 2021. She also raised the issue of double contributions. On social security contributions, the standard rest of the world rules limit the possibility of UK-based employees working overseas and their employers being required to pay social security contributions in two countries at the same time to 52 weeks, while ensuring that they avoid creating gaps in their national insurance record in the UK for short periods of work overseas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, raised the use of delegated powers. During the passage of the parent Act, I set out the exceptional circumstances under which we are operating, and shared draft illustrative regulations for scrutiny at that stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about the primary purpose of the amendments for the 1992 Act being to provide powers to conclude an agreement with the EU. She asked whether we would need the revoked provisions again. No, we are saving the only provisions that we may need to rely on.
The noble Baroness asked what a deal would contain. We have set out our approach to negotiations and have been negotiating in line with that. In particular, we are seeking arrangements on state pension and national insurance contributions.
On the issue of consultation, the UK has left the EU and the Government have acted in response to the manifesto commitment to end free movement. The SSC regulations facilitate free movement between member states of the EU on a reciprocal basis. The Government have repeatedly set out an approach to seeking a deal with the EU in this area to reflect the agreements that we have with countries outside the EU. There have been a number of publications to this effect, including our approach to negotiations published on 27 February. The UK has a long-standing policy in relation to the exportability of benefits, and negotiations with the EU have been consistent with that policy.
I thank again all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this SI. We will look at Hansard and make sure that we have answered all questions. If we have not, we will write to noble Lords—and, in that instance, I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.30 pm. I ask Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. I will not repeat the usual instructions because your Lordships are aware of them by now. 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 beginning to speak. Okey-dokey, let us kick on. The time limit is one hour.
Prohibition on Quantitative Restrictions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Prohibition on Quantitative Restrictions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 35th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 8 November 2020. As I am sure noble Lords will recognise, it is important that we have full sovereignty over our regulatory regime for goods at the end of the transition period. This SI will help ensure that we are not challenged if we choose to diverge from EU regulations by removing retained EU treaty rights.
At the end of the transition period, EU treaty rights on the movement of goods stemming from Articles 34 to 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union will be retained in UK law unless they are removed by this SI. The rights flowing from these EU treaty articles prohibit the imposition of quantitative restrictions or equivalent measures, such as regulatory requirements, on imports and exports by member states, unless justified under Article 36. This is to encourage the free movement of goods within the single market.
The UK will have its own regulatory regimes after the end of the transition period and the EU will not be treating UK goods as it would goods from a member state. Therefore, these provisions are no longer appropriate to retain, and could impede our ability to diverge from EU goods regulation in future. This is because the provisions prohibit quantitative restrictions or equivalent measures on imports and exports, meaning that divergence from EU regulatory requirements could result in a challenge from a business or importer if it resulted in being a barrier to placing its goods on the market in Great Britain.
Of course, I understand that there is a lot of interest in precisely what these new regulatory arrangements will be. First, I cannot emphasise enough to noble Lords that this instrument does not introduce any of these new regulatory arrangements or any divergence. Any measures relating to specific regulatory arrangements are being dealt with in separate regulations; nor does this instrument deal with other matters, such as the Northern Ireland protocol or the UK internal market, which I know are also of great interest to noble Lords.
I will, however, say a few words on the new regulatory arrangements. Different goods are currently subject to different regulatory regimes. Cosmetics, food products, machinery, et cetera, are all dealt with in their own way, and that will continue to be the case. So I cannot give a detailed overview here, especially as these matters are not themselves the subject of the regulations before the Committee. What I can say is that by and large the regulatory requirements for goods as of 1 January 2020 will remain largely the same as they are now.
The main changes for the end of the transition period are to reflect the fact that we are no longer part of the single market; for example, the CE marking, which denotes compliance with EU rules, will be replaced by the UKCA marking, which shows that a good meets UK rules and was tested, where needed, by a UK-recognised body. This Committee debated that SI a week or so ago. Of course, any further regulatory changes will be a matter for future consultation and future legislation as appropriate.
The Government have published detailed guidance on these new regulatory arrangements and published guidance on the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and the UK. While many of the new arrangements will not apply in Northern Ireland from 1 January next year due to the Northern Ireland protocol, the Government have been categorical in our commitment to unfettered access to the rest of the UK market for Northern Ireland goods. But, again, I stress that these are matters that fall outside the scope of the regulations before your Lordships.
I return to what this SI does. It will remove the aforementioned EU treaty rights so that they no longer apply in England, Scotland or Wales. As some areas of goods fall under devolved competence, my officials have engaged regularly with officials from the Welsh and Scottish Governments. The Government have written to counterparts in Wales and Scotland to formally seek their consent to lay this SI, which they have confirmed. This SI does not cover Northern Ireland as the treaty rights in question will continue to apply in Northern Ireland as of 1 January 2021 by virtue of the protocol.
As I have already mentioned, these regulations will not result in any changes for businesses. However, they will give businesses greater certainty that when UK rules change they will not be rolled back after legal challenges based on treaty articles that no longer make sense once we have left the EU. A stable statute book is clearly in the best interests of businesses.
To be clear, this SI is not a pre-condition for divergence. As of 1 January, Parliament will have the ability to introduce new regulations—or not, as the case may be. Instead, is it about removing potential grounds for legal challenge based on retained treaty articles that have no place in our statute book once we have regained our full independence.
In conclusion, this SI will remove the rights flowing from Articles 34 to 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union—reciprocal rights between member states that no longer have a place in a post-exit independent UK. This will protect our ability to regulate goods as we see fit and ensure that potential challenges do not require us to keep in line with EU regulations.
I reassure noble Lords that we have engaged with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales on the changes that this SI makes, have ensured that they have been kept informed of its progress and have obtained their consent.
The safety of individuals, families and communities is a top priority for the Government. As I am sure noble Lords will recognise, it is essential that the UK is able to protect its sovereignty and that we can make our own rules to protect consumers and to prevent unsafe and non-compliant products entering the UK market. I commend these regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations. I declare my interest as a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House.
I understand that this very technical statutory instrument, which deals with England, Scotland and Wales, is to end the application of directly effective rights that flow from EU treaty provisions that prohibit the imposition of quantitative restrictions, such as administrative or regulatory requirements, which restrict free movement of non-harmonised goods within the EU or between the EU and Switzerland or the EU and Turkey.
At the end of the transition period, from 1 January 2021, GB will have its own regulatory regime for goods and the intention of this instrument is apparently to ensure that there is no barrier to diverging from EU rules should GB seek to do so after the end of the transition period. As I understand it, it is a protective instrument.
In that regard, will the Minister spell out the nature and the number of meetings and discussions with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales? Can he advise what preparations have been made and what further support funding will be provided for businesses? They have probably been ravaged this year by Covid and because of the uncertainty as we advance towards the end of the transition period. They need help, because many of them are competing with Amazon and the online businesses of the UK.
Furthermore, will common standards for trading be agreed via the common frameworks process and will that be put on a statutory basis? I know there is no reference to that within the statutory instrument, but I appreciate that that could be a direct, or maybe indirect, consequence of this.
Furthermore, I understand that EU rights will continue to apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of the protocol. On that, I am pleased that a “deal” was reached in the joint committee about a couple of hours ago on Northern Ireland border checks that will provide a solution for businesses and, I hope, result in the withdrawal of those controversial clauses in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. If the Minister is not able to provide detail and clarity on that today—I suppose that it does not relate directly to this statutory instrument—perhaps he could do so in writing. I hope it will be possible to achieve a free trade agreement that prevents customs friction and provides an implementation period, because that is a vital to all businesses in Northern Ireland or Great Britain.
Obviously, I have read the House of Commons debate on this issue and what was said in your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which referred to how the statutory instrument could impact on the flow of goods between Northern Ireland and GB. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord True, have insisted throughout this process and during debates on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill that there will be unfettered access for goods between Northern Ireland and Britain. The Bill makes provision for that unfettered access for qualifying goods and for the application of market access principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination. Can the Minister define those qualifying goods? What are they? Businesses trading in Britain, and those trading in Northern Ireland, would like to know what that definition is. What are the qualifying goods in that regard?
It is interesting that an amendment was tabled on Report on the Trade Bill, which should have been reached last night but was not, that sought to ensure that there would be no discrimination in respect of goods and services coming from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. I want assurances from the Minister: will this draft statutory instrument, which deals specifically with England, Scotland and Wales, ensure that there will be no discrimination of goods and that there will be unfettered access for goods and services from Northern Ireland to GB? Maybe he could go a little further and explain the processes involved in that.
We do not want to see a threat to existing supplies of any type of goods within England, Scotland and Wales. The same applies to Northern Ireland. I hope the statutory instrument provides the pathway to do just that. I realise it is highly technical and simply protects the market to allow divergence from EU rules to take place, but in so doing it is important that businesses are protected and that there is no diminution of any type of rights, or any type of damage to businesses, in the short and long term.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I ought to make it clear from the outset that we do not oppose the statutory instrument because we recognise that it is a natural consequence of leaving the EU at the end of the transition period. The instrument was debated some two weeks ago in the House of Commons, when the shadow Minister said that businesses were being left “completely blind” about how to prepare for the end of the transition and that:
“We are no further down the road with a deal, and they have no idea of the terms under which they are going to be trading in a few weeks’ time.”—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/20; col. 735.]
Two of those weeks have now passed, yet what is so worrying is that those words still bear repeating. Perhaps with the exception of the Northern Ireland protocol issue, which appears to have been resolved today, we are still very much in the dark about what comes next.
The issue with this instrument, as with so much that we in both Houses are being asked to consider, is that it leaves as many questions as answers, as we still do not know what will replace the aspects of the current EU framework that we are disapplying. The Government’s argument for getting these instruments on to the statute book without certainty as to what will replace them appears to be that time is running out to pass all the necessary legislation before the end of the transition. We of course appreciate those circumstances, but do the Government not understand that the same pressures apply to businesses in every corner of the country? They also need time to prepare before the Christmas period arrives. This intense uncertainty comes after a year of hardship, closure and uncertainty due to the Covid panic. It is up to the Government not to continue to add to that burden.
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, but the statutory instrument will end the application in England, Wales and Scotland of the rights derived from Articles 34 to 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The removal of these provisions is to ensure that there is no barrier to divergence from EU rules should the Government choose to diverge from them. What update can the Minister give us on what rights and protections will be in place for EU-UK trade before the end of the transition period? When will businesses have those details?
The statutory instrument does not in itself create divergence, but it is part of paving the way for it. Is the Minister therefore able to update the Committee on where he believes we might seek to diverge from the EU’s standards and requirements? What work is being done to ensure that any divergence is beneficial to British and Northern Irish businesses, and does not create new costs and barriers to trade?
What is crucial is that this issue relates not just to UK-EU trade but to the requirements for a new framework for UK-wide trade, because current treaty provisions also govern trade in goods across the UK. We have shown our commitment, not only on the Labour Benches but across the whole House, on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to ensuring that there is a strong internal market for the UK, working with the devolved Administrations through common frameworks on a statutory footing. However, yesterday the Government saw fit to overturn all the amendments to strengthen the role of the devolved Administrations that this House sent back to the Commons. In our way of thinking, that does not show a Government who are working to respect the devolved settlements and build a strong internal market for the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, as ever, asked a number of important questions on Northern Ireland. This SI implicates goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We support unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the rest of the UK market. However, the Minister knows that there are concerns over the temporary definition of qualifying goods. Is he in a position to give us any further update on this issue?
Finally, we should always remind ourselves that at the last election the voters were promised an oven-ready deal with
“no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors”,
and protections for the environment, our workers’ rights, our customers’ rights and our security. However, we are a matter of days away and people in every region of the UK are still waiting to know how their livelihoods will be affected. I particularly want to mention the Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda. If the Government do not get this deal right, it will be the sectors and areas of the UK that can least afford it that will bear the brunt of that fallout.
This statutory instrument might look like a narrow change, but it raises many vital questions about what comes next. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for their consideration of this statutory instrument and their valuable contributions and questions—I shall endeavour to deal with as many of them as possible.
I have set out today the importance of this SI and the importance of having full sovereignty over our regulatory regime for goods at the end of the transition period. I emphasise that this SI is not a precondition for divergence; nor does it introduce any divergence from our current rules. By supporting the SI, we will ensure that we are not faced with legal challenges that seek to keep us in line with EU regulations.
To recap: treaty rights provisions prohibit quantitative restrictions or equivalent measures on imports and exports. Therefore, future divergence from EU regulatory requirements could result in a challenge from a business or importer if it led to a barrier being created to placing their goods on the market in Great Britain. This SI will ensure that we have the freedom to regulate goods in Great Britain as we see fit, along with considering the impact on businesses and consumers, while ensuring that the UK product safety system remains among the strongest in the world.
As advised, these regulations will not result in any changes for businesses. However, they will give businesses greater certainty that, if UK rules change, they will not be rolled back after legal challenges based on treaty articles that no longer make sense once we have left the EU.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, raised the important subject of working with the devolved Administrations. I repeat what I said in my introduction: my officials have had a number of informal meetings with officials from the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all individually, on this SI. Officials have also hosted regular meetings with officials from the devolved Administrations to discuss progress in negotiations and the regulatory requirements for goods at the end of the transition period. I say again that consent to this regulation was given by all the devolved Administrations.
The noble Baroness also asked about goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. We are laying this legislation to ensure that we do not face challenges from manufacturers or importers if in Great Britain we decide to change our regulation of goods in a way that creates barriers to trade with the EU. This does not mean that there will be barriers for goods flowing from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. We have laid legislation to prevent such barriers, including the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the unfettered access legislation. This SI will not undo any of those protections. I shall write to both noble Lords on the definition of Northern Ireland qualifying goods.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked about the protection of rights. The vast majority of these changes will take place regardless of the agreement that we have reached with the European Union on our future trading relationship so that businesses can be confident that their plans and preparations to date have not been wasted.
We also recognise the impact that the pandemic will have had on industry’s ability to prepare. For that reason, we are taking a pragmatic and flexible approach to using some of our retained powers as a sovereign nation to allow businesses time to adjust.
The noble Lord also asked about legislative time. More than 150 SIs required by the end of the transition period have already been laid. Good progress is being made and we remain confident that all required SIs will be in force by the end of the transition period.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, also asked about the important subject of business readiness. We are listening to businesses and recognise that they have faced many challenges, particularly from Covid-19. For goods with the new UKCA marking, we are permitting the use of the CE marking for goods in scope of the SI until 1 January 2022 as long as Great Britain and EU technical requirements remain the same. There are easements allowing the UKCA marking to be affixed to a label on a product or on a document accompanying the product until 31 December 2022, and we are allowing new importers of products from the EEA to set out their details on a document accompanying their products until 31 December 2022. Those are all ways in which we are helping to ease the burden on business.
Since the summer, the Government have also been providing support through an ambitious series of business readiness events. My department has published a range of guidance. However, I stress once again that this SI does not introduce any changes for businesses.
The UK will have its own regulatory regime after the end of the transition period and the EU will not treat UK goods as it would goods from a member state. Therefore, the provisions to which this SI relates are no longer appropriate to retain and could impede our ability to diverge from EU goods regulation in future. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4.30 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any surfaces they may touch.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same. The time limit for this debate is one hour.
Jurisdiction, Judgments and Applicable Law (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Jurisdiction, Judgments and Applicable Law (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument forms part of the Government’s ongoing work to ensure that there are functioning domestic laws dealing with cross-border civil, commercial and family law matters in place at the end of the transition period that are consistent with the UK’s obligations under the withdrawal agreement.
This instrument is made under Sections 8 and 8B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It amends a number of statutory instruments made to remedy deficiencies in domestic legislation arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. The amendments address minor defects in those instruments, clarify the interaction of international conventions and domestic law after the end of the transition period, and ensure that two of those instruments are consistent with the provisions of the withdrawal agreement.
First is the amendment to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which revoke the Brussels Ia regulation, the key EU instrument dealing with jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in cross-border civil and commercial matters. In its place, domestic private international law rules will apply to cross-border cases involving parties from EU member states. However, to ensure that certain employees are not disadvantaged by this change, the civil regulations transpose special protective jurisdiction rules for employment cases from Brussels Ia into UK domestic law. One of those rules ensures that employees who do not have a habitual place of work in any one country can sue their employer in the courts of the EU member state where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated.
An error has been identified in the way the civil regulations transpose this rule. The Government’s exit policy intention is to replicate as closely as possible the Brussels Ia employment jurisdiction rules, modified only as necessary to make them work in the UK. However, in relation to one ground of the special jurisdiction rules, the rule has been inadvertently broadened to cover employees without a habitual place of work in any one part of the UK, rather than employees without a habitual place of work in any one country, as is the case in Brussels Ia.
This effect of this is that a larger group of employees will be able to sue employers in UK courts under this rule. This does not reflect the Government’s policy intention; nor is it a desirable outcome, as it would mean that employees who have a habitual place of work in another country will now have the option of suing in the UK courts instead, even where the connection to the UK is more tenuous—being only that the employee was engaged by a business situated in the UK. The purpose of the Brussels Ia rule was to provide a jurisdiction only in cases where that other place, a place of habitual work, was not available.
This instrument addresses the issue by amending the civil regulations to ensure that the Brussels Ia employment jurisdiction rules are correctly transposed into UK domestic law, modified only as necessary to make them work in the UK context. It does not represent any reduction in the protection available to employees, but merely properly replicates the existing EU rules.
The Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 revoke the Brussels IIa regulation, the main EU regulation dealing with jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in parental responsibility cases, and the maintenance regulation, the main EU regulation dealing with jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in maintenance cases. In their place, the UK will move principally to the 1996 Hague convention for cross-border parental responsibility matters involving parties from EU member states and the 2007 Hague convention for the cross-border recognition and enforcement of maintenance involving parties from EU member states. Where there are no applicable Hague convention rules, the family regulations make provision for the rules that will apply. In the case of maintenance jurisdiction, these are largely the rules as they existed prior to the relevant EU rules taking effect.
Two minor errors have been identified in the amendments made to domestic legislation by the family regulations to reinstate the pre-EU jurisdiction rules for maintenance cases in Scotland. The first of these is the carrying through of a reference to
“actions for adherence and aliment”.
These concepts have been abolished in Scots law, making this reference obsolete. This instrument addresses this by simply deleting the reference.
The second error has the unintended effect that, from the end of the transition period, certain applicants seeking maintenance, referred to as “aliment” in Scotland, would be disadvantaged. This would be where that claim is not connected to divorce or other proceedings; the applicant in such a case would be unable to bring the proceedings in Scotland and would have to pursue the paying party in the courts of the country where the paying party is domiciled. This problem is addressed in this instrument through an amendment to the family regulations to restore the jurisdiction of the Scottish court to hear claims for aliment where the applicant is domiciled or habitually resident in Scotland. We have worked closely with the Scottish Government to identify these errors and agree suitable remedies via the instrument we are debating today.
Additionally, the Government recognise that some of the precise effects of the provisions of the family regulations are potentially open to argument. We are grateful to the family law practitioners who have raised concerns about a lack of certainty in the application of the saving and transitional provisions in the family regulations. These intend to ensure that cases started under Brussels IIa or the maintenance regulation rules before the end of the transition period continue under those rules after its end. The concern is whether it is clear enough that those provisions apply to cases begun under the intra-UK maintenance jurisdiction rules, which was the Government’s intention. They have also highlighted a possible lack of clarity over the relationship after the end of the transition period between domestic jurisdiction rules in parental responsibility and maintenance matters and the relevant Hague convention rules.
This instrument addresses these areas of uncertainty through amendments to the family regulations to make clear and put beyond doubt that the saving and transitional provisions apply to intra-UK maintenance matters and that the relevant Hague convention rules take precedence over the domestic jurisdiction rules in cases that properly fall under the relevant Hague conventions.
The Cross-Border Mediation (EU Directive) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 revoke or amend, as appropriate, domestic legislation which gave effect to the EU mediation directive, other than court rules and matters within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. One of the domestic instruments amended by the mediation regulations, the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order, has been amended further by the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) subsequent to the making of the mediation regulations. This amendment came into effect on 27 January 2020; as such, the mediation regulations do not take account of it. This instrument amends the mediation regulations to take account of this later amendment to ensure the meaning of the relevant provision in the Northern Ireland order is clear once it is amended by the mediation regulations.
The Family Procedure Rules 2010 and Court of Protection Rules 2017 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make amendments to the Family Procedure Rules and the Court of Protection Rules that are consequential on the main civil judicial co-operation exit instruments. The instrument we are debating today addresses some minor technical errors in the rules regulations, re-establishing a link between the Family Procedure Rules and the transitional provisions in the civil regulations in respect of maintenance cases arising under the Lugano Convention 2007 and fixing a cross-referencing error in, and omitting an erroneous reference to “EU member state” from, the amendments to the Court of Protection Rules.
In addition to these corrective and clarifying amendments, this instrument amends two of the civil judicial co-operation exit instruments to ensure that their provisions are consistent with the UK’s obligations under the withdrawal agreement. The first of these instruments is the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which amends the Rome I and Rome II regulations. These EU instruments set out the rules for determining, in cases with a cross-border element, which country’s law applies, respectively, to contractual obligations and non-contractual obligations. The application of Rome I and Rome II have been extended to intra-UK matters, so are also used, for example, to determine whether English or Scots law should apply to a contract connected to both countries.
The Rome I and Rome II regulations have been retained under the withdrawal Act and will apply as domestic UK laws from the end of the transition period. The Rome regulations amend the retained versions of Rome I and Rome II to take account of the UK no longer being an EU member state. While the amendments are minor, it means that the Rome rules as retained are slightly different in some respects from the EU Rome regulations. The other instrument is the aforementioned family regulations. Both the Rome regulations and the family regulation were made in contemplation of the UK’s exit from the EU without an agreement on the terms of our departure. As a result, neither instrument takes account of the withdrawal agreement subsequently agreed by the Government and the EU.
Title VI of Part 3 of the withdrawal agreement contains provisions that determine how transitional matters—that is, matters that commence, but do not conclude, before the end of the transition period—are to be treated. In the case of applicable law rules, Article 66 of the withdrawal agreement provides that the Rome I regulation shall apply in respect of contracts concluded before the end of the transition period and that the Rome II regulation shall apply in respect of events giving rise to damage, when such events occurred before the end of the transition period. The Rome regulations do not reflect Article 66. Instead they provide that the retained versions of the Rome I and Rome II rules as amended by that instrument, and not the EU Rome I and Rome II regulations, apply to such contracts and events.
Likewise, Article 67 of the withdrawal agreement provides that the Brussels IIa regulation and the maintenance regulation continue to apply to matrimonial, parental responsibility and maintenance matters where proceedings are instituted in relevant proceedings before the end of the transition period. The family regulations contain a saving and transitional provision which, although largely consistent with Article 67 in terms of proceedings commenced under Brussels IIa and the maintenance regulation, extends to matters not dealt with in the withdrawal agreement, such as choice of court agreements in maintenance. This instrument amends the Rome regulations and the family regulations to align these instruments with the UK’s obligations under the relevant provision of the withdrawal agreement —Article 66 in the case of the Rome regulations and Article 67 in the case of the family regulations.
I should add that this is the first of two instruments that will amend the civil judicial co-operation exit statutory instruments to ensure that their provisions align with the requirements of the withdrawal agreement. The second of these instruments is still being finalised and will shortly be laid before Parliament.
On impacts, as I have noted, the amendments in this instrument correct minor technical errors and clarify ambiguities in the civil, family, mediation and family, and COP rules regulations, and will ensure that the family regulations and Rome regulations are consistent with directly applicable provisions of the withdrawal agreement. As such, they are not expected to have any significant impact on business, charities or the voluntary or public sectors. Indeed, in terms of the errors and ambiguities corrected, the amendments will ensure the civil, family, mediation and family, and COP rules exit SIs have the impact intended by the Government when they were laid before Parliament, as is reflected in the Explanatory Memoranda for those instruments and, in the case of the civil, family and mediation exit SIs, in the impact assessments published in respect of those instruments.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining in some detail this statutory instrument. This SI fixes the defects in civil regulations, family regulations, mediation regulations, Rome regulations and even the rules of regulations. Is the Minister satisfied that all the problems have been ironed out? With only 24 days until we leave the EU, how many more instruments can we expect to see before the House before we go? Can he confirm that none of the amendments in this statutory instrument are in any way being discussed in Brussels today as part of the negotiations for when we finally leave?
I move on to an issue that I raised with the Minister when we had a private talk with the Minister in another place, Alex Chalk, on a specific concern of mine. I remind the Minister that I sit as a family magistrate in London and deal with the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders, which come under these regulations. The issue that we have in our courts is with the question of enforcement of these orders. As the Minister said, they will principally move to being enforced under the Hague conventions of 1996 and 2007. However, the issue that we have in our courts is that we have no powers, as far as I am advised by legal advisers, to enforce these maintenance orders.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
I have been overlooked and it has gone straight to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
I was just concluding my comments, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is after me on the list.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
When I am in the chair, there is no possibility of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, ever being overlooked. I call him now.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
I am very grateful. I am sorry if there has been a glitch. I was ahead of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on the list that I received this morning.
I do not mind mistakes—everybody makes them—and the helter-skelter of amending the statute book in time for our leaving the EU has no doubt led to many errors in the wave of 2019 regulations put before us. If the mistakes could not be spotted at the time by government lawyers, perhaps the opposition parties can be forgiven for letting them through. I understand that another SI to amend mistakes is in the pipeline, similar to this, and I would expect others to follow.
First, the 2019 civil jurisdiction and judgments regulations inadvertently broadened the special jurisdiction rules, with the effect that a larger group of employees than the Government intended would be able to sue employers in UK courts. Secondly, the jurisdiction and judgments family rules contain two minor errors. The first are references to “actions for adherence and aliment”, concepts that had been abolished in Scots law before I ever came to know that they existed and, secondly, they inadvertently took away jurisdiction from the Scottish court to hear claims for aliment not connected to divorce or other proceedings.
The 2019 cross-border mediation regulations did not take into account alterations made by the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. Similarly, family procedure and Court of Protection rules contained minor errors. Two of the civil judicial co-operation exit instruments of 2019, which are very important to ensure co-operation with our former European partners, have been overtaken by the provisions of the withdrawal agreement.
I welcome this SI not so much for what it contains but because of its limited purposes—to use the powers that have been granted under various statutes to put right mistakes. There is nothing grandiose about it. The objection, that we hear so much, to the use of Henry VIII powers arises when they purport to carry into effect policy, not when they rectify errors, as here. By contrast, the powers to make secondary legislation that have been so offensive—the ones put back last night into the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and abandoned this morning—were not just those which would have permitted a Minister to break the law and are contrary to the rule of law championed for so long by this country; that offence was compounded on this occasion by the unprecedented attempt to give such unlawful secondary legislation the status of an Act of Parliament, so that the use of unlawful powers could not be challenged in the courts by judicial review. The proposal was an extraordinary and unprecedented step, which I hope will never be repeated.
Today is an interesting day, not just for last night’s reassertion of illegality by a pack of Tory MPs, but as the day that the Prime Minister heads off to meet the head of the European Commission to assert the primacy of British sovereignty, having desperately weakened his own bargaining position by demonstrating that the United Kingdom cannot be trusted to keep its word. But I must be up to date. Perhaps honour has been saved this morning, not by the tooting John Soane-ian cavalry coming over the hill, but by that parfit gentil knight in tarnished armour, Michael Gove, the man the Prime Minister most trusts above all others to put a drooping lance into his back—ironic, is it not?
I take the Whig view of history: that, steadily but assuredly, humanity progresses from darkness into light. Such progress involves the necessary recognition of the rule of law, of human rights, and of international co-operation as an expression of our common humanity. In my lifetime, there has been progress. The forces of fascist dictatorship were crushed in the Second World War. International institutions such as the United Nations and its many agencies were created in its aftermath. Domestically, the welfare state, which had its origins in the reforms of Lloyd George in the early part of the 20th century, progressed and was entrenched. It gives us the National Health Service, and today, V for vaccination day.
However, in the last few years, progress has stumbled. Narrow nationalism proclaimed by populist leaders has re-emerged, blinking, into the light. The most notable instance has been the Donald Trump years—America first, when international co-operation in tackling climate change was abandoned, alliances were broken, the international order challenged, and internally, the concept of welfare, as illustrated by Obamacare, was attacked. It was all un-American.
Today, Mr Johnson will, in the Trump tradition, be arguing for British exceptionalism—Britain first. He will be asserting a faded—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I wonder if the noble Lord, with his Whiggish view, could come back to the regulations in hand.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
I am just about to complete. I was about to say that Mr Johnson will be asserting a faded and outdated concept of Machiavellian sovereignty for which Charles I lost his head and the British Empire went to the wall. Not much to do with this statutory instrument, you may think—as the noble Lord who interrupted suggested, and he was right—but this proceeding does for once give me a platform to add a very small footnote to what is an historic day.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, if I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, first—however the order should have been, he spoke first. He asked whether it could be confirmed that the amendments under discussion today, as part of this statutory instrument, are not being discussed in Brussels. I am able to confirm that is the case. The United Kingdom will not be asking for bespoke arrangements on civil judicial co-operations such as these.
The noble Lord raised again the matter of enforcement power in magistrates’ courts where he sits, as he did in another context to me. I regret to advise the noble Lord that I do not have specific matters in relation to his concerns, but if I can ask him to show patience I will write to him on the matter and hope to allay fears that he may have.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, spoke generously and gave a generous analogy—the helter-skelter of the times and circumstances in which the instruments containing minor errors were inaugurated. With respect, the noble Lord is quite correct to describe the circumstances with the analogy that he used. I have spoken at some length to members of the Bill team as to how these things happened. They confirmed that it was indeed a matter of the extreme and unprecedented urgency with which drafting took place. I stress to the Committee that these statutory instruments have never been enacted into law; the errors that are identified in the present statutory instrument, correcting those in the previous ones, are not errors that have caused any inconvenience to any litigant or any member of the public; and they have no caused any disruption to the court system in any part of the United Kingdom. They have been identified in good time and I freely acknowledge the assistance of the specialist stakeholders who have been in touch to point out these recondite areas in which the statutory instruments fell into error or were insufficiently clear.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised the matter of his position—interpreting history from a Whig standpoint. I am more of a Butterfield man, and refer to his book The Whig Interpretation of History. That is a huge field of history on which I look forward, when leisure permits, to having an interesting discussion with the noble Lord. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, apologies are due to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and to my fellow Petrean and historian, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for the confusion over the batting order this evening.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please will those asking supplementary questions keep them sensibly short and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Heat and Building Strategy
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
This is a key policy of the Government. We will publish a heat and building strategy in early 2021 that will set out the immediate actions we will take for reducing emissions from buildings, including deploying energy-efficient measures and transitioning to low-carbon heating. This ambitious programme of work will enable the mass transition to low-carbon heat and set us on a path to meet our net-zero 2050 emissions targets.
Lord Best (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for her reply —it is good to hear that the heating and building strategy is on its way. Since this directly affects every household in the country, it certainly deserves priority in the follow-through to the PM’s 10-point plan. Bearing in mind that heating by gas has to end, but its alternatives —clean electricity and hydrogen—are at least twice as expensive, will the strategy ensure that decarbonising our heating does not lead to a massive increase in fuel poverty?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct in the points that he makes. A number of options have the potential to play an important role in decarbonising heat and we are exploring many of them simultaneously. Improving the energy efficiency of people’s homes is the best long- term solution to tackling fuel poverty. The Government have already introduced a statutory fuel poverty target to get as many fuel-poor homes to a minimum energy-efficiency rating. Furthermore, the energy company obligation scheme is focused entirely on low-income and vulnerable households.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, to follow on from the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Best, domestic gas boilers are widely used, not least in blocks of flats. To end reliance on fossil fuels, alternatives will need to be installed. What are the Government’s plans to deal with this problem?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness makes good points. The Government are not banning the installation of natural gas boilers, but to achieve net-zero emissions we will have to transition away completely from traditional gas boilers. We are continuing to explore how clean electricity, hydrogen, green gas and indeed shared heat networks in blocks of flats can contribute to achieving our net-zero target.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
I should draw attention to my interests as chairman of a renewable heat company and as an advisor to many developments on planning matters for sustainable communities. The point that I make is one that will apply throughout the development sector and all techniques. The sector needs an early decision—it is welcome that the Government are doing this—but it also needs a long-term decision, because every company, builder, housebuilder and retrofitter needs to know what will be in place for a decade or more in policy terms, not short-term solutions.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord raises a good point, but I hope that he is somewhat reassured by the 10-point plan, which has the potential to deliver £42 billion of private investment by 2030, accompanying £12 billion of government investment. This will create and support 250,000 green jobs by 2030. I think that the noble Lord will acknowledge that this is a long-term plan. It will be achieved through a combination of subsidies and investment by the Green Investment Bank.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s 10-point plan, but what is being done to install more heat pumps? At the current rate of progress, it will take over 700 years to reach the target set by the Committee on Climate Change of 19 million heat pumps for the country.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I hope that it will not take that long, but one of the main pillars that my noble friend will have read about in the 10-point plan is the installation of at least 600,000 heat pumps per year by 2028. Given that the life of a boiler is usually up to three years, as each boiler rolls over we hope to be able to install more heat pumps at a natural rate. Hybrid heat pumps are being seen as a potential transitional economy, which we are also exploring.
Lord Thurlow (CB) [V]
The numerous commitments to significant government support to the hydrogen development sector in particular give us as a nation, free from pan-European competition regulations, a real chance to direct government investment into British technology and the development of British IP. What effort will be made to direct this investment into UK businesses rather than UK-based subsidiaries that feed the profits of foreign companies?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I think that the noble Lord is referring back to the mistakes that we made in the development of the offshore wind market. We are determined not to make the same mistakes. The profit from the technology that we develop in floating offshore wind and other green technologies, including the significant investment that we are making into hydrogen energy development, will provide, I hope, some reassurance.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
The number of unpublished plans, statutes and White Papers will soon outnumber the scattergun 10-point environment plan. With most buildings being heated by gas, solutions to a decarbonised gas system utilising the existing infrastructure point towards a hydrogen-based gas system. What emphasis or consideration are the Government giving towards a photocatalyst material that utilises more light to harvest more hydrogen from water? That was part of my question to the noble Baroness last week. Is she satisfied that sufficient investment is being directed towards new technologies that can then be commercialised by start-ups to scale them up into solutions?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord will be reassured that the hydrogen strategy paper will come out early in the new year. In answer to his question about photocatalyst material, I believe that the Active Building Centre in Swansea is working towards achieving new building materials and coatings that generate electricity from light and, indeed, from heat. This energy could be used to power hospitals and schools as well as homes, or it could be sold back to the national grid. This is being supported by a £36 million government grant.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
When the heat and building strategy is published next year, can the Government assure us that they will have taken into account the recommendations made by the Committee on Climate Change in its 2019 report on UK housing?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Of course the work of the climate change committee informs much of the Government’s work at the moment. It has to be said that it is often a bit more ambitious than our plans, but it is an integral part of our decision- taking.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
What will the impact of this strategy be on park homes, old prefabs and mobile homes?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
This is indeed a difficult area. The Government’s forthcoming fuel poverty strategy aims to reduce barriers to accessing support for households living in these sorts of home types, including park homes and similar. Many suppliers now provide the £140 warm home discount rebate to otherwise eligible households living in park homes through the warm home discount industry initiatives. Such households may additionally benefit from the green homes grant voucher scheme, which can provide up to £10,000 for low-income households in order to improve the energy inefficiency of their homes.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Can my noble friend confirm that the cost of installing heat pumps—£10,000 per household plus new boilers—will fall disproportionately on low-income households in the colder, northern parts of this country and least on the virtue-signalling better-off in London? She may recall that I voted against the Climate Change Act because its impact statement showed that the potential cost was twice the maximum benefit. What does the cost-benefit analysis of these measures show?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I recognise the concern that my noble friend raises in his question. However, the cost of not decarbonising heat and developing greener buildings could be an awful lot greater if it falls on future generations. The benefits will be the ability to export green technologies developed in the UK, with support for many more jobs in the green economy. The Government already spend £1 billion per annum supporting poorer households through the ECO and the warm homes discount.
Lord Broers (CB) [V]
Are the Government in their heat and housing strategy doing everything possible to use the heat from nuclear power stations? Some 40% of the energy from nuclear reactors, including small modular reactors, is emitted in the form of heat, which can be captured in district heating systems to heat buildings. It can also be used to produce hydrogen and other low-carbon fuels, thereby making the cost of nuclear power competitive with that of renewables.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right on the science of his question. Indeed, the heat produced by nuclear power stations can be used for many other purposes, rather than just heat networks. After all, nuclear power stations in France are sited often much closer to conurbations than they are here. As for heat networks, the pipe infrastructure is fuel agnostic. Once infrastructure is in place, heat networks can be developed to exploit a range of lower-carbon heat sources. The Government believe that nuclear could have a role in beyond-the-grid applications, including hydrogen production. All nuclear reactor technologies have the potential to feed into the hydrogen market, by producing either low-cost electricity or heat for increasingly efficient electrolysis production.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Covid-19: Public Health Information
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review public health information on the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure that any (1) linguistic, (2) cultural, and (3) digital issues with such information are addressed.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Government provide clear public health information about Covid-19 through a wide range of channels and formats. To ensure the widest reach possible, the Government translate information into multiple languages and formats, including videos, animations and infographics. Information is provided free of charge online, in local and national press, on television and radio, and via the free NHS app and public advertising. They provide guidance in BSL, Braille, large-print and easy-read formats.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
Do Her Majesty’s Government agree that black, Asian and minority communities across the country have been overexposed, underprotected, stigmatised and overlooked during the Covid-19 pandemic? We also know that, for some, language barriers played a part in communication. What special measures do the Government propose to introduce in order to reduce the vulnerability of such communities, especially over the immediate winter months, and where are they in the rollout of the vaccine?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there is a large packet of questions there. I will obviously try to provide answers to some of them, but I cannot provide answers to all of them. The Government certainly recognise the priority attached to the groups for whom the noble Baroness so rightly and strongly speaks. Our strategy ensures that our audience receives bespoke Covid communications. Our partnership includes 47 BME publications, and core market materials are translated into community languages on request. The Government are overseeing BME audience-focused communications and engagement as part of specific campaigns.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, will the Government publish an equalities plan to ensure that there is the correct infrastructure across the country so that no community is left behind in the rollout of the vaccine? We already know that poorer areas have fewer GPs, so additional facilities need to be in place to ensure that these areas are not left behind in the rollout.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome the fact that this country is leading the world in the availability of vaccines. We have a programme, for which the set of priorities has been published, to distribute that vaccine broadly and widely, without fear or favour, to any group within this country.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that government-appointed agencies have allocated a small amount of adverts and health information to be disseminated by small satellite and radio channels. Given that the Government have been fully cognisant of the enormity of the impact of social, economic, digital and health divides in our nation among some communities, and with Covid’s detrimental toll on specifically the Bangladeshi communities—among other minority communities, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence—what steps are the Minister and his colleagues taking to review some of these materials and to intensify the frequency? Will he agree to meet with me and some of the experts to discuss their communications and review some of the materials and the forward strategy?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the Government—whether it is me or my colleagues who are specifically leading—are always happy to engage with the noble Baroness or anyone else who speaks for the communities concerned. I believe that the diversity and inclusion team within the Cabinet Office, for which I can answer, has allowed for better co-ordination of cross-government efforts to improve accessibility and we will continue to work on that.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, clearly there needs to be a professional review of the Covid-19 pandemic in due course to learn for the future how to better contain pandemics. Why, however, does the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, limit the public health review to linguistic, cultural and digital issues? Is not the priority how to contain pandemics before they become national and materially damaging to economies?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is, of course, highly desirable to contain any pandemic or any threat to the welfare of our citizens. We have to deal with the situation that arises; I believe that the Government have sought to deal with it energetically. We certainly have said that we will consider the lessons learned from this pandemic.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, this morning I looked at the English NHS website and could not find Covid-19 information in languages other than English. I then looked at the NHS Scotland site, which had information in 12 languages, including British Sign Language. Given that this information can save lives, when do the Government anticipate making Covid-19 online information available to those living and working in England and are more comfortable reading information in their own language?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will refer the noble Baroness’s comments about what is available on the NHS website to those responsible. The Government have enabled at least 22 languages to be accessible for Covid publicity.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, in the report Beyond the Data: Understanding the Impact of COVID-19 on BAME Groups, published by Public Health England in June this year, a number of recommendations were made. Can the Minister explain how many of the recommendations have been implemented six months on and what the impact has been on the number of people contracting Covid and the number of Covid deaths in BAME communities?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there were a wide range of responses; my noble friend is quite right to say that the report was important. Following on, more than 95% of front-line NHS workers from ethnic minority backgrounds have had a risk assessment and agreed mitigating actions. BEIS issued revised guidance to employers in July and September highlighting the findings of the review and explaining how to make workplaces Covid-secure. Some £4.3 million has been provided to fund new research projects relating to Covid and ethnicity.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare that I chair the National Mental Capacity Forum. Will the Government collate all resources available into an online library? This should include resources produced by them and all relevant charities, such as Books Beyond Words, to link easy-to-read pictorial guides and signing videos covering Covid-19 regulations, testing and vaccination to support those with learning difficulties and cognitive impairments, including people with dementia or literacy difficulties. They might find that a resource produced by a different organisation is particularly helpful to their personal situation and would help them understand the pandemic-control measures that are required nationally.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I endorse the need to reach all vulnerable groups. I take the noble Baroness’s suggestion seriously and will ask colleagues to reflect on it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we were all delighted to see the news this morning that 90 year- old Margaret Keenan got the first vaccination from nurse May Parsons. However, can I take the Minister back to two points? First, he said that the information was available in many languages and different formats; yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, has pointed out, that is not available on the NHS website. I know that he would never want to—even inadvertently—mislead the House, so will he check with his department and report back to the House on how that information is available? I am sure that it is in everyone’s interest that it is as widely available as possible.
Secondly, what are the Government doing to combat the anti-vaccination messages online? There has to be some action taken against social media firms. When Margaret Keenan and others come forward to show how important it is that they are taking the vaccine, it is very sad, disappointing and worrying if no action is taken against social media when they try to deny people the protection offered by the vaccine.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I would never wish to mislead the House; I hope that Hansard will reflect that I said that I would take back to colleagues the point about the NHS. The point that I made about languages is broader. I totally agree with the noble Baroness that vaccine disinformation, spread unchecked, could cost lives. We take the issue seriously: we have secured a commitment from Facebook, Twitter and Google to tackle it by not profiting from this material and by responding to flagged comment more swiftly.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, 10% of the adult population in the UK are not internet users. What provision have the Government made for these 5.3 million people to have parity of access to Covid-19 information services? How are the Government measuring whether these are effective?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. In terms of reaching all vulnerable groups, those without access to the internet are important. This is taken into consideration. I can assure the noble Lord that the performance of the Covid campaign is reviewed in detail twice a week between the centre and agencies, but I will underline the significance of the specific point he raised.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Streaming Platforms: Age Ratings
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the partnership between Netflix and the British Board of Film Classification to establish age ratings for streaming platforms; and what plans they have to encourage other streaming platforms to adopt such ratings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, while adoption of the British Board of Film Classification’s best-practice age ratings by online platforms is currently voluntary, we welcome their usage by video on-demand platforms. This includes an ongoing partnership with Netflix which, on 1 December, announced that it had become the first platform to achieve complete coverage of its content under the BBFC’s ratings. We will continue to engage with industry to encourage other platforms to do the same and will keep the evidence for legislation in this area under review.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, given that at present, under the audiovisual media services directive, the UK cannot regulate non-UK-based video on-demand services, does the Minister agree that BBFC ratings are the best way to inform parents and children whether content is appropriate, because they are trusted and reflect our national concerns on issues such as violence and discrimination? Will the Government take action to promote and ensure adoption by VOD platforms whether regulated here or not?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hope I was clear in my first Answer that the Government are very supportive of the ratings system. Since 2018, we have encouraged voluntary adoption of the BBFC code.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answer. What will the Government do if other platforms do not follow the Netflix example? According to the BBFC, over 90% of parents said that age-related guidance was helpful, and there is no doubt that voluntary action may be more forthcoming if platforms are very clear that the UK Government expect content consumed here in the UK to be properly signposted with BBFC symbols and content advice. How else do the Government plan to ensure that only age-appropriate content is accessible to young and vulnerable viewers?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right that the evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of parents—I think 94%—would like to see a consistent ratings system. We are also aware —this has been raised on many occasions by the public service broadcasters—of the inconsistency in the regulatory environment between PSBs and the platforms. We are looking at that, including asking the PSB panel to review it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, now that Netflix has arrogantly rejected the Secretary of State’s excellent request to make clear at the start of every programme that “The Crown” is a work of fiction, what action do the Government propose to take to ensure that Netflix is regulated by Ofcom and is not free to present poisonous and mendacious material as fact?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think my noble friend is aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made his views about the latest series of “The Crown” extremely clear. Perhaps one positive outcome of this is that Netflix has now made a statement in the public domain that acknowledges that this is indeed a fictionalised account. We are hopeful that Netflix will reflect on this for future programmes to make sure that it serves its viewers to best effect.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, we have the 9 pm watershed, which provides parents and guardians with a good marker of the content and age-appropriateness of programmes. Now that more and more traditional broadcasters are offering on-demand services similar to those offered by the streaming platforms, can the Minister say what the Government are doing to ensure age-appropriate content in this growing area of broad- casting?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord raises some wide-ranging points. In addition to what I have already mentioned regarding our approach, we are taking forward a media literacy strategy and developing a one-stop shop which will give companies guidance on how to keep children safe online.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is it true that the content guidelines carried by Netflix are primarily derived by applying algorithms? Does that not differ significantly from how the BBFC arrives at its clear and consistent advice on content? If that is true, is it accurate for Netflix to say that it is carrying BBFC age ratings on all its programmes?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My understanding is that the system that has been agreed between Netflix and the BBFC is that Netflix takes a self-rating approach in line with the BBFC’s classification, which is then verified and audited by the BBFC. Both parties appear to be content.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, far more parents allow their young children to play 18-plus-rated video games than allow them to watch 18-plus-rated films. Indeed, one survey showed that 86% of parents do not follow video game age restrictions. What more can be done to persuade parents and others buying video games as Christmas presents for children to understand the harm that can be done to children by not taking seriously the age rating of video games?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point. We would like to see the Pan European Game Information—PEGI—age ratings, which are used for physical copies of games, also used for online games, and we are pursuing that actively.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
My Lords, algorithm or not, this is a very welcome development because it gives families some guidance with regard to the relevant ages. Is my noble friend surprised that other platforms have not joined in? In particular, Disney does not use the system at all. It uses a ratings system based on a Dutch system, which means that films that the BBFC has classified for cinemas and for DVD release carry a different rating on Disney+. That means that they are not aligned with what UK expectations would be. To take one example, “Mrs Doubtfire”, a film that deals with bereavement, loss and divorce, is sensibly classified as a 12 by the BBFC but is rated as suitable for all on Disney+. This lack of consistency does not help British families. Will my noble friend meet urgently with Disney+, Amazon Prime and Apple to urge them to join the system?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend raises important points. I know that many of these companies are very focused on a family-friendly approach and that my noble friend the Minister for Digital and Culture meets regularly with the companies working in this area.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, while I welcome what the Minister has said about keeping the voluntary, rather than mandatory, arrangements under review, can she explain how Ofcom will judge whether an adult service video on demand provider has taken appropriate measures to prevent access by children and young people to our 18-classified material under the new audio-visual regulations that came into effect last month? How does she respond to the warning reported this morning from the Children’s Commissioner that the Government must do more to protect children as messaging apps make more use of encryption?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Ofcom in particular uses the on-demand programme service code in relation to these platforms. With regard to the noble Lord’s second question, the issues raised around encryption are incredibly important; that is a vital part of our digital world and we need to find a solution. We are working with the industry to find a solution which does not risk child safety but which permits security and cybersecurity.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, is it not already clear that the British Board of Film Classification has tremendous respect from the public, and should not the Government bring the board into closer co-operation with the CMA, Ofcom and the Information Commissioner as we map out the legislation that is promised? As has been shown this morning, we need their expertise.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am very happy to take those suggestions back to the department.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Arcadia Pension Fund
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Drake
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the Arcadia pension fund receives all of the contributions and assets agreed between its owners, any trustees and The Pension Regulator.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
As Arcadia has now gone into administration, the Pension Protection Fund, working with the Pensions Regulator, will now act in place of the trustees and will negotiate on behalf of the scheme to ensure that it is treated fairly compared to other creditors and gets what it is due. If the regulator thinks there has been wrongdoing, it may also be able to use its anti-avoidance powers to get redress.
Baroness Drake (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for her reply, but it gives little assurance on the £210 million of security agreed with Arcadia getting to the actual schemes. Covid has a major impact, yet large pension deficits have not just built up over the past nine months but over years, and there will be other companies who took out dividends and assets to a value much greater than deficit recovery payments made, leaving their pension schemes more vulnerable than they should be. Will the Government consider urgent amendments to the Companies Act so that directors’ duties to shareholders are subject to a responsibility to repair deficits to pension schemes? We will otherwise have endless cases such as Arcadia recurring.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I will need to take the issue relating to the Companies Act back to colleagues at BEIS, but we have the Pension Schemes Bill going through the House at the moment. There will be powers to ensure that we hold pension trustees to account, and I am sure that that will make a huge difference.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about the deficits facing more and more pension funds, should we ask why they are being forced by regulation to invest more and more into government gilt-edged securities, which now have negative returns and are therefore guaranteed to lose pensioners money? Should we not instead be encouraging pension funds to invest in infrastructure, social housing and green projects to generate jobs, prosperity and growth?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My noble friend is not alone, as witnessed by the endorsement of his points on how pension schemes should invest their money. However, the accounting standards ensure that a standard, objective measure applies to pension liabilities on company balance sheets. This is very different to the role of trustees when deciding on an investment strategy. It is up to trustees to have an investment strategy that suits the specific nature of their schemes. While gilts and bonds have lower returns, they are much less volatile than equity and can be useful as part of a diverse investment portfolio.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My noble friend will be aware that the high street has been under pressure for a long time. We also know that Philip Green has form when it comes to pensions. There will be great disquiet at the fact that this deficit has been allowed to build up. Can my noble friend give me a sense of the Government’s liabilities in this regard? What steps we are going to take to ensure that these funds are not again left in a vulnerable position, when we know well in advance that sectors are in severe difficulty?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
There is no government liability, as the Pension Protection Fund is funded by the assets taken into it from schemes, topped up by a levy on eligible schemes. The PPF plans for the long term and, as at 31 March 2020, it had a healthy reserve of more than £6 billion.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
The Minister correctly highlights the role of the Pension Protection Fund, and the employees of Arcadia can take some comfort from that. The problem is that the protection afforded by the fund is incomplete. To lose your job is bad enough; to lose part of your pension as well piles injury on injury. Can the Minister tell us what consideration is being given to improving the level of protection provided by the PPF?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
First, the noble Lord makes a good point about people losing their jobs, and I want to give absolute comfort to the whole House that the Department for Work and Pensions, through the rapid response team, stands ready to do all it can to help people in this very difficult time. On the second part of his question, we are doing as much as we can at the moment to help companies—through the Pensions Regulator and the Pension Protection Fund—to protect their assets and ensure that trustees act honourably in their duties.
Lord Fox (LD)
In answer to a similar question from me last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, said:
“Where there is evidence of bad practice, it is taken up through the relevant authorities.”—Official Report, 3/12/20; col. 835.]
Does the Minister agree that the Green family paying itself more than £1 billion while the pension fund is depleted of the money it needs is bad behaviour? If so, are the Government really satisfied that the Pensions Regulator has enough power to deal with those sorts of owners of those sorts of companies?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I understand the noble Lord’s point and the spirit in which he makes it, but it would be inappropriate for Ministers to comment at this stage on this individual case. It is too early to know the position of the pension scheme—whether there is a deficit or how big it is—and, indeed, whether anybody has behaved inappropriately. We need to let the Pension Protection Fund and the Pensions Regulator do their job. If there is any cause for concern, they have a range of powers which they will use.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, many Arcadia pension scheme members are facing possible job loss and uncertainty, which are the perfect conditions for scammers to exploit anxious people who are looking to access their pension savings. The experience of too many British Steel workers stands as a warning. Once savings are transferred out of the pension scheme, there is no way back and access to the PPF is gone. What active steps will the Government take to apply the lessons of the Rookes review to ensure that Arcadia scheme members are not exposed to financial advisers who may provide poor advice, nor persuaded to put their savings in the hands of fraudsters?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
As always, the noble Baroness raises an important point for people who are in difficult positions. Since January 2018, following its work on the British Steel pension scheme, the Financial Conduct Authority has been working closely with the Pensions Regulator and the Money and Pensions Service to ensure that they monitor pension transfer activity in defined benefit pension schemes that may be subject to increased transfer activity. The three organisations have increased the frequency of their meetings during Covid-19 to consider schemes at risk of higher transfer activity.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, let us be blunt. Debenhams collapsed after three ruthless vulture funds loaded it with debt and then cleaned it out to the tune of £1.2 billion in dividends. Arcadia was legally robbed by the Greens to the tune of another £1.2 billion in dividends. In the United States, the regulator would have gotten back every cent and they would all be serving life without parole. When are we in this country going to get some proper regulation and legislation to tackle people whose behaviour is de facto criminal, but at the moment technically legally okay?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I and the whole House absolutely agree that we need to ensure our legislation can deal with those who would plunder pension schemes. That is why we currently have a Pension Schemes Bill going through Parliament. Let me be clear. Where there is mishandling of a pension scheme, the Bill extends the Pensions Regulator’s sanction regime, introducing the power to issue civil penalties of up to £1 million and three new criminal offences, including a new sentence of up to seven years in prison for bosses who run pension schemes into the ground or plunder them to line their own pockets.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have just heard about the Pension Schemes Bill and its provisions. When will the new routes to contribution notices, new criminal offences and new information-gathering powers that the Bill makes available to the regulator be available? When the Bill comes into effect, will they be retrospective?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
To give the noble Lord a correct answer, I will need to go back to the department, especially on retrospective issues, and write to him. I will make the answer available to all noble Lords.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD) [V]
I noticed that the Minister said that the Government had no liability, and she mentioned the word “honourable” in almost the same sentence. Does she agree that that is cold comfort for the 12,000 people who will have a terrible Christmas? She should perhaps contact the Prime Minister and try to get Philip Green’s knighthood revoked because he is clearly less than an honourable man.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
It would not be right for me to comment on individual cases, as I have already said. However, I should point out that a clear, independent process is in place for the forfeiture of an honour, and the final decision on whether to revoke one is made by an independent committee.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, which brings an end to Question Time.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
UK-EU Future Relationship Negotiations and Transition Period
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the NFU, Toyota, traders, patients, ports, shippers and, indeed, the national interest are all crying out for a deal; so, in effect, are the OBR’s analysis and the Government’s own reasonable worst-case scenario planning. In the light of this, does the Minister agree with Tobias Ellwood that it would be
“an abject failure of statecraft … to leave the EU without a deal”?—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/20; col. 546.]
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, we are all working to get a deal but the only deal that is possible is one that is compatible with our sovereignty and takes back control of our laws, trade and waters. Although an agreement is preferable, we are prepared to leave on so-called Australia-style terms. People and businesses must prepare for the changes that coming on 31 December, most of which relate to our departure from the EU single market and customs union, not the outcome of the talks.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, references to Australia and Canada deny the geography, which is that we must retain close relations across the board with our neighbours whether we are in the EU or outside it. Does the Minister have a response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hague, in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph? He said that no deal with our European neighbours would
“create the biggest crisis in our relations for more than a century.”
Lord True (Con)
I repeat: we are seeking a deal. As the Prime Minister said a few minutes ago, hope springs eternal. There are significant differences. I do not agree that there would be a crisis that could not be surmounted by the British people.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Will my noble friend ignore the pleas of those who want us to cave in and accept every demand of the European Union? Does he recall that Canada is even closer to the United States than we are to Europe? It has a perfectly normal trade agreement with the United States that does not require it to accept American laws and rules or give America its fish. Why should we be any different vis-à-vis the European Union from Canada vis-à-vis the United States?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a profound geographical point. I agree with him.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, with Covid having changed the context of the negotiations fundamentally, and given that any tariffs and disruption will add uncertainty to the UK, the EU and the wider international economy, would it not be sensible to support the most affected communities by presenting alongside any agreement or in the event of a no-deal outcome a realistic action plan that would benefit the economy at large, including by protecting services, manufacturing, fishing, jobs and new business opportunities?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the continuing Covid emergency is obviously a problem, although I am sure that the noble Viscount will join me in welcoming the wonderful news of the first vaccination happening today. We continue to keep the impact of coronavirus on the delivery of the transition programme, as well as the potential for disruption, under review. We are considering, as we always do, what mitigations may be needed as the situation evolves.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is clear that, in any trade deal, there must be some compromise on sovereignty. The Government need to be clear with us where they are prepared to compromise. I hope that the Minister will press on the Prime Minister the importance of those regions where the economy relies on manufacturing. The north-east recovered from the closure of its basic industries—mining, steelworks and shipyards—by developing manufacturing, much of which has thrived through exports to the EU. It makes up a higher proportion of the economy in the north-east than it does anywhere else in this country. Companies do not know the rules or the price structure that they will have to work from in less than a month. Even at this late stage, can the Minister assure us that they are not forgotten and that manufacturing companies in the north-east will be able to continue to trade with the EU without massively increased bureaucracy or, indeed, increased costs that will drive them out of business?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I underline totally the importance of a manufacturing sector to this country. It is absolutely central to this Government’s strategy and policy of levelling up. So far as the negotiations are concerned, a huge amount of progress has been made but the UK’s position has been absolutely clear from the outset. A negotiation needs each of the two partners to understand the position of the other.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister as surprised as I am that none of the noble Lords who has spoken from the Benches opposite has acknowledged, let alone praised, the amazing commitment of my noble friend Lord Frost as he has valiantly sought to negotiate a deal in the UK’s interests? Will the Minister join me in expressing this House’s thanks for my noble friend Lord Frost’s outstanding public service during the negotiations?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I profoundly agree with what my noble friend Lady Noakes says. It has been an outstanding programme of public service from my noble friend Lord Frost and his team. Let us hope that what we all seek is crowned with success.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
In wishing the Government well in their negotiations to achieve a free trade deal that is in everybody’s interest, can the Minister update us on the joint committee’s parallel discussions about the Northern Ireland protocol? As he knows, businesses in Northern Ireland have written a joint letter asking for an adjustment period, but can he confirm that, in all circumstances, free and unfettered trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland—and vice versa—will be guaranteed?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to underline the importance of unfettered access; I hope that all Members of this House will come round to recognising that. Talks have been going on in the joint committee, as the noble Lord knows. The atmosphere has been good; I hope that we will learn more in due course.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister is obviously very confident that, even without a deal, we will all prosper. I must say, that confidence is not shared by the academic community, which is asking questions that I will put directly to him. Can the Government assure the academic community that it will be an associate to the Horizon Europe programme, which is vital for academic connections and will potentially overcome the damage that has already been done to contracts negotiated over the recent months? Also, will the Government achieve an adequacy agreement so that research data transfer will take place, rather than becoming very much harder? These issues are fundamental to the interests of the United Kingdom.
Lord True (Con)
As the noble Lord says, our outstanding academic sector and the adequacy of data are of course extraordinarily important. As he knows, negotiations are continuing, and we must await the outcome.
Lord Lansley (Con) [V]
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the majority of people have not entered into negotiations with the objective of reducing our standards—on the environment, on labour rights or in other areas? That should be of some assurance to our European colleagues. Will he also confirm that, as an independent country, we cannot agree to take rules from the EU in future? We should negotiate our standards and they should accept that.
Lord True (Con)
I agree with my noble friend’s final remarks. The UK’s reputation for quality, safety and performance is what drives the demand for UK goods. The Government have no intention of harming this reputation.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, we voted for Brexit and for a return of fundamental rights. This is a divorce: we hope it is friendly, but it is a divorce none the less. Does my noble friend agree that it is not an option for the EU to go on demanding conjugal rights, even after the divorce is done? What is it about democracy that some members of the EU—and possibly some Members of this House—simply do not get?
Lord True (Con)
I will not follow my noble friend in a discussion of conjugal rights; maybe he is writing the latest episode of his current script. I say yes, yes and yes to him. Of course we wish for co-operation with our European friends but, as the Government have repeatedly underlined, they must display an understanding of our wish to make our own laws and control our own borders. That was the democratic resolve of the British people—not once, but twice.
Hong Kong: Sentencing of Pro-democracy Activists
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this Answer. It is important that we send a united message opposing attempts to erode the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. Yesterday, my honourable friend Lisa Nandy asked Nigel Adams about the development of a co-ordinated response involving our Five Eyes partners, including the new US Administration. Can the noble Lord say more than simply,
“the Foreign Secretary will … be having conversations with his counterpart”?—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/20; col. 591.]
Have there been any direct discussions with the Biden transition team about the human rights situation in Hong Kong? My honourable friend Chris Bryant yesterday expressed his frustration at Ministers continuing to say that they could not speculate about future sanctions designations. I am sure that the noble Lord will follow the same mantra. If he cannot say who, will he at least commit to when? It is important that we act quickly.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his remarks about a united response. I thank both him and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for their continuing engagement—not just within the Chamber, but more widely—on this important issue of human rights and on our relationship with China and the situation there.
The noble Lord asked about the important area of our ongoing relationship with the US. As he will be aware, we came together with key partners, including the US, Australia and New Zealand, over the situation in Hong Kong. We valued their support. We are going through a transition period with the US. My honourable friend in the other place was correct; my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has engaged on this agenda with the incoming US Administration. I also assure the noble Lord that we are continuing with the operational elements of our approach. I have had some meaningful exchanges with the State Department, and we are working closely with our US partners even during this transition period.
The noble Lord again pressed me about the human rights sanctions regime. We are looking at situations across the globe. The intent behind this regime is to look not at a country as a whole but at specific individuals and organisations. I am sure we shall continue to keep those aspects in mind, whatever sanctions are brought forward in future. He asked about the timeline. Patience is a virtue, and I hope that his virtue will not be tested for too long.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome the Statement. We all share the Government’s concerns. Joshua Wong has been imprisoned for more than a year. As my honourable friend Wendy Chamberlain flagged up yesterday, under the Government’s current Immigration Rules, that would mean that he was barred from claiming asylum. Will the Government commit to following the Canadian Government and ensure that those charges are not a barrier to vulnerable activists being able to claim asylum in the United Kingdom? The Minister in the Commons responded sympathetically to my honourable friend, but he did not have an answer. I am sure that the noble Lord has looked at Hansard to see what happened in the Commons yesterday. I hope he has a better answer. If he does not, perhaps he can write to us.
Eight students have been arrested for protesting peacefully on university campuses. This reinforces how young people are particularly vulnerable to arrest under the national security law. Therefore, will the Government amend its BNO visa scheme to allow those born after 1997 to apply?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we have already clarified our position on the BNO status of those born after a given date but who have a direct relationship with someone with that status. They will be considered when the scheme becomes operational. As the noble Baroness knows, that will be from 31 January 2021. As she will appreciate, the three activists—Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Ivan Lam—have not been charged under the new national security law. They accepted the charges levelled against them. Inasmuch as I can at this juncture, I assure her that we look at any asylum application to the United Kingdom on the merits of the particular case. If I can provide her with further details, I will write to her, as she suggested.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Minister referred to the broader relationship with China. The Government were defeated twice in the House of Lords last night over trade deals with China. They have a piecemeal, open-handed approach to their relationship with a country that views democracies and free media as potential threats to its regime, and that is a master at leveraging economic statecraft to strategic effect. Will the Government therefore recognise that a new basis for managing this relationship should not include mutually hawkish policies, but rather be built on consistency, reciprocity and fairness, embracing relationship- building with a whole-government approach that is accepted as a necessity, not a luxury?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it is important to look at our relationship with China from a strategic perspective. As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, the UK wants a mature, positive relationship with China. China is an important member of the international community and a P5 member of the UN Security Council. Its size, rising economic power and influence also make it an important partner in tackling some of the biggest global challenges. As we have already seen on Covid-19, there is an immense scope for co-operation. As we look forward to 2021, the recent announcements that have been made by the Chinese Government provide enormous scope for positive, constructive engagement and wide-ranging opportunities, from trade to co-operation on tackling climate change. China of course is important as we strive to achieve the goals and ambitions that we have set out for COP 26.
In that strategic relationship, it is absolutely right that we protect our own vital interests, including support and our sensitive infrastructure. Equally, we will not accept investment that compromises our national security. And, as we have repeatedly said, in international fora such as the UN Third Committee or the Human Rights Council, where we have direct concerns—whether on Xinjiang in China, or Hong Kong, as we are discussing today—we will raise them. We will raise them bilaterally, in multilateral fora and in partnership with key countries and other member states, because it is important that we speak up against the suppression of human rights, wherever it occurs.
Exams and Accountability in 2021
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
Well, my Lords, we have had to wait quite some time for the Secretary of State to respond to the concerns of pupils, parents, school leaders and trade unions, all of whom have been seeking clarity on how next summer’s exams can be conducted fairly. We welcome many of the measures announced in the Statement, which will mitigate the impact of the pandemic, including those on SATs and the delay in Ofsted resuming its inspections, but we believe that the measures announced on GCSEs and A-levels do not go far enough and leave a number of issues to be resolved.
The first concern is the Government’s apparent belief that a one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate. Why should that be the case? The changes being proposed will apply to all students, so everyone will know about the topics to be covered, everyone will be able to bring in certain aids, everyone will be graded more generously and so on. Significant numbers of pupils have been and will continue to be absent from school due to Covid, causing disruption to their education. The pattern across the country is uneven, and students’ experiences have been different, so how can making changes that apply to everyone specifically help those who have had the most challenging experiences and therefore need more support?
One size fits all will lead to fundamental inequities between students who have suffered different levels of disruption to their learning, and makes it inevitable that some young people will be examined on what they have not been taught rather than what they have been taught. This is an issue that the interim chief regulator of Ofqual has red-flagged, highlighting the gap in learning loss across different regions, describing it as
“one of the most intractable issues”,
with any potential solutions
“fraught with difficulty”.
The Minister may point to this as being within the remit of the expert group, but with someone as experienced as the head of Ofqual saying it is close to being unmanageable, does the Minister believe there is a solution to be found? If there is not, the question of whether the exams can ever be fair for pupils in the hardest-hit Covid areas must be addressed.
I mentioned the expert group, but we have had relatively little information on it. Why has it been established so late? Who will comprise the group and will it include representatives of school leaders and teachers? Most importantly, when is it expected to report? Additionally, will minutes of its meetings be published, as now happens with SAGE? Will its members, like those who comprise the DfE’s Covid-19 recovery advisory group, be required to sign non-disclosure agreements? That would be completely unacceptable at a time when concerned parents and pupils surely deserve transparency on discussions about their future. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the distribution of grades is spread evenly across schools and postcodes this year, so that the most disadvantaged pupils are treated fairly? We still do not know which parts of the syllabus will be in the exam papers and which will not, leaving schools less and less time to adjust their teaching programmes.
A further concern is why it has now been revealed that funding for catch-up tutoring will be spread across two years. Apparently, around £140 million of the £350 million allocated to the national tutoring programme remains unspent. That might not have been the case had the programme not taken so long to begin its work but, given the widely accepted disparity in the amount of education that school pupils have been able to access since the start of the pandemic, surely every available resource should be used to ensure that every pupil is prepared for this year’s exams, rather than rolling over that part of the funding into next year, because for some that will be too late.
The Minister may point to the separate catch-up fund, but that does not justify holding back resources already allocated for spending in this financial year, particularly when it is so critical that they reach those young people most in need. Students should have the opportunity to show what they have achieved in unprecedented circumstances. Despite the delay, these proposals fall short of what is required to facilitate the fair exams that the Secretary of State promised.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I first join the Minister in congratulating Dr Frost but also pay tribute to teachers and school leaders up and down the country who have pulled out all the stops to make sure that schooling for their pupils is happening. We welcome the Statement. Clearly, on this occasion, it has been very thoughtfully worked through and every aspect has been covered, unlike last year’s fiasco.
We feel that, had teacher-managed assessments been used, the Government could have given teachers far greater certainty about how to work, what to teach, how to assess and which subjects to prioritise for the rest of the academic year. It is interesting that research carried out by Exeter University shows huge variances across the country in the amount of schooling and learning that children have been afforded. There are huge regional variations, with more teaching and learning in the south compared to the north. There have also been huge discrepancies between types of schools, according to Exeter University’s research, which is why continuing with exams will be deeply unfair given the opportunities that this academic year gives students in different parts of the country and the different effects on remote education. Having school assessment grades would have given schools far greater certainty about how to work, what to teach and how to assess.
But we are now going to operate in the way that the Government propose, and I welcome many of the proposals in the Statement. I have a number of concerns to raise, which I hope the Minister will deal with in her reply. Like the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I would like the Minister to give more details about the statement:
“We will … commission an expert group to assess any local variations and the impact the virus is having on students’ education.”
What does this mean in practice and how will it work, et cetera?
Secondly, we welcome the decision on school accountability for assessments taken, publication of results and how Ofsted will operate. Perhaps the Minister could expand a little more, because this is an opportunity for Ofsted, in a “non-threatening way”—in inverted commas—to support those schools that were judged inadequate and requiring improvement. Perhaps that could happen during this period.
We have concerns also about those children and students who are home educated. This could happen in two ways. Some have chosen to be home educated, but others have had to home educate and deregister from the school, perhaps because a close member of their family has a life-threatening condition and has to be supported and protected, so the child or student cannot go into school. What support is being given in terms of exams and learning for those children and students?
Finally, when we say that our young people will be sitting exams, but that places additional burdens on schools in terms of organising them. Will additional advice and support be given to schools on how to operate and socially distance students, because it is not an easy thing to do? I do not know whether the Government have considered this, but some of the exams might have to be phased so that all pupils can take them in a very safe environment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for generally welcoming what we have been doing. It has taken some time to make such a comprehensive announcement because we have been working closely with sector groups, school leaders, the unions and parents. We have consulted widely and, as was seen last week, the Statement has generally been well received.
In relation to GCSEs and A-levels, Ofqual specifically looked at whether we could adopt any kind of regional, local school approach. This was quickly assessed as being too unfair. Even within areas where there has been a high prevalence of disease, there may be schools that have not isolated any pupils, while in another area of the country that is in tier 1, such as Cornwall, an individual school has isolated a lot of students. They would have had very different responses to any regional approach. Within a school, you may also have a lot of pupils isolating but some groups who have not isolated at all. When you get down to pupil level, some respond well to remote education and others do not. It was not ideological. It was very quickly looked at, assessed and viewed, particularly with regional boundaries. Do you use local authority district areas, county areas or authority metropolitan borough areas there? You could quickly have injustices at those boundaries if a school with a large number self-isolating happened to be, for instance, in Cheshire, and you have tiered Trafford for having higher disease prevalence just over the border.
It was not possible to adopt those kinds of approaches, so the view was that the approach taken with its package of measures, although at individual level, will help most of all those students who all noble Lords are most concerned about: the children who have been out of education and who may have had Covid or had to self-isolate. Within those disadvantaged students, at some point during the process we considered having optionality of questions, for instance. This was quickly viewed as working against disadvantaged pupils, as the research shows.
No option was off the table. These options were looked at when trying to come up with the fairest system, bearing in mind that these students were part-way through their courses and the general view from children, parents, teachers and the sector was that exams should go ahead. They are the fairest means of assessing a pupil’s performance. We believe that the combination of contingencies and the introduction of some of the topic areas mean that children will be examined on what they have been taught. If some topic areas are announced at the end of January and teachers have not reached that part of the curriculum, they would have from then until the start of the exams three weeks later to ensure that it is covered, so we will not be examining children on what they have not been taught.
The external advisory group, which will continue to look at whether there are other ways to reduce and mitigate the differential learning loss—which we do not deny, but do not agree that a regional response is the way to address it—will give the same sort of confidential advice to the Secretary of State to look at any further measures that civil servants give. It is not about lack of transparency, but about pulling together a group of people such as MAT leaders, Ofqual, exam boards, assessment experts, unions and other members, including on special educational needs. It is not about gagging or lack of transparency; it is just the nature of how Ministers need free and frank advice. We and Ofqual will ensure that the generosity of grades, which will be similar to last year’s, though not identical, is spread across the relevant institutions.
Regarding the catch-up tutoring, the phased approach to the national tutoring programme that has been adopted will ensure that more disadvantaged students gain from high quality. It is about not only rolling out quantity but ensuring that the quality of what we provide is excellent. This was decided to be the best way to provide that support. Obviously, catch-up for many pupils will go beyond this summer, so we are utilising the resources as well as we can. There are already 188 academic mentors from Teach First in our schools; there will be 1,000 by the end of February. They are in schools in our most disadvantaged areas, which need that one-on-one person who can physically run small group tutoring. We hope that there will be 15,000 through the national tutoring programme, available to reach about a quarter of a million students, but it is important that we maintain that quality and enable those students to catch up.
As the Minister in charge of our specialist maths sixth forms, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for recognising the achievements of Dr Frost, who got an award for making his maths tuition available during Covid. We are very proud of him and all the other teachers. I agree with the noble Lord that teaching staff, support staff, estate staff and school business leaders have pulled out all the stops to help young people catch up. As he outlined, there are huge variances across regions, but there are huge variances within regions in pupils’ experience and we cannot adopt a regional strategy. However, exams are not deeply unfair; they are the fairest way for students. I reiterate to noble Lords that we tend to forget some of the complaints from previous eras about the subjectivity of assessments, although not deliberately done by teachers. BAME communities have complained over the years, and we have a potential issue over the lack of accurate predicated grades for disadvantaged students. But when you enter an exam, you enter with a number: nobody knows your gender, where you come from or your ethnicity. It is an opportunity for pupils to display what they know and how they can apply it.
On the comments regarding Ofsted, yes, it will introduce its monitoring-type visits in the spring. Obviously, it is the same situation for early years and the independent sector. It is envisaged that this will be more supportive, but it will be a monitoring visit. Given there are disadvantaged students who were already in institutions that Ofsted said were struggling, because they were inadequate and required improvement, we need to know how those institutions are doing, including in responding to the crisis. These will be monitoring visits, but I assure noble Lords that Ofsted retains its powers to go in when there are any safe- guarding concerns or serious concerns around educational achievement.
Many noble Lords, and Members in the other place, have raised the issue of home education. Many parents choose to do that and deliver a high quality of education. They are free to do that in our country. However, we must ensure that suitable education, as I believe the legislation says, is being delivered. Most of the original cohort of extremely clinically vulnerable children are back in school, which is the best place for them. There is a tiny cohort—much smaller now—who are still advised to remain at home. It is envisaged that for their exams, there will be some system of home invigilation under exam conditions. This is already being planned for.
In relation to home-educated students who must then register at an exam centre, it is proposed that the papers in exams for a particular subject are spaced as far apart as they can be within the timetable. An English and maths paper will take place before the half-term to ensure that everyone has that under their belt before that holiday. There should be a gap. If they sit one of those papers and there is evidence that they missed other papers for good reasons, rather than because of choosing not to sit them, they can then go into the normal special consideration process and so get a grade. If you miss all those papers, then a contingency paper in that subject will be sat 10 days after the final paper. Obviously, we envisage that if you are ill at the last one, you would have 10 days to get well and sit that paper.
It is obviously hoped that home-educated students, of whom quite a lot were in the cohort who sat exams in the autumn because we could not give them a centre-assessed grade, will either sit all the papers or, if they cannot do that, sit at least one and get a grade, and, if they miss everything, sit the contingency paper. Ofqual will announce the details, but if a child misses all those exams, there will be a very defined set of teacher assessments. We will have to work closely and continue to engage with the home-educated sector on how we can try to ensure that what happened last year does not happen this year, in that many centres said that they did not know the children well enough to be able, with all professional integrity, to give them a grade, and obviously we had to respect that.
This package of measures has been well thought through but, if noble Lords have anything further to add, I will expect to hear from them, not only now but going forward.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Secretary of State and the Minister for what has been said so far. Is the Minister able to confirm that there will be early and full consultation on the detail of the methods to be used to ensure fairness between those participating in 2021 and between those who have participated and those who will participate in other years?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, for those participating this year, the generosity of grades will be similar, although not identical, to the generosity of grades in 2020. That is important because it recognises the exceptional circumstances of those two cohorts of pupils and enables the higher education institutions, which will use last year’s assessment to award places, to be in a similar situation. What the position will be going forward in relation to the cohort is, I am sure, in Ofsted’s in-tray to be dealt with later, but I anticipate that there will be consultation, as there has been in relation to these matters. If my noble and learned friend has anything specific that he wants to raise, I ask him please to communicate it to me.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest that may prove conflictual. I am the chair of the board of directors of the Central Foundation Schools of London, with one school in Islington and another in Tower Hamlets. Both are pretty densely populated, with considerable levels of poverty and a very high number of free school meals.
I have looked at the Statement, and a lot of thinking has gone into it, but my first question is: do we really have to wait until the end of January for the package of measures referred to? The head teachers whom I spoke to just this morning are desperate to have something before Christmas because the end of January is virtually half term, half way through the school year. There is pressure on schools such as ours and many others to get their teaching programmes accomplished in the short time between then and the examination period, and that really will be at the expense of those in a more parlous situation domestically and economically.
Perhaps I may ask my second question directly from an email that I received from some students who have missed schooling because of the virus. They ask, “How do we ensure fairness for a student whose A-level biology teacher has been out of school for up to 20 days, Teamsing from home, with another A-level biology student whose teacher has been present all term?” The Minister mentioned the disparity of coverage that we are attempting to reach with the measures now under scrutiny, but this affects not just the independent schools, with playing fields and small classes. When numbers are going into a classroom and it is a number who come from a class of 12, with playing fields and constant teaching, the number does not make a difference: they will do better than the pupils whom I know and speak for in this intervention. What can the noble Baroness help us with on that question? Wales has decided not to have exams, and that is probably the fairest way.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his involvement in schools. We depend on thousands and thousands of volunteers in our schools for governance in the school system. In terms of the aids that can be taken into exam rooms for some topic areas, the exam boards are now working at pace to make sure that those are broadly equal across subjects, so that there are no assertions that one subject is easier than another. That work is taking place and, bearing in mind the issue that the noble Lord talks about, they will be completing it as soon as they can. However, there is also the three-week delay in the examination system, which was announced a few months ago. All exams, barring the English and Maths papers, are taking place three weeks later, as I outlined.
With regard to the email, these measures are being taken precisely because there are so many different circumstances, even within one school, as I outlined. Some students might have thrived on the remote teaching facility but others will have struggled with it. It is not possible to take into account every single variant and response to the situation, but, after careful consideration, thorough consultation with the sector was felt to be the most appropriate way to help the most disadvantaged students. We remain convinced that exams are the fairest way for pupils to display their performance. In a way, those students will be more disadvantaged than last year’s exam cohort because of how much their teaching has been disrupted this year. However, exams, rather than teacher-assessed grades, are the fairest way to judge pupils’ achievements.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister, and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. This Statement shows, again, the Government’s obsession with academic achievement and disregard for vocational and practical skills. I am sorry to contradict the Minister, but exams are not always the best and fairest way to carry out assessment. Coursework and continuous assessment are often far more appropriate, particularly for students who are struggling or for practical skills. The measures that the Government are proposing here—I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said—will do very little to help disadvantaged children or level up opportunity. Given all the difficulties that students have suffered— again, I echo my noble friend Lord Storey—why will the Government not give more responsibility to teachers to determine grades? They have done a phenomenal job in these very difficult times and are very much better placed to know which children have missed out, which have suffered the greatest disadvantages, and which are better suited to practical forms of assessment and not to exams. Indeed, teachers are better placed to determine the merits of the grades that the children should get.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Statement from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State addressed the fact that similar concessions are being made for vocational and technical qualifications. As the noble Baroness is aware, those assessments are made much more regularly throughout the year—I think that the next ones will be in January. Therefore, concessions will be made. Flexibility has been introduced into assessments during the pandemic, one change being a reduction in the number of assessment units. We are acutely aware of the need to maintain parity and we recognise the lack of education due to the pandemic, which has affected those studying BTEC and other qualifications. I repeat that we pay tribute to all that teachers have been doing, but the more objective way to assess pupils’ performance is through exams.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey: teachers and support staff should be thanked for their professionalism and for the care they have shown in these challenging times. The Civil Service—the members of staff in the department—have also been working particularly hard in difficult times and they too should be commended. I also agree with the Minister that examinations are by far the best way of measuring progress, as I think is universally agreed. But this year students of all ages have faced unprecedented disruption to their studies as a result of the pandemic, and those due to sit some of the most important exams of their lives have perhaps felt the disruption most acutely. Therefore, can the Minister reassure me that the measures the department is taking will ensure that those students are all treated fairly and in the best way possible?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I want to thank my noble friend. As a Minister, it is not necessarily always on the tip of my tongue to thank Civil Service staff for what they do. However, I have seen first-hand that they have been working extremely hard, along with schools, to support the sector. As my noble friend outlines, those transition points are very important, and the exams are a key objective marker, particularly for further and higher education institutions. We are not asserting that this package of measures can ameliorate every effect of what has happened; we are living through a global pandemic. However, after careful consultation, we believe this package can, as far as possible, create a situation where exams can take place, allowing pupils who have been working hard throughout the school year to have their abilities and knowledge assessed in that way.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as recorded in the register. As we all know, continuing to assert something that is, at best, contentious does not make it true, and so it is with the assertion that exams are the best form of assessment. Our colleagues in Scotland took the wise decision some months ago to cancel the 16-plus exams—the equivalent of GCSEs—in favour of teacher assessment, and my noble friend has already referred to the situation in Wales. A major study in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry in 2019 found that teacher assessment during compulsory education is as reliable as formal external exams. Research from 2019 also shows that GCSEs heap stress on to school students in what we might call “normal times”; clearly we are not in normal times. I wonder therefore if the Minister can answer a question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, as quoted in the Guardian. He pointed out that
“the school leaving age is 18 … Education goes on from four to 18. So what are you testing people at 16 for?”
I might add that the question is especially pertinent this year when a level playing field both between and within schools is clearly an impossibility, given the very significant but differential levels of absence from school that have occurred, and which the Minister has acknowledged.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, in relation to the situation in the devolved Administrations, the Secretary of State is in close contact with his equivalent representatives. In Scotland, yes, there has been some alteration, but the exams at 18 have been kept. The reason why exams in England have been kept at 16 is that the majority of students in England transition at 16 and therefore need that assessment. Northern Ireland has also decided to keep exams. There are differences between the constituent nations of the United Kingdom. We are living in extraordinary times, so we have introduced an extraordinary set of contingencies and changes to relieve the pressure—on teachers, yes, but primarily on students facing the exams. They will have certain aids with them and they will know some of the topic areas.
In relation to the comments from my noble friend, Lord Baker, one has to recognise that he has been the pioneer of the university technical colleges, where students enter the system in an atypical age range of between 14 and 18. We do not accept his view that exams are not necessary at 16 because most students, unlike those in UTCs, do transition at 16.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the proposals, which will give young people greater certainty about their chances of progressing into whatever they want to do after school. However, I want to ask a question from the point of view of universities and colleges, because exams are also a clue and an indication to them of what students know and can do. Over the years, they become familiar with the curriculum, so you get continuity in teaching. What work has been done with colleges and universities so that they can offer continuity of teaching and curriculum, and fill in any gaps that exist due to children not having learned as much or had as much time to practise various skills?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. As I have outlined, one key to this —and the reason why the exceptional circumstances and generosity in grading this year will mirror, not replicate, last year—is that the higher education institutions dealt with that situation and those grade profiles last year, so we are drawing on that. Information from the exam boards about what aids will be given and which topic areas are outlined will be made available to the universities. We recognise that this is an unprecedented situation for the universities as well, and that they will be dealing with a cohort that has had a different experience of the education system from that in normal times.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction and Taking Control of Goods) (England) Regulations 2020
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the Regulations laid before the House on 16 November be approved.
Relevant documents: 35th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and 33rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this instrument prevents enforcement agents—bailiffs—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 this 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, introduced by the national health protection regulations, and the intention for the “winter pause” on evictions that was announced by the Government on 10 September. It also prevents enforcement agents from entering residential properties in order to take control of goods during the national lockdown, which ended on 2 December. This instrument applies to enforcement action in England.
The Government have taken unprecedented action to ensure that renters were protected from eviction at the height of the coronavirus pandemic, including providing significant financial support and agreeing with the courts to use powers in relation to court procedure to stay possession proceedings for a total of six months, until 20 September. However, that stay could only be temporary; 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 carefully manage the resumption of cases so that the courts were not overwhelmed and could make decisions so that the most vulnerable could get the help and support that they need 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 that seek to ensure appropriate support to all parties. Those court arrangements are in place and working well, and I pay tribute to the working group convened by the Master of the Rolls, chaired by Mr Justice Knowles, for the key role that it played in these matters.
In addition, the Government took legislative action. The Housing Minister 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. This approach ensures that tenants will remain safe and have additional time to find new accommodation while empowering landlords to take action where necessary—for example, if a tenant’s antisocial behaviour is severely impacting their neighbours’ quality of life.
We have also taken some targeted action in respect of 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. This was in order to prevent tenants being forced out of their homes at an unsettling time in areas where the public health risks could be greater.
In September, the Government also announced that we would take steps to prevent eviction action from 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 unusual levels of increased demand on services during this time. Bailiffs were issued with guidance that they should not enforce writs or warrants of possession other than in the most serious of circumstances between 11 December and 11 January during the winter pause.
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. Because the national restrictions were due to end just before the start 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 this legislative measure. We therefore laid the instrument in Parliament on 16 November, to come into effect on 17 November.
The draft instrument is consistent with the policy that the Government have adopted in this area 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 to the ban on the enforcement of evictions. These exemptions relate to circumstances where the Government feel the health risk is lower or the competing interests of preventing harm to third parties or taking action against serious behaviour are sufficient to outweigh the public health risks of enforcing an eviction.
The instrument provides for the following exemptions to the restrictions on enforcing evictions: first, where the claim is against trespassers who are persons unknown; 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 or substantial rent arrears equivalent to nine months’ rent that predate 23 March 2020; or, thirdly, where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of the death of the tenant, and the enforcement agent attending the property is satisfied that the property is unoccupied.
The Government believe that 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 that an exemption applies on a case-by-case basis.
The measure will be in force until 11 January. New rules require that all bailiffs must give 14 days’ notice of an eviction. This means that in most cases evictions will not resume anywhere in England until 25 January at the earliest. We continue to keep the position under review regarding the enforcement of evictions in local tiers following the expiry of these national restrictions over the midwinter period.
The statutory instrument also set out a nationwide prohibition on enforcement agents taking control of goods inside residential properties while the national restrictions were in place. This 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 by 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 is, therefore, that this policy strikes a proportionate balance between protecting against the risk of virus transmission and allowing the continuation of the administration of justice.
I know that there has been significant interest from noble Lords about 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 noble Lords about the impact of that stay on the rights of landlords who are dealing with difficult situations in which there is no reasonable alternative to possession proceedings. These restrictions on bailiff enforcement build on protections introduced earlier this year, including the introduction of six-month notice periods, which mean that renters now served notice can stay in their homes until June 2021, with time to find alternative support or accommodation.
Courts remained open during the national restrictions in November. The court rules and procedures introduced in September will ensure protections for tenants and landlords. For example, landlords are required to send the court information about the impact that the pandemic has had on their tenant. The Government have published comprehensive new guidance for landlords and tenants to explain all these new arrangements and how they impact on court possessions. 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.
The Ministry of Justice is grateful for the consideration of this instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In its 33rd report, the committee reported this instrument to both Houses for elucidation and defective drafting. The committee asked for further information about how the exemptions to the eviction bans should be applied and has confirmed that our explanation was helpful. We accept the committee’s findings that the department should have relied on Section 16 of the Interpretation Act 1978 rather than inserting a provision at Section 16(1) and (2) of the instrument that does no more or less than the same thing.
This instrument provides protection to tenants from eviction, ensuring that vulnerable tenants are not forced from their homes at a time when public and local authorities may be dealing with an unusual level of increased demand on services. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests. I thank my noble friend for her clear explanation and for all that the Government have done during Covid, particularly at the MHCLG, in inspiring and supporting magnificent voluntary effort during lockdown 1 and giving help to many small businesses. It was Small Business Saturday that reminded us that we can help by buying Christmas gifts from such businesses. However, there is a problem for landlords which this measure highlights. Few landlords are property tycoons. Most are small businesses or individuals letting out a property that they do not need for a while or have bought as part of saving for a pension.
I have spoken to the NRLA, which explained that the provisions mean that landlords cannot repossess properties even where tenants are up to almost 18 months behind with their rents. They actually reward those who were behindhand before the pandemic and have continued not to pay, knowing that landlords cannot remove them. Landlords are being required to subsidise such unsatisfactory tenants—an extraordinary move by a Conservative Government.
On timing, I note that we are debating this measure almost three weeks after it took effect. It runs out on 11 January and in my opinion should not be extended. Court and other processes should start to return to normal—with my thanks to the Government for the advances on vaccines, which have lifted everyone’s spirits this month.
On cost benefit, this is yet another Covid SI using the emergency excuse not to do an estimate of the impact on business. This exemption for measures lasting less than 12 months is frankly a scandal. We know from the impact assessment on the fire safety order that there are millions of tenanted dwellings. Therefore, even the process of informing landlords of these new rules and understanding them will cost millions. Add rent arrears, which cost landlords between £328 million and £437 million between March and September, according to work done for the NRLA. Then estimate the time needed to keep chasing tenants; you can see that we are talking about material sums, even if not all are caused by this measure.
Some tenants are in trouble, but many benefit from furlough and the increase in universal credit. In contrast, landlords are largely unable to access help from the various Covid schemes because they own property assets. It is an irony that the small business impact in the Explanatory Memorandum looks only at the enforcement agents, who can be furloughed, not at small landlords, arguably a backbone of many communities. Many of them are helping tenants get through Covid by reducing or delaying rent.
Does the Minister agree with my assessment? If, contrary to my advice, she is tempted to renew this SI, could she undertake a thorough impact assessment to inform her decision and then publish it? We promised in our manifesto to build at least a million more homes of all tenures over this Parliament. We are putting that at risk with measures of this kind.
Lord Bird (CB)
I really liked that contribution from the noble Baroness, and I was grateful to hear the careful way in which the Government are approaching this issue. I must declare two things. First—it is in the register—I run RORA, the Ride Out Recession Alliance, which brings businesses, local authorities, tenant associations and landlords together to try to weather our way through what could be a massive increase in homelessness. Instead of me working with 7,000 to 9,000 people a year, I might end up working with 200,000; I assure you that I do not want that. I am trying to avoid it by building an alliance of interests that sometimes clash, but must have a meeting place. Secondly, I was one of the worst tenants you ever saw. As soon as I got my first tenancy, I did all sorts of terrible things like not paying the rent and having loads of people over for parties. I hope that the landlords who used to know me know that, now that I am grown up, I am not defending the kind of bad behaviour of my 20s and teens.
Let us try and separate those people who have fallen into Covid poverty. The Prime Minister said in the early stages that he would not allow people to fall into long-term homelessness through evictions because of Covid-19. We must ensure that this Government—whatever complexion they are, whatever they say—prevent people falling into Covid-related eviction.
We need to put our thinking cap on and realise that anyone evicted falls into a situation where the cost can double, treble and even quadruple for the taxpayer. Therefore, I am looking to get absolute value for money for the taxpayer. The best value for money is for us to keep the tenant or mortgagee in the home. We must recognise at the same time that people are landlords; if we did not have any landlords, we would have lots more homelessness. If we did not have social landlords, who were also hit by Covid-19, we would have much more homelessness. If we did not have banks offering mortgages, we would have more homelessness. This must be a convergence of energies; it has to be clear. We must stand by our commitment not to allow one person to fall into Covid-related eviction and homelessness.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my interests as set out in the register. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who has great experience and knowledge in this area, as is clear. I thank my noble friend Lady Scott for setting out the regulations with such lucidity. As we celebrate the great news of the first vaccinations today—it really is great news—we still have some time to navigate difficulties. I understand the need for these regulations over the midwinter period. Eviction is a dreadful thing and in midwinter it is worse, with the added difficulties of accessing services when pressures are severe. NHS pressures are considerable at this time and I see the need to avoid placing additional pressures on our health service and local authorities.
Additionally, these regulations prevent the use of the “taking control of goods” procedure while the health protection regulations are in force. This validates an instruction given out by the Lord Chancellor in England. As my noble friend has set out, there are some limited, sensible exceptions to the prohibition of evictions: trespassers, where there is domestic abuse and so on. I certainly support that as well.
Therefore, I support these regulations, but I want to voice a general concern, in terms similar to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. The regulations do not do anything to reduce or abate long-term debts from accruing; in many ways, they just postpone the problem and potentially add to mental health pressures on poor tenants who see these debts continuing to mount up.
Many landlords have incurred substantial losses during the pandemic. Most landlords have a single property —they are not property tycoons—and are often not able to access support packages that the Government have put together, so they are severely disadvantaged, too. Some landlords have seen their income—for some, it is their pension—fall or be wiped out altogether. That is not sustainable in the long term.
I believe that a financial package to help renters based on hardship loans may be needed in the future and I would welcome the Minister saying something on this. Also, what happens after 11 January—or 25 January, allowing for that 14-day notice period? Economic pressures are not suddenly going to end on 11 January and neither, I regret, is winter, unless I am missing something. What are the Government’s plans? Other than those considerations, I support these regulations.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I declare my position as vice-chair of the Local Government Association. I begin by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, regarding Small Business Saturday and the importance of doing whatever we can to support small independent businesses. In her speech, she referred to unsatisfactory tenants who are not paying the rent, but some of those people will be one and the same. Many small business owners and self-employed people have, in Covid-related circumstances, found themselves in situations where they are unable to pay the rent through no fault of their own. As the Minister set out in her introduction, what we are talking about here is a “winter pause”.
Of course, it is welcome that people will not be thrown out on to the streets until, effectively, 25 January, but, eventually, many of these people who face eviction now are still going to be facing eviction in January. Based on the campaigning group Shelter’s figures, there were already 442,000 adults in rent arrears in July—double the figure from last year. Many of those people will eventually have to go to their local council seeking emergency accommodation. In 2019-20, local authorities spent £1.2 billion on temporary housing for homeless people.
Looking beyond 25 January, my question to the Minister is: what will the Government do to ensure both that people are not evicted and, for those who are inevitably evicted, that local authorities can afford to pay for their accommodation? We should think about where that money is going because, last year, 87% of it went to private landlords. This is taking public money and pumping it into private hands.
The Huffington Post today notes that a company is advertising that home owners can get
“‘exceptional returns’ by turning their properties into HMOs (houses of multiple occupation) and hostels.”
It reported:
“The company made £1.8m in profit in 2018-2019 on revenue of £22m.”
Huge windfall sums are being made by private landlords through a housing policy based on privatisation, with right to buy and the idea that we will rely on private builders to supply our housing stock. Will the Government look to ensure that we have genuinely affordable public housing for people to live in securely, free from fear of eviction permanently?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant registered interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of the Heart of Medway housing association and a non-executive director at MHS Homes. Furthermore, my wife, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, is director of Generation Rent, which is the voice of private tenants.
I support the regulations as far as they go, but they are not the solution to the problem. They merely delay, rather than prevent, evictions of tenants. Landlords can serve an eviction notice and the courts remain open, but no possession orders can be enforced until 25 January, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said. However, that still leaves people in the terrifying situation of being made homeless in the new year, possibly with no job or with the risk of losing their job.
The Government have it in their power to support both landlords and tenants while at the same time avoiding the disaster of homelessness for people in what we all know will be the worse economic conditions in the new year. They can also avoid the huge cost to the country of people being made homeless. I have carefully read the briefing note from the National Residential Landlords Association and I agree with it on the need to increase local housing allowance to cover the average rent in any given area, not just the bottom 30% of average rents. There are literally hundreds of constituencies where the local housing allowance does not cover the average rent paid in that constituency. That is a huge problem and there are no winners, neither landlords nor tenants—everyone a loser. For me, this seems an obvious thing that the Government need to do.
I also agree with the call to boost the discretionary housing payment available to local authorities, along with suspending the shared accommodation rate for 12 months, enabling those under 35 to claim benefits for living alone. However, I am not convinced that interest-free loans to cover rent are the solution. I can see the advantage for landlords, but whatever solution we come up with must benefit both landlords and tenants to get us through this crisis. Tenants being saddled with more debt does not seem to me to be the way forward. The solution must be a combination of the measures that I have outlined, which have large support across the housing sector. Could the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, tell the House what protections will be made available to tenants living under tier 2 and tier 3 restrictions from 11 January, when the regulations expire?
The Government have the power to make considerable progress to deal with the issue properly and for the long term. What happens after 11 January? What happens if there is a third wave of Covid-19, which is a risk, as we have heard from the medical profession? After the festive season, when people are meeting people indoors, which they have not done for many months, there is a real risk of another wave. What happens then? I fear that we will be back on this issue again in the new year with additional measures. I just wish that we had had had those long-term measures put in place so that we would not have to come back repeatedly every few months. That is to the benefit of nobody, so I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support these regulations as far as they go. Clearly, they are necessary. However, that does not mean that there will not be many children who are spending this Christmas in the knowledge that next year they will face homelessness. Too many people in this country have seen their income drop during the Covid outbreak and this has impacted their ability to pay their rent. Therefore, it is quite right that some protection from eviction for rent arrears has been provided.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for pointing out that, as others have since echoed, most landlords are to some extent dependent on the income that they get from these properties, so they, too, have been suffering. Therefore, it must make sense for the Government not just to delay eviction but to make sure that both sides of this equation are helped and to subsidise adequate rental payment for landlords as far as they can.
Like so much to do with Covid, this issue merely highlights deficiencies which had already been prevalent in our society. Many people previously were employed but living on the brink, with no funds to fall back on in the event of any emergency. We saw that drive people to food banks immediately Covid hit. By the end of June there were 98,300 households in temporary accommodation because they had been unable to pay their rent before Covid struck. That is an appalling indictment of a modern society. We know the sort of conditions many of these people are being forced to live in, with children sharing rooms and trying to live, do exercise and do homework in appalling accommodation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out that public money is going into private hands to help provide roofs for these people, and that cannot be sensible. What this demonstrates is the need for more social housing. There is too little of it. In the London borough of Lewisham alone, there are 10,000 households on the council house waiting list, with little hope for many of them of ever reaching the top and finding themselves in a property.
This is a long-term issue that should be dealt with but, in the short term, I do have a question for the noble Baroness: what is going to happen to those people who fit into the exceptions, whether for domestic abuse or anti-social behaviour, when the courts find in favour of the landlord and issue an eviction order? What will happen to those people in January, when the winter is at its coldest? Will they add to the homeless figures?
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
The noble Baroness just raised a very interesting question.
Talk of eviction makes me feel uneasy. In the 1970s, 50 years ago, I ran, on a voluntary basis, an anti-eviction group in the Rossendale and Darwen and Blackburn areas of Lancashire. Our national campaign was a major contributor to the repeal of the Small Tenements Recovery Act 1838, a law that gave local councils almost unlimited powers to evict tenants. I learned an important lesson in that battle: backlogged arrears are problematic in themselves, and when you roll up arrears in packaged payments by retained tenants, in particular where tenants have a previously unblemished rental record, you more often than not aggravate the tenant-landlord relationship.
The best policy for landlords, if they are confident that the tenant’s difficulties are in the past and they are unsupported by benefits is, where possible, to write off the arrears and maintain a healthy tenancy. Some landlords, when the tenant has not been in receipt of sufficient benefit to cover the full rent, take a mature view and adopt this approach, despite the cost. They know that there is nothing worse than a resentful tenant. However, some landlords, insensitive to the suffering, do not give a damn, and that is why I am worried about rolled-up arrears post 11 January.
We are told that last year one-quarter of all tenancies nationally were in arrears. So there will be a lot more. For many tenants, the pandemic will have been a nightmare, with cases of acute depression, debt, domestic abuse, alcoholism and perhaps even loss of life—we do not know at this stage. So how can we respond? Yes, we can extend the ban in tier 2 and 3 areas. We can pass the promised rent reform Bill, which we have been briefed on by a number of people from outside. But we could also use the tax system to incentivise a landlord’s ability to write off pandemic-induced, rolled-up rent arrears. A system could be introduced similar to that for the self-employed. HMRC could look at the last three-year accounting period and then give partial grant aid, built on a percentage of the previous three years’ taxable profits base. We can be sure that it would lead to some very interesting conversations between tenants and landlords and, in particular, those landlords who are not too honest with the taxman.
I would like to make it clear that neither I nor any member of my family has an interest in rental property anywhere.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Like many noble Lords, I find it is a great relief to see this extension of the regulations. If once the main fear stalking society was of our loved ones catching Covid, for many people I know that is now equalled by a visceral terror of the blight of bailiffs and eviction notices—but still those eviction notices are on the horizon. My worry is that the regulations just kick a bigger problem down the road. Already, 9% of private renters have suffered job losses, and we know that that is just the tip of the looming unemployment iceberg. Meanwhile, 33% have had a fall in income due to reduced hours and furlough, and we know that furlough, for many, is just joblessness delayed. So how will these renters ever be able to pay arrears? And that, therefore, means that we have to ask: what about the people they owe rent to?
As has already been alluded to, the vast majority of landlords are not anything like massive property magnates; 45% are single individuals who have invested their life savings or redundancy money in just one property. For some, it is their main income. Others are future-proofing their life to supplement meagre pensions. At this stage, they are suffering 20% rental losses, and they know that many rents will not be paid in full, if at all. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, reminded us, they are unable to access business support packages because they own a property asset—so now they face a debt crisis, and many are worried about defaulting on mortgages and their future homes.
As for solutions, I—like many noble Lords, I am sure—have been lobbied by special interest groups. They want financial support to pay off Covid-related debt arrears or interest-free Government-guaranteed hardship loans paid directly to landlords. Certainly, that would help both parties. I rather like the look of the proposals in the Reset the Debt report from a variety of churches. However, the real solution is to put a stop to this impending and growing tragedy of increasing homelessness by having a different approach to living with and managing Covid that avoids closing down society. When the Government recently ordered a lockdown based on what is now known to be false data, they guaranteed that more people would be homeless.
The reward for complying with the lockdown was that many millions more were placed in tiers 2 and 3, and that had a devastating impact on the hospitality sector. It is estimated that 30% to 40% of people made homeless this year are—guess what?—former hospitality workers. Many hospitality workers’ homes are linked to their jobs in hotels and pubs, so now they are forced on to the street. Many others who work in hospitality have precarious living arrangements that are not protected by the evictions ban. In other words, it is the Government’s choice of disproportionate and overly risk-averse policies in relation to Covid that have created a long-term debt crisis and looming evictions. No doubt, it is absolutely unintended, but I urge the noble Baroness that the next time her colleagues mention lockdowns or tiers, she reminds them the costs are growing homelessness, evictions in the long term and many more people on the streets and in fear not of Covid but of homelessness.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in summing up, will the Minister comment on the question of tied accommodation? Where someone has lost their employment and is then required to vacate a property, there will be a time lag because, by definition, it will not be possible, if you have made someone redundant, to employ somebody new to live in said accommodation. Therefore, there is an incentive to take one’s time in the eviction or disposal of the tenant. It seems to me that that time lag is fairly obvious. What data do the Government have on this, and what plans do they have around tied accommodation?
There is a second group that, in my experience, always gets left out when it comes to legislation on housing rights: those who live in mobile homes that are not mobile. I refer to park homes. With a park home, what people do, in my experience, is purchase, usually relatively cheaply, a so-called mobile home, but rent the space it is on and pay a significant premium for other services—these usually being lighting, which may or may not be where it is meant to be, a tarmac surface in and out of the park-home area, and sometimes heating and other such utilities. An eviction there is an eviction from the space that a person rents, but of course most of these mobile homes are not mobile. They may have been sitting there for 40 years, with the concrete encased into the land, having developed over time. Therefore, the concept that you can dig it up and move it is often used to force people out or to put their rent up—that has been my experience. Coercion based on a lack of housing rights forces the rent up, precisely because people have a capital asset—albeit one that does not really compare to housing as an asset—that they can never capitalise because they are stuck to that particular location.
It seems to me that that there will be an increase in that Covid-related problem. I suspect, from my reading, that this legislation does not apply. What plans do the Government have in that kind of situation to ensure that the same Covid-problem rights will be there for those in mobile homes and those in immobile mobile homes, otherwise known as park homes?
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her explanation, and the Housing Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his letter dated 2 December in response to my question to him on 12 November as to why bailiffs are being asked, rather than compelled, not to evict someone from a property. I am pleased that the Government have had a change of heart and introduced this statutory instrument. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that we continue to see a frustratingly piecemeal approach to the issue of the private rented sector, which pleases neither tenants nor landlords.
If, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says, 42% of private renters have savings of less than £500, and if 41% have seen a drop in income since March and used their savings already, it is inevitable that many of the 8 million renters in this country will be in significant arrears. Add to that the shortfall of an average of about £100 a month—even with the support of local housing allowance, which is tagged to the bottom 30% of rents—and noble Lords will understand that there are now 1.9 million households in the private rented sector relying on benefits of some kind, including 1.82 million children, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. They cannot all rent at the bottom 30%; it is not mathematically possible to have that proportion of low-cost rentals. We are driving more tenants into debt, and that debt is being passed on to the landlords who can least afford it. It also means that many tenants are having to choose between food, rent, heat or unscrupulous lenders this winter.
It is particularly striking that the purpose of instrument No. 1290, as set out in paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, is to
“prevent people being evicted at a time when accessing services may be more difficult and when pressure on public services is most acute.”
If, as is predicted by many scientists, there is an increase in infections after the more relaxed rules over Christmas, and if that spike is in the days following the Christmas period, will the Minister undertake to ensure that the purpose is maintained beyond 11 January? If the R rate rises, or if people are still designated as living in tiers 2 or 3, will she ensure that this requirement remains in place, because it is for obvious health reasons? I ask particularly what will happen in the scenario where the R rate is above 1? Will bailiffs be allowed to serve warrants of eviction?
On that point, will the Minister clarify the wording, because I think there is a danger here? She said that this can be used for “domestic abuse in tenancies”, but the Explanatory Memorandum says
“domestic abuse in social tenancies”.
My understanding is that this law applies only to social tenancies, and then only when the survivor of abuse is not likely to reclaim the property. This is terribly important. I am worried that Ministers have, on several occasions, misused this term and implied that it is about domestic abuse across the PRS: it is not. To offer that level of hope is very misleading.
While I appreciate that the notice period means there will be no evictions until 25 January, I think the Minister would probably accept that it was the lack of acceptance of the high probability, as predicted by scientific advisers, of a second lockdown that delayed such things as the extension of the furlough scheme. Of course, that led to a lot of people losing their jobs and to the poverty issues described so well by the noble Lord, Lord Bird. Given that these regulations do not prevent eviction notices being served currently, and do not prevent court proceedings, will the Minister undertake to re-examine the issue of allowing judges to have discretion to prevent an eviction if rent arrears are due to the Covid pandemic, in order to try, as much as possible, to keep people in their homes?
In addition to stopping bailiffs over the Christmas period, will the Government urgently look into an increase in the local housing allowance to cover the median local rent? Will they also consider scrapping the benefit cap, which was never designed for a period of a pandemic and is another constraint in an all-too-expensive private rented sector? The number of families affected by the benefit cap rose by a staggering 93% between February and May. Many families have been exempt, but that exemption will disappear at around Christmas.
Will the Minister consider the recommendation from Generation Rent to introduce grant funding for renters already in arrears? They cannot afford to pay back those arrears as a result of the first wave of the pandemic, and some were in arrears before that, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. A coronavirus home retention scheme would, in the long run, serve both tenants and landlords.
Finally, the Government’s manifesto promise to scrap Section 21 no-fault evictions is long overdue and would be a strong signal of support for renters who, even now, today, are being served mandatory eviction notices with no explanation or rationale. Frankly, they deserve better.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her explanation of this statutory instrument, which reintroduces the evictions ban for the second lockdown, preventing most evictions until 11 January next year.
Two immediate questions arise. Can the Minister explain why this is being debated only now, many weeks since the implementation of this ban and at the end of the recent lockdown? The second question is that the Government have said they hope and expect that we may get back to some normality in the spring of next year, so why is this eviction ban ending on 11 January? Surely a longer ban would tie in with the expected return to normality.
I have received briefings, no doubt the same as those received by many other noble Lords, from the National Organisation of Residents Associations, Generation Rent and others. They all make the same references. There is clearly a sense of urgency and exasperation in the current situation. Landlords, the vast majority of whom are private individuals and not corporations, as we have heard, feel that they are being asked by the Government to subsidise tenants. On the other hand, tenants feel that the Government are kicking the can down the road while their vulnerability to eviction increases. Between February and August 2020, the number of households renting from a private landlord that were claiming universal credit or housing benefit increased by more than half a million, representing an increase of 36%, and taking the number of PRS households claiming to 1.9 million. However, an estimated half a million of that 1.9 million do not receive enough benefit to cover their rent, so we are in an extremely precarious situation.
As we have heard from other noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Wheatcroft, and my noble friend Lord Kennedy, the various lobbying groups to which I have referred have proposed a number of solutions. It is true that they all would require greater financial commitment by the Government, but what they really require is a long-term interventionist approach to what is a present-day crisis. I understand that the statutory instrument we are debating is just one element in a long-term approach, but I would be grateful if the Minister could say something about how she is working with other departments to get a more fully co-ordinated response.
We have heard about some of the proposals which have been put forward. The first was an increase in the local housing allowance to cover average rent, not just the bottom 30% of average rents. Another point was that there should be government grants or loans. I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Kennedy that grants are preferable to loans, but either way it would be a form of support for working renters who have seen a large drop in income. Suspending shared accommodation rates for 12 months would enable people aged under 35 to claim benefits if they are living alone. Other changes have also been proposed.
These are clearly hugely urgent and complex matters and we need a co-ordinated approach. While the Ministry of Justice is leading on this instrument today, the issues sit primarily in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as well as in other government departments, in particular the DWP, which deals with universal credit and housing benefit. I would appreciate it if the Minister can say how a co-ordinated, long-term approach is being worked on to deal with these systemic issues.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I shall give a big thank you for a very balanced debate on this subject, which is a difficult one. The pandemic is serious and impacts all members of our society—not just tenants but landlords, as has been said. I shall not get through all of the questions, but I will go through the debate and send answers in writing to those I do not respond to.
I want to start with a couple of points, before I forget. First, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, talked about mobile homes. I had quite a lot of experience of mobile homes in my other life. I would quite like to look into where we are on that issue and write him with an answer. Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked me about tenancies. It is about social tenancies and domestic abuse, not all tenancies. I wanted to make those points clear first of all.
Some themes definitely emerged in the debate. Of course we need support for tenants. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. I absolutely agree that when children are involved, it is even more critical that we look after them. The Government have provided an unprecedented package of financial support which is available to tenants and will remain in place over the whole winter period. Nearly £1 billion of additional support will be available to private renters claiming universal credit or housing benefit in 2021, which will benefit over 1 million households. That will include households in work, so not just those who are out of work. This year, claimants will gain an average of an additional £600 in increased housing support, and that measure has been well received.
The other issue is that we cannot forget the furlough scheme, which has now been extended until March, or the Self-employment Income Support Scheme, which has also been extended. We have provided £180 million in discretionary housing payments so that local authorities can help renters with their housing costs. This also emphasises the importance of local authorities in giving much-needed support and help during difficult times for tenants, not only those in social housing but those in private rented accommodation.
Tackling homelessness has been another priority for the Government. We remain committed to that work because the homeless are some of the most vulnerable in our society. In this year alone, we are spending over £700 million to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, and the spending review has just committed a further £750 million for next year. We are continuing the project of “Everyone In”, which supports rough sleepers. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, asked what we are doing about homelessness support for those facing eviction. The Homelessness Reduction Act, which came into force in 2018, was the most ambitious reform to tackle homelessness. It is interesting to note that over 270,000 households have had homelessness successfully prevented or relieved by securing accommodation for more than six months. We are looking at the whole issue, from before people receive eviction notices right through to if they do, unfortunately, become homeless.
I was pleased to hear—this was the second part of it—that this is about landlords as well as tenants because it is important that we take a balanced view. We have been supporting landlords as well with buy-to-let mortgages while the mortgage holiday will be extended, with applications open until 31 January 2021. We are very grateful to our landlords for their forbearance during this unprecedented time and we continue to strongly encourage tenants to pay their rent, or at least to have an early conversation with their landlord if they have difficulty in doing so. Often, things can be dealt with during that early stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, rightly asked what will happen if tiers 2 and 3 are extended past January. We know that there are concerns about the period from January and perhaps through to Easter, when the vaccine will start to take control of the pandemic. We will continue to keep this policy under constant review because it is important to do so. If any changes need to be made, the Government will consider them. However, we have to remember that occupiers now must be given 14 days’ notice of an eviction before the bailiffs can come in. Also, on any new possession, the landlord will have to give six months’ notice to any tenant if they require them to leave the property.
We talked a lot about poverty. The Government have put £500 million into a hardship fund to help further reduce the council tax bills of some of the most vulnerable households, those we are talking about. That fund can help them by up to £150 a year.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for some of his ideas and we will look into them. However, the best way in which to help landlords is to help tenants pay. That is why programmes such as the furlough scheme are so important because if families still retain an income, tenants can pay and landlords are secure. In addition, mortgage payment holidays of up to six months are available and can help landlords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, was absolutely right about having more housing. We have committed at least £44 billion over five years to build more homes in this country.
Lastly, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe mentioned impact assessments. This measure is only temporary, lasting less than 12 months, as part of our Covid emergency response. Therefore, requirements for a formal impact assessment do not apply.
I am sure that I have not answered a number of other questions, but time has taken over.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
We now come to the Motion to approve the REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The time limit is one-and-a-half hours.
REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 October be approved.
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
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 regulations have three main purposes: they fulfil the UK’s obligation to effectively implement the Northern Ireland protocol with regard to REACH; they provide for access by Northern Irish goods to the Great Britain market; and they amend the existing transitional deadlines for GB businesses to submit information about their chemicals and their safe use into the domestic REACH system. The SI also makes some technical amendments to ensure that cross-references in the UK REACH regulation are up to date at the end of the transition period. After the transition period, UK REACH will regulate the GB market, while EU REACH will apply to Northern Ireland.
The provisions that implement the protocol are straightforward. They redefine the scope of the domestic REACH regime from the UK to Great Britain. They provide for the Northern Ireland competent authority function to continue to be exercised jointly by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department for the Economy. The provisions also ensure that there will still be effective enforcement arrangements for REACH in Northern Ireland.
The provisions concerning chemicals moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain reflect our commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses as well as the need to ensure that UK authorities have the appropriate information and regulatory safeguards in respect of chemicals placed on the GB market.
The instrument permanently removes the requirement for a full REACH registration for chemicals that are, or are in, qualifying Northern Ireland goods being placed on the GB market. It replaces that with a light-touch notification process, which will ensure that the HSE will know what chemicals are being placed on the GB market. Information necessary to ensure safe use will also still be passed down the supply chain within Great Britain. Substances of very high concern entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland will still need a UK REACH authorisation. This is necessary in order to manage the risk to GB consumers and workers, and the environment, from these hazardous chemicals. This simply replicates the approach taken at present to placing these substances on the EU market, where the authorisation process ensures that due account is taken of local environmental and other factors. We need to ensure that this happens where these chemicals are being placed on the market and used within Great Britain.
The changes to the deadlines for the submission of notification and registration information to the Health and Safety Executive follow a review of the data submission deadlines in the transitional provisions of UK REACH. The Government had committed to keep these deadlines under review when the first REACH exit SI was debated in the House last year, and the review involved detailed discussions with a range of industry and NGO stakeholders. The initial notification period for existing downstream users and distributors is being increased from 180 to 300 days. The deadline for submitting full registration information, which is currently two years across the board, is replaced by a phased approach that spreads the duty over two, four and six years from the end of that 300-day period.
The phased approach takes a risk-based approach by requiring the submission of data on the highest tonnages and most hazardous chemicals first. The aim is to give companies more time and capability to comply with the legislation by reducing and spreading costs, and giving them more time to negotiate mutually beneficial data-sharing arrangements with other companies in the UK and the EU. This will lead to a reduction in non-compliance and the provision of higher-quality data, leading to GB authorities having access to better data that will facilitate better decision-making. In the meantime, GB authorities will have access to significant other sources of data, so we will still be able to make robust regulatory decisions before full data is submitted to the HSE under UK REACH.
I should like to inform the House that we have worked with the devolved Administrations on this SI and they have given consent. I can confirm that this instrument will be able to function with or without a deal with the European Union. I can also confirm that it has been considered by the JCSI and that no issues have been drawn to the attention of the House.
I should like to turn to the report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It is fair to say that the report does not primarily relate to this SI so much as to broader concerns about the future of chemicals regulations, now that the UK has left the EU. In addition to whether this SI changes our ability to regulate effectively before the Health and Safety Executive receives the data about the chemicals on the GB market, these concerns relate to the potential costs to industry of the transition to UK REACH, the HSE’s preparedness to take on its new role as the agency responsible for implementing UK REACH and potential outcomes from negotiations with the EU.
We published an impact assessment at the beginning of 2019, alongside the first REACH exit regulations. We have acknowledged that the costs to industry of supplying data into UK REACH could be significant. We have no reason to disagree with industry’s own estimates, but I should emphasise the considerable uncertainty. In particular, actual costs will depend on the behaviour of companies here and in the EU, and the terms by which they can agree to continue to share the data needed for the purposes of both UK and EU REACH. One of the purposes of this SI is to help businesses reduce and manage those costs by extending the deadlines for data submission. The aim of reducing costs is also why the UK has been looking to agree an approach to data sharing with the EU as part of a free trade agreement. That would enable us to significantly reduce the requirements on companies to submit data directly to the HSE.
The committee’s report is also concerned that the HSE will not immediately have access to the full chemical safety data currently held by the European Chemicals Agency. The Government recognise that our chemicals regime needs to be based on data and evidence, just like any system for regulating chemicals. At the same time, we are using transitional arrangements to smooth the move to UK REACH. These are taken a step further in the risk-based provisions in this SI. Here, also, our negotiation aims would assist us greatly in meeting the need for the data to underpin UK REACH while avoiding costs to industry. However, it takes two to reach a negotiated settlement. If that is not the outcome—and the committee is concerned that it will not be—it would be irresponsible not to make sure that UK REACH can stand by itself and is robust.
The concerns about costs and delays in the HSE receiving registration data sit uneasily together. If we want the HSE to have the full data on chemical safety, there will be a cost. If we want to avoid all the cost, it comes at the price of the HSE not having the data and having to rely wholly on other sources for regulatory purposes. What the Government are endeavouring to do, in previous SIs and in this instrument, is to balance those two needs.
Finally, the committee report questions whether the HSE will be fully prepared to take on the role of the chemicals agency under UK REACH—in particular, its capacity on day one. We have emphasised on a number of occasions that the HSE, along with the Environment Agency, is building on a significant level of expertise. I repeat that Defra is putting significant resources into the build-up to UK REACH, and that the HSE is recruiting heavily for REACH and other chemicals regimes for which it is responsible. The HSE has mapped the workload and regulatory drivers. This indicates that it is not necessary to have a fully staffed organisation on day one. Instead, the approach to recruitment gives time to train and build up the functions and services of UK REACH before key deadlines on registration and evaluation kick in. That is what is important. It is also important to remember that we are carrying over key elements from the EU system, such as the authorisation list and the candidate list for substances of very high concern, and that work does not need to be repeated.
Turning back to the draft SI, I emphasise that this is a simple but necessary instrument. It is necessary to make sure that the Northern Ireland protocol is implemented properly, and to provide easy access to the Great Britain market for Northern Ireland goods, in line with the Government’s commitments. The SI is also necessary in order to make a reduction in the burdens on industry, while still providing for an effective chemicals regulatory regime. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the Regulations (1) fail to provide an analysis of the costs of the new domestic Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regime, (2) introduce additional costs and administrative burdens for United Kingdom businesses, and (3) create unacceptable risks around the availability of chemicals safety data; notes concerns about the ability of the Health and Safety Executive to fulfil its additional responsibilities when the domestic REACH regime becomes operable on 1 January 2021; and further regrets that Her Majesty’s Government have not addressed concerns raised by Parliament when proposals for a domestic REACH regime were debated in 2019.”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. My amendment spells out the deficits and risks that remain in the REACH regulations and our disappointment that the Government have brought forward an amended proposal that fails to address any of the serious concerns that were raised when it was debated last year. It shows insufficient understanding of how chemicals are actually managed in complex supply chains, with analysis neither of the cost of setting up the new regime or the additional costs to business.
The Government have said that these regulations are necessary to ensure that UK REACH will operate domestically and to implement the Northern Ireland protocol. But they will not provide the same level of protection from harmful chemicals that we currently enjoy, and there are huge challenges in trying to replicate EU REACH. The Government have failed to demonstrate that the Health and Safety Executive, as the new regulator, will have the necessary skills and capabilities to match what has been provided by the European Chemicals Agency. When the original SI was introduced, it was indicated that the budget would likely be £13 million a year, and this figure has not been updated. The HSE will have a similar number of chemicals to regulate as the European Chemicals Agency does, with an annual budget of around €100 million. So we have serious concerns about the readiness of the HSE to take on this role and about the lack of staff with the necessary expertise. Despite the Minister’s previous assurances, he needs to set out exactly how the new system will be staffed and resourced to ensure that current levels of protection continue.
Schedule 2 amends the 2019 regulations to extend the date by which companies with EU REACH-registered chemicals must provide full safety data. As explained, the deadline has been extended from two years after exit day to be staggered over six years plus 300 days, so that the full registration dossier will now need to be submitted within two, four or six years. I understand the Minister’s reasoning behind this, which he just explained, but it does mean that the period in which the new regulator will be unable to protect human health and the environment from harmful substances has been extended. Without this data, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the HSE to implement legally enforceable restrictions and authorisations.
According to CHEM Trust, this will make the system considerably weaker. The UK may diverge and fall behind the EU quite quickly, with the result that products that do not meet EU standards could be dumped in the UK market. The Government have acknowledged that this is a possibility, so will they actively match new controls on chemicals implemented at EU level to ensure that this cannot happen?
Defra has said that the regulator could use a substantial amount of publicly available information, but this is not adequate for proper regulation. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded that it was deeply concerning that HSE
“will not have access to the full chemicals safety data currently held by EU REACH.”
The Chemical Business Association has said that British businesses do not normally own the testing data required for registrations under UK REACH, as it is held by a consortium of European countries. To reuse the data for the UK system, companies might need to obtain permission from the consortium and will likely have to pay for the extension of rights. If that cannot be obtained, tests might have to be redone to establish safety information, which could involve repeat animal testing.
The UK industry estimates that it will cost of £1 billion to comply with UK REACH, including the cost of resubmitting full registration dossiers already available under EU REACH. The Minister mentioned data sharing, but as yet there is no agreement between the UK and the EU on a data-sharing mechanism for these dossiers—and we are days away from the end of the transition period. There must not be any repeat animal tests, so I ask the Minister, who I know feels strongly about this, what guarantees he can give. How confident is he that this can really be ensured and that it is not just an undeliverable promise?
The regulations that this SI amends remove the supporting committees that ensure that decisions are based on scientific advice and that there is proper scrutiny and oversight. In the UK version, they are replaced by a duty for the HSE to seek external advice, with no formal committees of experts and stakeholders established. Furthermore, the Secretary of State has the final decision relating to the status of particular chemicals. While we hope that it is unlikely that a Secretary of State would diverge from HSE recommendations, it is not explicitly prevented.
In conclusion, we need a regulatory system that provides the same levels of protection for human health and the environment as we have enjoyed under REACH. Otherwise, critical decisions will be made by a body with little experience and with layers of accountability and scientific expertise stripped away. My amendment recognises these deficits and risks, and the lack of government action to date. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have the privilege of chairing the House’s EU Environment Sub-Committee. Soon after the referendum, we looked at the area of REACH chemicals and we had the then Secretary of State—not the present one—and the Permanent Secretary in front of us. It was quite clear that this was an area the department had not spent a lot of time on. It had concentrated on agriculture, fisheries and wider environmental areas, but absolutely not the chemicals area at all. There was a rather naive view among some people at that time that somehow all the data on chemicals in the European Chemicals Agency could be cut and pasted and put on the UK REACH database—something that we disabused them of, as it was quite clear that it was not true.
The department has certainly picked up a lot of speed since then, but not necessarily with the right answers. One could say that never in the history of corporate life has so much cost and red tape been created for absolutely zero purpose whatever. In fact, it will have a very negative effect on the UK chemicals industry—which, let us not forget, is the second largest manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom after the food industry.
The committee took evidence more recently—in fact, earlier this year—from the British Coatings Federation, which told us that 97% of its members buy chemicals from the European Union, some 65% of their exports go to the European Union and some 55% of their imports come from the EU. EU chemicals are absolutely integrated into the UK supply chain. Beyond that, nearly every other physical goods industry in the United Kingdom is affected in some way by the chemicals supply chain as inputs to their own products.
The result of this is not that UK standards will be particularly important—they will be absolutely essential to UK companies, obviously, and UK importers—but that they will continue to follow EU REACH regulations. If companies want to export, or if they export to the United States, they will have to comply with those regulations as well. This means that the only outcome of this is an additional cost and an additional registration system, which is expected to cost the industry some £1 billion extra—I am interested to hear that the Minister does not reject that figure. I welcome the fact that this might be spread over more time, but that cost is still very much there.
Because of that cost, there is another issue, which I do not think has been raised so far. It is estimated that some 27% of non-UK businesses importing chemicals—those EU companies—will not bother to register in the UK because of the extra cost of doing so. Of course, they cannot usually be replicated by a UK company’s supply because of the intellectual property held by those companies. So we have a system that is unnecessary and is there because of a philosophical choice, not one of safety and not one that is good for British industry.
I have some questions for the Minister. Is the HSE, which I respect hugely in its core functions, really going to have the expertise there in time, and will it be able to recruit sufficiently? I hear the Minister’s assurances, but the fact that it is still recruiting some days before the end of the transition period is, I think, a concern. Are the IT systems ready? The Minister did not mention those; they are absolutely fundamental, and I suspect rather more complicated than an Excel spreadsheet. Will there be sufficient independent advice on the science side for the HSE? Will there be animal retesting, which clearly all of us would want to avoid? What happens about those missing chemicals because importers will just not bother to re-register? I hear the wish that there would be some extra connection with EU REACH in the future, but I would really appreciate hearing from the Minister some determination to make sure that there is in future that connection with Europe that enables us to avoid the hugely expensive duplication of information and data.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for introducing these regulations and explaining their effect. I regret that the Northern Ireland protocol has made it necessary to have two different versions of REACH: UK REACH, which will apply in Great Britain, and the EU version of REACH, which will continue to have effect in Northern Ireland.
I trust that our departure from the EU will enable us to revert to a simpler, clearer, common law style of regulation such as we used to apply before the centralising and harmonising powers obtained by the Commission through the Maastricht treaty were applied. This instrument makes it very clear that there is some way to go before we can start to move in that direction.
It is very difficult to follow the detail of the instrument because it amends the 2019 regulations, which were not designed to apply in a situation where the EU regulations continued to apply in Northern Ireland. Therefore, one needs to refer to several different documents, which I find rather testing.
Paragraph 2.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum introduces a definition of GB REACH, and all references to “UK” in the 2019 regulations are being changed to “GB”. However, I ask my noble friend if he agrees that we should call it “UK REACH” rather than “GB REACH”, because GB is an island, not a country. Of course, the instrument would still have to apply the EU REACH regime in Northern Ireland. It is more confusing because, as noble Lords are aware, GB is the two-letter acronym used by the EU to refer to the UK throughout its years as a member state.
It occurred to me that since the REACH regimes are different in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, could not Northern Ireland be made subject to both regimes simultaneously? That presumably would not add any additional bureaucratic burden for Northern Irish businesses, since the content of the regimes is identical on IP completion day. However, would it not offer reassurance to the communities of Northern Ireland that they really are still an integral part of the UK and that this United Kingdom Parliament makes laws which apply to them?
Seventy pages of the withdrawal agreement—327 to 397—list the large number of European regulations and directives that will continue to apply in Northern Ireland. Of course, if the Republic of Ireland should eventually decide that it wished to join the UK customs territory, the problems of the north-south border in Ireland would disappear.
The Prime Minister’s Greenwich speech in February made clear that
“in doing free trade deals we will be governed by science and not by mumbo-jumbo because the potential is enormous.”
In many respects, our rules go further than EU rules, but there are other examples where bureaucratic EU regulatory regimes such as REACH have stifled and inhibited innovation. These measures today will ensure that there will be no cliff edge, that the EU retained version of REACH will work in the UK and that the notification period for existing Northern Ireland product being traded into GB is extended to 300 days, and I welcome them.
I listened to the interesting speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I think her motives are just to make trouble for the Government but not to try to do anything which might cause fatal damage to an important and necessary measure. However, it is important that, at some point, we fix the impediments and burdens of the REACH regime by developing a simpler, principles-based, pro-competitive chemicals regulatory regime, the outcomes of which may be similar to those of REACH but the detailed regulations of which will be different. I ask my noble friend to confirm that this remains the Government’s intention as soon as the short-term changes and issues arising from moving on from the transition period are completed.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I would like to echo the regret that others have expressed that we have allowed ourselves to walk into this unnecessary nightmare.
EU REACH started in 2007, and it took nearly 10 years to iron out all the wrinkles and become, according to our own Chemical Industries Association and the charity CHEM Trust, the best chemicals regulatory system in the world. With a staff of 600 people, ECHA—the European Chemicals Agency—deals with tens of thousands of chemicals in over 20 countries, which makes the evaluation and authorisation of individual chemicals good value for money. But more importantly, it has had 13 years to build up a huge database and prove to the world that its stamp of approval is a recognised safety guarantee when it comes to trading in chemical products—products that touch almost everything we do, from toothpaste, toothbrushes, toys, frying pans, paints, varnishes and chairs to sofas, to name just a few domestic items.
Originally, under Theresa May, and when Michael Gove was Secretary of State, we were going to go for full alignment with EU REACH and try to get associate membership. This would have been a very sensible approach, and indeed was recommended by your Lordships’ energy and environment committee, on which I am lucky enough to serve under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. But then UK politics changed, and seemingly alignment with any EU programme or institution became a no-no, whatever the cost.
We are therefore now going to leave the best system in the world at a cost of over £1 billion to a vitally important UK industry; an industry—or industries—which probably employs over 100,000 people. It is an industry which, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned, is inextricably linked with the EU, and, as he said, research indicates that 27% of the EU companies involved do not intend to register with UK REACH.
This latter point means that, in order to stay in business, many of the potential 80,000 new registrations of chemicals with UK REACH will have to be paid for by our own UK companies, large and small, which depend on imports from the EU for their raw materials. Worse than that, because the data and results of tests already carried out on these products often remain the property of ECHA and EU companies themselves, our UK companies may have to pay for another full round of validation tests to register with UK REACH and thus be allowed to stay in business.
This approach is not only economically harmful but could have serious health consequences for our population and our environment. The new regime starts in 23 days and the HSE is as yet unprepared. I gather that it has filled only around 30 of the 130 new posts it says that it needs. We should bear in mind that ECHA employs 400 people dedicated to REACH, and it still took it 10 years to build its database.
Furthermore, our Government, through practical necessity owing to the problems I have just outlined, are now giving UK companies leeway for registration of chemicals of 300 days or up to six years, according to the product. There are thus likely to be serious shortcomings in the HSE’s watchdog role in this sector. Indeed, the Government have acknowledged that there is a possibility we will become a dumping ground for chemical products that do not meet EU standards.
That sums up my regrets. I apologise that I have not even touched on the problems of Northern Ireland. However, in the light of what I have said, the added complication of being essentially in two regimes at once is not a situation one would wish on any business.
I plead with the Government to please find a way to commit the UK publicly to aligning UK REACH with EU REACH. Let us try to earn its trust, so that, I hope, we can share their data and avoid having to go through a 10-year learning curve and the unnecessary huge expense and possible environmental chaos that I have described. This is one of our most important industries. We must look after it.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
In supporting my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, I am concerned about the resources and capability of the Health and Safety Executive to carry out its new role, about the risk of safety issues falling through the gaps and about the cost to business, which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, just outlined so graphically. This House is on record as regretting the Government’s decision not to participate in the European Chemicals Agency, which would have saved all this uncertainty. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Whitty, whose regret Motion was carried in 2019, will want to say more about that.
Let me make it clear: I am a supporter of the wonderful work carried out by the Health and Safety Executive. I worked closely with it 10 years ago when I was preparing my report on fatalities in the construction industry, and I have been horrified at the extent of the cuts to its budget by successive Conservative Governments. As the UK chemicals authority, the HSE will take on the role that was formerly carried out by the European Chemicals Agency. The question of staffing and resources of the HSE has been raised before. I was a member of Sub-Committee B of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in 2019. It expressed concern in its report on the REACH regulations that the HSE did not have the resources to recruit the necessary expert staff. Now the current Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, under the able leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, is expressing deep concern about the same thing over a year later. Why have the Government not taken action when they were warned of the difficulties? The new regime comes in on 1 January 2021 but recruitment to the HSE is nowhere near concluded.
What contingency plans exist to ensure that safety and standards are maintained during this crucial period? What assurances can the Minister give that the HSE will be adequately funded? Will the Government work with stakeholders to develop an open and transparent structure? As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, explained, the advantage of the European Chemicals Agency, which the Government have decided to leave, is that it had a committee structure which ensured that its work would be challenged, and Cruelty Free International has emphasised that this open structure ensures that “the best information is available, including on animal testing.”
Will the Government guarantee that there will be no repeat animal testing because of a failure to share data, and how will they carry out that guarantee in practice? In most cases, UK firms do not own the testing data that is required to support registrations under UK REACH. The majority of this data is owned, as has been said, by a consortium of European countries. I appreciate that the Government are seeking agreement with the EU on data sharing, referred to as a chemicals annexe. If this agreement is reached, it would mitigate the need for the chemical industry to provide full data packages to the new agency, thus avoiding considerable cost to business.
I accept that extending some of the dates is intended to assist the industry and give it time to adjust. However, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has supported the view of the CHEM Trust, a chemical safety charity, that extending the period to more than six years would hamper the ability of the agency to regulate the chemicals industry. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee agrees that this could undermine the HSE’s ability to regulate chemicals properly.
The noble Lord knows that the House has been expressing concern on these issues for nearly two years. The Government created the uncertainty by refusing to remain within the European Chemicals Agency and agreeing a Northern Ireland protocol without considering its fundamental implications. They now have an obligation to sort out their own mess and maintain the safety and security of the chemicals industry.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his explanation of these regulations and for his clear delivery to the House of what are clearly regulations that may be of significant concern. In particular, he has assured us, that Defra is putting in resources and that the HSE is recruiting. However, concerns have been expressed about the adequacy of resources for the HSE, which does a tremendous job, and the required oversight, when one compares the budget of the ECHA, with €100 million, and the HSE, with £13 million. What are the targets for recruitment to the HSE? How are we locating the required personnel? Where are they coming from? Can my noble friend say how much the adequacy of the resourcing has been assessed and whether there are any reports that may give us some comfort?
I also encourage my noble friend to relay the message this House has clearly given over the last two to three years, that data on safety and data sharing are essential for public safety. I appreciate that the JCSI report and the concerns raised, as my noble friend already mentioned, may not be directly relevant to this SI. However, clearly, the issues raised are enormously important, and its broader concerns about the potential £1 billion cost to our valuable UK chemicals industry and the readiness of the HSE to conduct its role are serious matters.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rightly said, the risks to our chemicals industry, public safety and indeed economic performance are being imposed for no added value. I have pointed this out many times in the past four years in the various debates on this issue. We are trying to reinvent the wheel, but we do not have the resources to make sure that it is as robust as the wheel we are replacing.
Like my noble friend Lord Trenchard, I regret the need for us to have a separate REACH programme for Northern Ireland and GB—but for rather different reasons. We will have our own GB REACH, but Northern Ireland will be under the EU REACH regime. Both will operate independently, with exporters and importers between the EU, the EEA and Northern Ireland—with Great Britain on the other side—having to ensure that their relevant duties are met under both regimes. Can my noble friend the Minister outline the differences that we anticipate between the two regimes and how firms will be prepared for any such divergence?
The Government have introduced the Northern Ireland notification system, which is light-touch. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the decision to make this fee free, but could the option of equivalence possibly be revived? I recognise that becoming an independent sovereign nation offers theoretical opportunities to sweep away red tape, allowing free markets to flourish—but not on dangerous chemicals. What safeguards will there be for the first 300 days? GB importers have to submit information on substances that they import, but who will assess the submissions and how ready is the new UK REACH IT system to receive and assess them?
Finally, can my noble friend comment on the new regime, which requires no submission for consignments below 1 tonne? Also, for those between 1 and 10 tonnes, there will be no requirement to provide data safety reports or chemical safety report risk control measures— at least as far as I could see when I clicked on the requirements under the regime. What risks are potentially involved in omitting such information from consignments under 10 tonnes?
I urge the Government to reconsider their determination to abandon equivalence, and I hope that we will be able to look forward to continued success for our chemicals industry.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I am bound to recapitulate on much of what has already been said, but I shall do so with added asperity.
Of all the aspects of a hard Brexit, the decision to leave the European regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—known as REACH, of course—is one of the most gratuitous and damaging. It seems to have come about because of an objection to the role of the European Court of Justice as the ultimate arbiter of any disputes arising. However, it has rarely been called on to perform that role.
The decision to leave REACH appears to have been hapless and inadvertent. This was revealed when the Secretary of State and his Permanent Secretary appeared before the House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee. The two seemed to be under the impression that it would be a simple matter to cut and paste the contents of the European Union REACH database into a UK version. They had to be disabused of this idea. It was pointed out to them that the database contains proprietary information, much of which is subject to commercial secrecy. Moreover, there is often joint ownership of this information. Acquiring the information can involve complicated and protracted negotiations that are liable to impose restrictive undertakings on those who wish to be granted access to it. I recall that the Secretary of State turned to his civil servant adviser with a look of surprise and irritation. This was answered by a look that also seemed to signify surprise and which bore an implication of “mea non culpa”. We might have expected the Government to change course and reverse their decision to leave REACH, but that has not happened.
Recently, in its response to an inquiry by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Defra asserted that much of the necessary information is in the public domain and is readily accessible. This is untrue. Either it reveals a persistent misunderstanding of the matter, or it represents an attempt to bamboozle parliamentarians and others. I am unsure which of these two possibilities is worse.
The truth of the matter is revealed by the fact that the statutory instrument allows, in some cases, a full six years plus 300 days from the end of the transition period in which to supply full information to a GB REACH database. This implies a lengthy hiatus, during which time the nation will remain inadequately protected against harmful chemicals, including pesticides and the wide variety of endocrine disruptors that are now coming under increasing scrutiny.
The inadequacy of the putative GB REACH organisation as regards its staffing and financing is revealed by some startling comparisons. REACH is managed by the European Chemicals Agency, which is located in Helsinki. This organisation has more than 500 staff from 27 European countries. It has four scientific committees with experts from all member states, which raise concerns and supply it with information. The annual budget is €109 million and its database comprises 23,000 chemical compounds.
The UK’s Health and Safety Executive, which has been given the task of supervising the replacement regime, has so far recruited 40 staff and intends to recruit 130 in all. As we have heard, its budget will be £13 million. This organisation will in no way be comparable to the European system. It will be wholly inadequate for the task that it will face.
The UK chemicals industry is likely to be devastated by the Government’s policy to leave the REACH system. The cost to the industry of replacing EU REACH with a national UK regulatory agency has been estimated variously at between £450 million and £1 billion. In any event, it will be very large.
To be registered in the European Union, a British chemicals exporter will have to seek an alliance with a so-called “only representative” within the European Union, who will have to vouch for all of the necessary information that must be provided to EU REACH. This information is to enable REACH to determine which chemicals are in manufactured items and which are abroad in the environment. The proposed UK regulatory agency will not be capable of doing this effectively.
The EU REACH system is increasingly defining the international standards to which chemical companies worldwide are seeking to adhere. To remove the UK chemicals industry from that system is a backward step that will do the industry untold harm. Far from being a case of taking back control, which has been the leitmotif of the proponents of Brexit, this will be a case of losing some of our former influence in international affairs. It is tragic to be reminded that the UK played a major role in creating the EU REACH system.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I very much hope that, in rebuilding REACH to our own specifications, the Government will take advantage of all the innovation that has been taking place in the computational prediction of toxicity so that we end up with a cheaper, faster system that hurts many fewer laboratory animals. I would like to see the UK develop as a centre of excellence for such technology, with the need to recreate REACH providing a flow of business that allows such excellence to develop.
I also hope that we will avoid some of the idiocies of the European system. I do not share the approbation of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for that system. To use a particular chemical as an example, ammonium sulphamate is an extremely useful herbicide because it decays into fertiliser and has no toxic residues. The European Union’s pesticides review led to herbicides containing this chemical becoming unlicensed in 2008, because the Irish rapporteur refused to review the data supplied unless it contained details of animal testing on dogs. As there was already substantial animal data in the package supplied, the data holder felt that further tests without substantiation would cause unnecessary animal suffering.
I find that attitude extraordinary, as I do the European Union’s attitude to, say, asulam, which is a much more dangerous chemical but which has incredibly useful properties. It kills bracken and dock but almost nothing else, so if you are trying to prevent a really precious collection of plants from invasion by bracken, it is so much better than any of the alternatives—but the European Union has proved extremely difficult in allowing it to be licensed, in a way that has not happened at all in the United States. And of course the greatest example of European idiocy has been its attitude to glyphosate. So I really hope we will get to a situation where we can take a much more rational and holistic attitude to chemicals than appears to have been possible in the European Union.
In terms of making this a process which works and which we can be confident protects our citizens, for low-use chemicals which are not known to be particularly dangerous, surely we can just look across the water and say, “What they do in the EU? What do they do in the US? Have they raised substantial concerns about these chemicals?” If not, let us just rely on all the work that has been done in the EU, the US and elsewhere, and not obsess about repeating tests, particularly if we are requiring tests on animals, and allow the system in the UK to evolve at a sensible pace, which does not require a lot of people to relicense chemicals at great cost when there is no obvious benefit to us or to them.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I know that we cannot have normal debates virtually, but I have to say that that last suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was an absolute disgrace. It would be the end of any chemical companies in Great Britain—the United Kingdom—exporting anywhere else if we were known to have such a lax effort in regulating as not doing any work and just looking at what others are doing. I am afraid that that is simply not good enough.
I should declare an interest in the sense that REACH came into force in 2007, during my period at Defra between 2006 and 2008. In fact, it occasioned one of the very rare visits I ever made to Brussels. I also served on European Union Sub-Committee B under the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and of course I was present when the Minister of State, Thérèse Coffey, and the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, turned up not really knowing what the hell was going on. I do not think they had read any of the briefings.
I challenge the Minister to say whether he has ever read the Lords committee report on Brexit chemicals regulation. It was published before he came into the Lords, of course, but there may be a reference to it in his briefings. It would certainly be worth a read, because we now seem to be producing a new system, at the cost of £1 billion, for nothing new—and it will be a second-rate system that puts people in this country at risk, because chemicals will be offloaded on us during the 300-day period.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, gave us a list of some of the examples of what chemicals are used for. The fact that we have use of more than 23,000 chemicals makes you wonder what they are for. I can tell you about one key chemical that puts at risk the supply of clean water in the UK. We need chemicals to produce clean water. Those chemicals come from the EU. Therefore, this is a really serious issue. Notwithstanding that, as has already been said, it is our second largest manufacturing sector; there are almost 100,000 jobs in the United Kingdom involved in this industry; and we are virtually destroying our opportunities for growth in exports by going along with a second-rate system by pulling out of REACH.
This was all known about. There are no surprises in any of the issues being raised today. It was all detailed during the first inquiry of your Lordships’ Sub-Committee B on Energy and Environment. It was never really taken seriously by Defra—I am not criticising the individuals or the HSE, but I can tell you that the HSE would not be suffering as it is now if the likes of Geoffrey Podger were still the chief executive. This is not a criticism of individuals, but I feel a lack of confidence because the system has been allowed to go into decline. There has been a lack of awareness of safety, whether it is in checking our factories, our pesticides or now our chemicals. We are clearly not ready for leaving the REACH regime on 31 December. Our people will be put at risk.
We might as well not beat about the bush. There is no easy answer to this, and it is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, simply relying on what others have regulated while we allow a free for all in this country, which is what will happen under the 300-day limit. I am full of foreboding, because this is one of the great areas which this House has debated more than once, it is not politically sexy to anybody, it sounds boring and technical, yet there is virtually no walk of life, no product—food, clothing, furniture or anything else—in this country that does not require the use of safe chemicals. We will not get that under the second-rate system that the Government are imposing on the United Kingdom.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will start on a positive note. I welcome the agreement in principle that the UK and EU have reached on the Northern Ireland protocol dealing with Northern Ireland border checks. Can my noble friend say what impact that will have on the regulations before us today?
I thank my noble friend for bringing the regulations before us and for his comprehensive explanation of them, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has done a great service to the House by moving her amendment to the Motion, highlighting many of the issues raised and unresolved in the 34th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I urge my noble friend to answer those concerns when he sums up the debate.
On 19 November, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported that it had not seen an impact assessment. My noble friend said that the department produced one in 2019. When might he publish that and might he revise the conclusion reached in paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations:
“There will be positive impacts on business, charities or voluntary bodies”?
I would like to see what those impacts are. The memorandum goes on to say:
“This instrument will mitigate potential disruption to chemical supply chains for GB companies.”
I do hope that that is indeed the case.
The amendment to the Motion states that the additional costs and administrative burdens for United Kingdom businesses are a matter of regret, as is creating
“unacceptable risks around the availability of chemical safety data.”
We know, as others have said, that the chemicals industry is the second biggest manufacturing industry after food and drink. More than 50% of the companies in the British Coatings Federation are UK-owned and 70% are SMEs. They have a highly integrated supply chain with the EU, so there is significant EU-UK trade, and it is obviously important for human and environmental health.
I am fairly agnostic about REACH, but will quote some of the evidence we heard under our excellent chair the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in the EU Environment Sub-Committee, on which I am privileged to serve. The Royal Society of Chemistry said that there is a
“lack of capacity of fully scientifically trained staff at the necessary levels to be able to fully operate a UK REACH.”
Therefore, it has to be asked whether the Chemicals Regulation Division will have the capacity to deal with a high workload for UK REACH from 1 January.
The Chemicals Industries Association said that there is a requirement for “hiring of new staff” who are very “specialised”, namely
“toxicologists, ecotoxicologists, experts in risk assessments, economists, chemists and so on.”
The Chemical Business Association said that
“The HSE has virtually complete control over the operation of the UK’s new regulatory regime”,
yet the whole
“Industry has doubts about the competence and the capability of the HSE to discharge this role.”
CHEM Trust said that there is a
“massive risk that the UK system has much less information and expertise in it.”
I fear that the dual regime we will have, with many in the chemicals sector wanting to register for both UK REACH and ECHA, will damage the ability of the UK chemicals industry to compete, and threaten the viability of future product lines, as we were told in the EU Environment Sub-Committee. I hope my noble friend puts my mind at rest. I ask him to answer two questions. The money that we established for the cost of this exercise alone will be approximately £1 billion. Would that not be better spent on improving, maker safer and more environmentally friendly the chemicals that the industry is producing? He will be aware that many in the chemicals industry want to move their production outside GB to access the wider EU market. What will that cost and how does he hope to prevent such a move?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Donaghy, and as a former Minister for the Health and Safety Executive, I am a great admirer of the organisation and its proportionate approach to regulation. But it must have the time and resources to do its job properly. If it were given them, I would have every confidence in it. It is clear from all the evidence that we have heard, and in the submissions to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that that is not the case.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I was pleased to hear a few minutes ago about the agreement between the EU and the UK Government about arrangements for Northern Ireland. That is good news indeed, but the SI before us shows some of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. We are ensuring that Northern Ireland continues to enjoy the benefits of regulations under the EU REACH programme, whereas we are entering uncertain waters with an industry that is crucial to this country and its economic prosperity.
We have already heard that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is concerned about the impact and costs of the new domestic REACH regime. A number of noble Lords have already asked the Minister about the impact on industry and the overall costs. When you align that to issues over the supply chain, what is the Government’s strategy to ensure that this industry continues to prosper and thrive in this country and does not move production into the EU?
On the preparedness of the HSE to start the new regime in a few days, we have already heard that the amount of money being given is limited. It is apparent that few of the people it wishes to employ will be ready to start work on 1 January. One hardly gets a sense that it will be good to go then. In his introductory remarks, the Minister referred to this as a “light-touch” regime—but it is a no-touch regime, because the HSE has no capacity to take over on 1 January. A legitimate point to put to him is: what on earth is going to happen in the first few weeks and months of the new regulatory regime? He had very little to say about that at all.
I was interested in comments in our briefings from the Alliance for Cancer Prevention, Breast Cancer UK and the Cancer Prevention and Education Society. They are concerned about the impact of harmful chemicals on the environment and public health. The point that they make is that GB will become a dumping ground for chemicals and products that do not meet EU regulations, without a mechanism for matching EU controls on chemicals and without access to the European database. That seems a relevant consideration.
We have heard a lot from noble Lords who embrace Brexit with enthusiasm, but without much evidence, on the benefits of the new light-touch regulatory regime. I am afraid that, all too often, a light-touch or no-touch regulatory regime leads to lower standards and the dumping that the health organisations are concerned about. I would like to hear from the Minister what the Government are going to do to protect us from that. Even now, it is pretty obvious that we should stay aligned with the European agency. It is the obvious course of action, at least during a transitional phase.
Finally, I come back to this hugely important industry itself. What support will be given for it to override some of the costs it will incur and to encourage it to stay in the UK? This is crucial.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will try not to repeat too many points about the lack of preparedness or resources for the HSE which colleagues have made, or to emphasise that, by trying to solve one problem in extending the deadlines, another has been created in making safety standards less strong. I will concentrate on other points. I very much support the regret amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman. I do that in a literal sense, because I regret that we are where we are, when we do not need to be.
There was a point in the ongoing Brexit saga, and I have taken an interest in this for a considerable time, when I thought that I was on the same side as the Prime Minister—not the present Prime Minister obviously, but Mrs May. Colleagues with long memories will remember that I made a bit of a nuisance of myself in the debate on the EU withdrawal Bill in 2018 about EU agencies. The Government rejected my general case but, in her Mansion House speech, Mrs May recognised three exceptions where we needed to continue a clear relationship with European agencies: medicines, aviation and the European Chemicals Agency. I agreed with that aspect of Mrs May’s approach and, had those negotiations proceeded, we might have had a sensible withdrawal agreement and could have at least maintained some degree of associate membership of ECHA and REACH.
I ask the Minister if there is still some hope. We have heard of progress from Brussels, but have not yet seen the details. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was informed of a “chemicals annexe”. Does that exist? Can we see it? Does it come into force if there is a deal? This morning, the newspapers listed a number of potential sub-agreements, but they do not include chemicals. They include aviation and medicines. Are there sub-agreements that come into force if we reach a deal in the next couple of days? If we do not reach a deal, what will apply then? Parliament will want to see that annexe sharply, and we need to ensure that it meets all the anxieties about the dual registration process, the costs, disruption and delay for what is an expensive, legally complex and restricted system.
Part of the reason for this amending SI is to reflect the situation in Northern Ireland and a protocol which, I understand, may in essence still be in being. The situation is even more confused by duplicate registration than it is for GB. The HSE is a GB organisation, and there is a separate health and safety executive for Northern Ireland, which has legal status over there. It does not appear to have any role to play in Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland will remain part of the single market in that respect, and in the EU regulatory structure. That will mean that businesses in Northern Ireland, whether or not they trade with the rest of the EU, or even with the Republic of Ireland, will automatically have to have dual registration. Most of those businesses may be subsidiaries, suppliers or customers of GB-based businesses but, for Northern Ireland business, and for trade between Northern Ireland the rest of the United Kingdom, there will have to be dual registration. Therefore, the cost falls more on Northern Irish businesses than on businesses on the mainland.
We have to remember that many of these businesses are relatively small. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, explained, sectors or industries that use chemicals, such as those dealing in furniture, toys and paint, are dominated by relatively small companies. That applies in Northern Ireland as well. The Northern Irish situation will not be resolved by the endorsement of the protocol in any agreement, if it is then complicated by the double structure of regulations, which will hit all firms in Northern Ireland, not just the main chemical manufacturers. It will also cause an issue between Northern Ireland and Great Britain at the ports.
The disparaging remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about REACH were uncalled for. There were some hiccups in the development of this system but, by and large, it has now been accepted by the chemicals industries and by most user groups and environmental organisations. We depart from it at our peril; we will have to parallel it, and there is a cost to that which these regulations do not resolve. I support the regret Motion.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, at the start of this debate, the disembodied voice of the Minister floated out over the Chamber. I was reminded of an airline pilot seeking to calm his passengers as unwelcome noises came out of one or two of the engines. Here, in the economy seats of the cabin, anxiety remains high—and, indeed, following this high-quality debate, it is probably higher. Whether through complacency, underestimation or shortage of resources, it is clear that Defra and Ministers have taken an iterative approach to this issue, with statutory instruments following statutory instruments. There have been tweaks and improvements along the way, and we should welcome those.
In essence, the long and detailed speech that I made when the first of these statutory instruments was introduced remains true. Then, as now, the Government played deadline roulette. They introduced deeply unsatisfactory secondary legislation just before it might be needed and dared the opposition to stymie or kill it. This is not the best way to get regulation right. I will not repeat the issues set out by the experts in today’s high-quality debate, but it was amazing to hear a Conservative Minister flow over the idea that one of the most important industries in this country will be burdened by £1 billion of extra costs with no benefit whatever. Here is growth that will not happen, taxes that will not be paid and public services that will not be supported. It is absolutely insane that we countenance this approach.
As your Lordships have heard, the big cost is in data, or in the prospect of having to duplicate data merely to re-register chemicals that are already legal in this country. At one point, we had hoped that the Government would seek associate membership of ECHA, but this seems not to be the case. It is disingenuous for the Minister to try to separate UK REACH from this statutory instrument. This SI is, de facto, a central part of UK REACH and it is, therefore, perfectly legitimate to have this wider debate today.
It seems clear that no kind of data sharing will happen on 1 January, with or without a deal. As we heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, the Government have said that it will be supplemented by publicly available data. Like the noble Viscount, I contend that using public data is a non-starter. It is just not adequate for implementing controls or for defending those controls against litigation, which is what will happen. In the event that data is not rolled over, the Government have also said that animal testing of substances already registered under EU REACH will not have to be duplicated under UK REACH. However, if we get to the end of the grandfathering process and companies wishing to register chemicals have not had access to these data, either the HSE will have to lower its data standards or new data will have to be generated. Which do the Government prefer: less data, and therefore less safety, or new data, which will inevitably lead to more tests, some of which will be on animals?
Divergence will be a massive burden on industry. The EU recently announced a big reform of its chemical safety laws, which will lead to a rapid divergence between where we are now, with UK REACH, and where the European situation will be. What is the Government’s view about divergence? Will they actively seek to track the EU, or will they simply head off in the opposite direction? If it is the latter, the situation in Northern Ireland will become even more untenable and harder to manage. I had prepared a detailed description of how difficult things would be in Northern Ireland, but I shall forgo it and refer your Lordships to that given by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. If he and I both think it will be total chaos, there is a fair chance that it will be.
The position of the HSE and its ability to regulate the chemicals market in this country is clear. It will not have the firepower it needs to deliver the safety it needs and support to industry it needs or do what this country needs to have a safe, functioning chemicals industry. This is a mess of the Government’s making. Your Lordships have tried to sort this mess out in the past, and there have been improvements. Whether or not we vote for this regret amendment, the Government have to go back and think again. The passengers in the aircraft are anxious, but that anxiety may not be irrational; it may be a rational response to a real problem that will create great difficulty for one of our most important industries and for a product that affects and touches everybody, every day and all the time in the United Kingdom.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, not surprisingly, REACH never fails to generate high levels of interest in the House, and today is no exception. We have had a wide range of contributions. A number of questions have been asked, and I will do my best to answer as many as I can.
First, I turn to the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. The Motion indicates that it is based on the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and, like that report, it is concerned more with the wider issues of chemicals regulation than with the SI in front of the House today. As such, I suggest that its regrets are somewhat misdirected.
The Motion regrets that these regulations fail to provide an analysis of the cost of the UK REACH regime, but this SI is not setting up the UK REACH regime; that was done by the REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which the House considered last year. As I said in my opening speech, we published an impact assessment alongside those regulations. All that the present SI is doing is making amendments to provide for the Northern Ireland protocol to change some of the transitional provisions to extend deadlines for the date of submission and update some cross-references. We have not provided an analysis of the cost of UK REACH alongside this SI because it would not reflect what the SI does.
The Motion also regrets that this SI introduces additional costs and burdens for UK businesses; the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Cameron, and others also raised this concern. That is the opposite of what the SI does. It reduces costs and burdens. Extending the transitional deadlines will enable businesses to spread the administrative load over seven years instead of two. They can prioritise the highest-volume and highest-risk chemicals, and they will have time to agree the best terms for the continued sharing of the data on chemicals that is necessary for both UK and EU REACH.
The provisions for the Northern Ireland protocol also put in place the minimum level of burdens that are compatible with the protection of human health and the environment. Northern Irish producers will be able to access the GB market on the basis of a light-touch notification without having to follow it up with full registration.
The Motion also regrets that the SI creates unacceptable risks around the availability of chemicals safety data. The noble Baroness expressed concern about the cost to businesses and called on the Government to reduce them. That is what we are doing in this SI, but then, when we do reduce costs, she says we are creating unacceptable risks instead. The noble Baroness cannot have it both ways.
I agree with her and with the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, my noble friend Lord Lucas, and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Teverson, that the Health and Safety Executive’s ability to take on the tasks of the agency is essential to the success of UK REACH. The HSE is very well-placed to be a success in that role, as we have stressed many times. Remember that the HSE and the Environment Agency have played a very active part in EU REACH over the years, taking on some of the most complex substance dossiers.
The HSE has mapped the regulatory drivers and the likely workload, and so it understands what its priority tasks will be. For example, it will be handling applications for authorisations, and is aware that it may receive upwards of 10 applications in the first year. On the back of this, it has focused on outlining the process for authorisations and will have recruited key staff, such as occupational hygienists, to work on the authorisation process. It is also identifying independent scientific experts who will be involved in the development of opinions on authorisation applications.
There was the issue of so-called in-flight authorisations —that is, applications that the EU will not have finished dealing with by the end of the transition period. We dealt with that in regulations last year. There was the issue of the potential costs to businesses. That is why we are negotiating for an approach to data sharing with the EU and why the SI before the House today extends the deadline for data submission. There were concerns about the duplication of animal testing. That is why the last-resort principle is enshrined as a protective provision in the Environment Bill. I could go on.
I would like to try to get through as many of the questions that were asked in the debate as possible. A number of noble Lords, including notably my noble friend Lady Altmann, the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised the issue of standards and levels of protection after the end of the transition period, a point also raised forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. It will remain a core purpose of REACH to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment. The duties and obligations on industry are carried into UK REACH unchanged. This includes the principle that it is for businesses to ensure that they manufacture, place on the market and use chemicals that do not adversely affect human health and the environment.
REACH will also continue to be underpinned by the precautionary principle. We have included provision in the Environment Bill to be able to amend REACH to prevent it from being frozen in time. In answer to both the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we have deliberately included a range of safeguards. Any amendment to REACH must remain consistent with its aims and principles. We have listed over 20 protective provisions, such as those overarching aims and principles that cannot be changed. I hope that is an indication of our commitment.
My noble friend Lord Lucas referred to alternatives to animal testing, particularly the scope for using computer modelling to predict chemical hazards such as toxicity. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Donaghy, made the same point. I strongly agree with them about the opportunity here. We do not support animal testing unless it is unavoidable. A range of alternative approaches is available, including computer-based quantitative structure activity relationship models, or QSARs. Under EU REACH, the UK was the member state that consistently pushed for the most rigorous application of the last-resort principle by industry and regulators. Under UK REACH, we will no longer be held back by more reluctant players and will be well-placed to encourage the appropriate use of alternative methods of assessing hazard.
My noble friend also spoke about various products such as ammonium sulfamate, asulum and glyphosate. I should note that, as herbicides, these are regulated under separate plant-protection product legislation rather than REACH. From next year we will be taking our own independent decisions in Great Britain on which pesticides can be used, and of course I hope we can move continuously towards reducing our use of such chemicals.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard spoke about the possibility of divergence from EU REACH and was in favour of it, unlike other noble Lords in this debate today. REACH is frequently seen as a gold standard and we have no intention of diverging from the EU just for the sake of it. Equally, we should not allow UK REACH to become frozen. That is why we have made provision in the Environment Bill to enable us to amend it.
There may be good reasons for taking a different approach on different substances to reflect our circumstances here, but that does not mean reducing standards or levels of protection. For example, the UK has been at the forefront of opposing animal tests where alternatives exist. We have already discussed the last-resort principle, and we could be far more rigorous in applying that principle in future. Another example concerns Poland’s proposal to the EU to ban the use of methanol in windscreen-washing fluids because of its abuse by Polish alcoholics. That may be sensible for Poland, but it is not something that applies in this country. We can make sure that UK REACH remains up to date and operates in an effective and efficient manner that works for us, but we can do so in a way that is flexible.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, argued that we should try to remain as aligned as possible with EU REACH, taking a somewhat different position. As I said, we have no intention of diverting for the sake of it but there may be circumstances where it makes sense for the United Kingdom. Under UK REACH, companies will still need to know about the properties, hazards and potential risks of the chemicals that they manufacture and place on the market. This means that industry will not have to develop different sets of data for use with UK REACH and EU REACH.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised a number of issues that I have already addressed in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others. On costs, an issue also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, the main cost for businesses is in accessing the data that they need to support their registrations, but there is considerable uncertainty about what the costs may be in practice. The Chemical Industries Association and Cefic, the EU organisation representing chemicals manufacturers, have jointly recommended that consortia should restrict charges to administration. One of the purposes of the changes in this SI is to provide time for industry to reach sensible agreements around data and cost sharing.
With regard to the need for data, UK REACH maintains the core principle of “no data, no market”. That principle is necessary; it is the means by which the regulator can check that companies are properly meeting their duty to ensure the safe management of chemicals. It also provides assurance to the public that businesses understand the hazards and risks of the chemicals they are using and know how to manage them.
The noble Lord also spoke about the HSE’s preparedness, a point echoed by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I am confident that the HSE is well-placed and equipped to carry out its role as the agency under UK REACH. The Environment Agency is equally well-placed to assist HSE by providing expert advice on environmental matters. Defra continues to provide additional resources to the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency. The HSE is currently recruiting, in total, 130 extra staff to cover the transition to the UK system across all the chemicals regimes that it operates, including scientists and, as I said earlier, occupational hygienists. Forty of these extra staff are being recruited specifically for REACH. The Environment Agency has also increased its resource, with an additional recruitment plan for early 2021. My noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked about the HSE’s ability to cope. As I say, Defra continues to provide additional resources to the HSE and the Environment Agency, which are, as I have explained, busy frantically recruiting.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked a number of questions, many of which I have already addressed. He asked for an update on negotiations and their implications for the discussion that we are having today. I am afraid I am not in a position to do that; I can only apologise. I can tell him that the enforcement function in Northern Ireland is the HSE Northern Ireland.
Putting aside the wider issues that have—quite legitimately—been such a dominant feature of the debate, I must however return to the SI in front of the House. As I said earlier, it is simple but necessary. Without it, the UK would not fulfil its obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. We would also not fulfil the commitment that we made to the House in March 2019 to keep the data deadlines under review and then to take further steps as appropriate. I commend the SI to the House.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I tabled my amendment today so that this House could demonstrate to the Government the very real and serious concerns about the proposed REACH regulations and the failure of the Government, so far, to act and listen. I thank noble Lords for their support. It has been an interesting debate and I have been pleased to hear from many Members, including the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his expertise on the whole matter and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on how we are leaving the best system in the world and the huge costs that this will create.
My noble friends Lady Donaghy and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath talked about the problems of the HSE, but also their support for it. Nothing I said was intended to criticise the HSE, rather to demonstrate how it needs to be more prepared for its new role. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, talked about how the changes being made bringing unnecessary risk without adding value. My noble friend Lord Hanworth and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, clearly explained, in some detail, why the domestic system is so difficult. My noble friend Lord Whitty mentioned the need for associate membership of the European Chemicals Agency; it is deeply disappointing that this has not happened.
The Minister really has not answered the many concerns raised. This Administration have their head in the sand. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment today, as this is but a small part of the larger regulations. There will be opportunities to consider the matter further during debate on the Environment Bill.
High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in 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 groups are binding, and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Amendment 9
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“Security provision and public safety during the scheduled works
(1) The nominated undertaker is responsible for maintaining the security of the scheduled works, including public safety.(2) The Secretary of State must publish quarterly reports on the security provision and public safety in relation to the scheduled works throughout the period in which those works take place.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to probe the security and public safety provision of the works.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is my last contribution at this stage of the Bill. Although I had originally intended to take part in the debate on the next group, there are more than enough committed Members of the House to speak to those amendments, so I will listen and cheer them on.
I will take this opportunity to thank my noble friend the Minister most sincerely for her patience in dealing with my concerns and for writing to me with various points of clarification.
I will not detain your Lordships for long on this amendment. Perhaps I should say at the outset that I do not propose to divide the House; rather, this is another of my attempts to draw attention to how HS2 Ltd should look at how it conducts itself to avoid the mistakes that have been made previously, and indeed are still being made. Those mistakes have seriously alienated many local residents along the line and I would not want them to be repeated on the phase of the project that is the subject of this Bill. My proposed new clause would clarify who was responsible for security and public safety. More than that, it would make the Secretary of State publish quarterly reports on the security provision and public safety around the scheduled works.
I do not condone unlawful protests, and I often think that such campaigns do more harm than good, although I admit that I did once say that I would stand in the path of the bulldozers if a third Heathrow runway was built—a line repeated by my successor in the Uxbridge constituency with, I believe, more controversy than I ever engendered. However, in the scheme of things, I am always more of a suffragist than a suffragette.
However, lawful protest is something else. Because of several incidents that have occurred, I would want to ensure that, however frustrating such protests might be for those doing the construction, legal protests were allowed and dealt with appropriately. Noble Lords might have seen recent reports, and indeed video footage, of a security guard who seemed to place his knee on the neck of one such protester. I do not know the full circumstances of the incident, but I do not need to emphasise the sensitivity of such action in these days. My honourable friend Michael Fabricant, the MP for Lichfield, has, rightly, raised this with a Minister in the other place.
There have been a number of other examples of excessive use of force on protesters, which, in my layman’s eyes, seem very close to assault. I believe that training is given but I am not sure that it is always observed. I am also rather concerned that one or two individuals, given a uniform of sorts, feel that they are above the law.
Another area of concern that I hope will not be repeated in this phase of HS2—it should not be, as it relates to the pandemic—is where HS2 construction workers at the height of the lockdown were entering local food shops and other places along the line of transport while completely ignoring social distancing.
There is also of course a need to ensure that the boundaries of the project are secure, so that not only protesters but inquisitive young people cannot enter the site. I recognise that the issue of public safety goes both ways. I therefore feel that HS2 must be properly accountable both in theory and, more importantly, in practice. I ask my noble friend—who, as I said, has been very patient in dealing with this particular Grumpy, as opposed to Swampy—where the public can go to register their concerns, as I am afraid that our confidence in HS2 is at rock bottom. I hope that this will be rectified without the need for my new clause.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, safety levels in industry in general in the UK are very high. These days, we take rail safety more or less for granted, but that was not the case two decades or so ago. Last year, we had a harsh reminder that we should not take it for granted, with the tragic accident in south Wales.
The noble Lord is right to raise this issue. I put my name down to speak because I was curious to see whether it was a general concern about safety or a specific issue that sparked the amendment. It is clear from what he has said today that his interest centres on the behaviour of employees towards residents and protesters.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for raising these issues. I take his point about the safety of the public and protesters, and I hope that he will get appropriate assurances from the Minister.
The issue is one of corporate culture, particularly on safety. With the permission of the House, I will take this as an opportunity to say a word or two about safety. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was quite right to say that HS2 is a linear building site. She referred to safety standards two or three decades ago. Those were decades when I was responsible for parts of railway safety. I became managing director of London Underground nine months after we had killed 31 people at King’s Cross. That made safety my highest priority for the next 12 years. Essentially, I discovered that safety comes from personal leadership by the people at the top.
Subsequently, I was chairman of the Rail Safety and Standards Board for five years. During the early period of my responsibilities, the Channel Tunnel was completed. That cost 10 lives. We were about to start building the Jubilee Line extension and, pro rata, we would have expected to kill some people, but we decided that that was unacceptable. We set as a major objective of the project that we should kill nobody—and I am delighted to say that we succeeded.
It was a £3.5 billion project, built in extremely difficult conditions under some of the most sensitive, complex and little-understood parts of central London. Leadership was key to conducting the programme to the highest safety standards, which were not traditional in the construction industry at that point. We achieved that by involving the very top people among the contractors. As part of their contracting process, they had to turn up with their managing directors and understand, and commit to, high standards of safety. A key feature of our whole safety philosophy was that London Underground always retained principal responsibility for safety, whoever was doing the work. You cannot subcontract responsibility: you might be able to join other people in that responsibility but you cannot subcontract it.
In preparing for this debate, I looked at the HS2 health and safety policy. It is fine as far as it goes, but I do not know whether there is a real safety culture. Can the noble Baroness take back to the Minister in charge of HS2 my strong recommendation that he makes it his top priority to assure himself that a health and safety culture exists in HS2? I freely offer my help and advice in this task.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Randall for tabling the amendment on this very important topic. The health, safety and well-being of the communities along the route of the new railway, of HS2 staff and of protestors is a primary concern for HS2 Ltd, which has a “safe at heart” approach, putting health, safety and well-being at the heart of the project. That ethos is carried through those employed by HS2 Ltd and those in its supply chain. This goes beyond the worksite itself. People must be safe when they are working on large, complex HS2 construction sites; they must be safe when they live, work or travel near the worksites; and they must be safe when travelling on roads affected by HS2 works and traffic. That is why HS2 Ltd already reports on health and safety in its annual report and accounts, using standard industry metrics. The overall health and safety index score increased throughout the 2019-20 financial year.
We recognise that, given the nature of the works on HS2 and the profile of the project, it is necessary for security personnel to be a part of the project. They ensure the health and safety of those who work on HS2 and those who live and work near it. Those security personnel are held to strict standards. It is a contractual requirement that all security guards working on the HS2 project must hold a licence issued by the Security Industry Authority. Additionally, the companies that they work for must be part of the Security Industry Authority’s voluntary approved contractor scheme, which acts as a quality assurance scheme for the private security industry.
HS2 Ltd has been very clear on the values that it expects to be followed by all staff in its supply chain, and on the behaviours of those in public-facing roles, such as security guards. Actions or behaviours that fall short of these expectations are dealt with firmly but fairly after a thorough investigation. My noble friend Lord Randall asked how members of the public can bring forward concerns. HS2 Ltd operates a freephone community helpline, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, where anyone can register their concerns. HS2 Ltd has committed to respond to questions and complaints quickly and efficiently, with an acknowledgement within two working days and a response within a maximum of 20 working days if the query cannot be answered straightaway.
Of course, there are also those determined to obstruct the works, with the aim of halting the progress of a project authorised by Parliament. We recognise that members of the public have a right to protest peacefully and in a lawful manner, but it is entirely proper that once Parliament has authorised a scheme, contractors should be allowed to get on with building it. Where any protestors refuse to leave land needed for construction and must be removed, HS2 Ltd works with specialist security staff, the police, the fire service and the ambulance service to do this safely.
Health and safety on worksites, and in the workforce, is of vital importance, especially when it comes to Covid-19. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the HS2 Ltd supply chain has stipulated to all staff and subcontractors the requirement to comply with government and industry guidelines. Where works cannot be delivered in accordance with Public Health England and industry guidelines, sites have temporarily closed to ensure the safety of staff and local communities. Nevertheless, some staff may have to be present to make the safety assessments and to ensure that the sites remain safe and secure.
I was very interested to hear the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and certainly I will take his suggestions back to my colleague Andrew Stephenson MP, the Minister for HS2. It was heartwarming to hear of such a large project being constructed so successfully. The amendment is welcome. It is an opportunity to raise these issues. HS2 Ltd must be held to account by the high standards that it has set. I hope that my noble friend is reassured by what I have said, is less Swampy or Grumpy, is happy, and on that basis is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I echo what the Minister said about the opportunity to have such expertise from him, which we should be making use of on this project. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that a lot of these sites are round-the-clock. There are a lot of issues around light pollution and so forth, but it is very difficult to keep an eye on all aspects of it.
I was struck by the noble Lord saying that the leadership at the top must take responsibility and that you cannot subcontract responsibility. Although, as always, I am charmed by the Minister and her warm words, I am not entirely convinced that the practice matches the theory around some of the security personnel. They do a difficult job in difficult circumstances, but one or two—not all of them—are overstepping the mark. It happens in every walk of life, and they must put up with a lot from some of the protestors, especially those protesting illegally. It is not an easy job.
Regarding the Minister’s comments about Covid-19, I hope that this will not be an issue for phase 2A, which we are discussing, but I must say again that whatever security was instructed to do, the practice was not as specified. There were numerous incidents where all the things that we were trying to do at the height of the first lockdown—social distancing et cetera —were not being observed. However, I have aired my worries. It is true that we do not so much look at the safety aspect of this but take it for granted, which we should never do. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 10. 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 the other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 10
“Impact on ancient woodland
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report every six months throughout the period in which the scheduled works take place, detailing the impact on ancient woodlands.(2) This report must include—(a) direct impacts including, but not Ltd to, the loss of ancient and veteran trees and felling of trees designated as ancient woodland;(b) a comparison of actual works carried out on ancient woodlands, including those covered by additional planning permissions, and works detailed within the Act; and (c) indirect impacts including, but not Ltd to, noise, dust, vibrations and hydrological or ancient woodland soil contamination.(3) Upon publication of each report a four-week period is instigated for interested parties to respond and make recommendations for improvements which must be addressed in the subsequent report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State provides regular reports to Parliament on the effect of the HS2 Project on ancient woodlands.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I find myself in the slightly unusual position of introducing an amendment that I did not have anything to do with. I signed up to support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on this, and about 10 minutes later she told me that she was withdrawing her name because she had been made an offer that she could not refuse from the Minister. I am carrying on with the amendment because it is an exceptionally good one. The Minister has already written to everybody saying that the Government will accept Amendment 13, but it is worth describing the difference between the two amendments. Amendment 10 is a pretty good amendment and something to work towards, even if it is not accepted today.
There are three main differences between the two amendments: first, Amendment 10 would require a report every six months, while in Amendment 13, the reporting would be annual; secondly, “indirect impacts” are explicitly mentioned in Amendment 10, while there is no mention of them in Amendment 13; thirdly, Amendment 10 would require a report to Parliament by the Secretary of State, with a four-week consultation period, while Amendment 13 would require no consultation at all. Noble Lords can see that these are quite big differences, although the amendments are along the same lines.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak on both Amendments 10, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and 13 in my name. They both reflect on the need for better reporting from the HS2 project on its impact on ancient woodlands. I give my apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for leaving her holding the baby of her amendment, but she has done a grand job of that.
On my Amendment 13, an annual report on ancient woodland impacts, published by the HS2 undertaker, would enable Parliament and interested parties to see clearly the actual impact on ancient woodlands, and it would allow comparisons with the estimations of ancient woodland damage that had been indicated by the undertaker at the time of the publication of the Bill or in any additional planning applications. It has frequently been difficult to extract such information from the undertaker, and what happens on the ground is sometimes very different from what was indicated at the outset. The report would enable learning to take place and be recorded. That would help reduce the damage to ancient woodlands across successive works. Also, it has the value that it covers all phases of HS2.
This amendment also provides for the Secretary of State to be able to require such other information as he may specify. I urge the Minister to explain how such reporting would operate and what requirements would be laid upon the undertaker to strengthen that reporting duty as outlined in Amendment 13. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has already done a good job on outlining what improvements need to be made, and I am asking for those assurances to be given by the Minister to ensure that the more modest amendment I am putting forward would, in fact, deliver the same impact as the original one.
I want to seek assurances from the Minister on four things. Firstly, I seek that the reports will be provided to the HS2 ecology review group for consideration so it can properly assess their findings, since it is the expert group supporting this work. Secondly, I seek that the reports would, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has said, consider both direct and indirect impacts, covering noise, dust, vibration, hydrological impacts and soil contamination. These can have a major impact on the biodiversity of ancient woodlands and the viability of ancient woods. Thirdly, I seek that the reports would be specifically required to outline how variations in delivery are different from any original published intentions. Fourthly, I want to seek assurances that the Government will respond formally to issues raised in each report and indicate what changes to future practice would be required from the undertaker. Several of these assurances are laid out in Amendment 10 and have been well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
I do intend to move my Amendment 13 when it is called in its place, but, ideally, the Minister will accept my amendment as she has indicated today, by email, that she will. I hope she can also give the further assurances I have just sought, because that would make the reporting duty meet the requirements more effectively, as well as the requirements the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I have sought.
I have observed that over the past 18 months the Minister has been on a kind of journey towards greater understanding of ancient woodland. Indeed, I detect almost a growing feeling on her part for ancient woodland and its importance. I am confident that we will pervert her yet. However, for the moment, I thank her and her team, and the HS2 Minister, Andrew Stephenson, for rolling up their sleeves on this particular issue. I hope that she will accept my amendment and give me the assurances that I am seeking.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have to say that I was thinking more of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, than the softer one, if I may say that—not in any derogatory sense—tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I am entirely in favour of trees and would not want anything that I say to leave your Lordships to think otherwise.
Wanton destruction of ancient woodland or, for that matter, indirect damage to it is a deplorable prospect. However, ancient trees and forests, by definition, have grown without any expectation that they would find themselves in the way of such things as road or rail and ought not to be a permanent block on modern need. We should respect antiquity but not become prisoners of the past. It is inevitable that a high-speed railway needs to be laid straight, which makes it very difficult to plan a course for it that avoids unfortunate clashes. It is therefore a matter of trying to strike the right balance between modern and future needs and what has been gifted to us from the past.
My impression of HS2 is derived largely from close sight of its representatives during the proceedings of the Select Committee. I certainly did not find them to be unaccommodating of many of the arguments put forward in criticism, or qualified criticism, of the project. However, HS2 has to be warned—I hope that it has learnt something from what it came up against during phase 1—and watched over.
HS2 has been reasonably generous regarding the number of trees that it is prepared to plant to counter- balance those that may be lost. As regards the concerns about the indirect effect on trees, as described, expert opinion varies. Some of those trees and the wildlife that frequents them are more resilient than perhaps everyone would believe. It is possible to see this argument against the background that we have become an increasingly tree-loving nation. The Government have provided encouragingly large funds for the spread of trees throughout the country. Newspaper campaigns have been run to encourage everyone, particularly young people at school, to have regard for this aspect of the environment. Even Network Rail has a programme of tree planting, although it may well be closer to urban areas—nothing wrong with that—than going through rural Staffordshire or rural Cheshire. So, I think we can be encouraged by the fact that it is not going to be an easy ride for HS2 and its contractors simply to do what they want: the public are watching them, as, indeed, Parliament should.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, as with the last amendment, when the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, spoke, I shall speak from experience. I was involved in all three stages of the route from London to the Channel Tunnel, which subsequently became HS1. We were subject during that time to a ferocious barrage of quite unpleasant attack. A mild phrase, “the rape of the garden of England”, was used, but many less pleasant things were said, and threats of violence were made to the people constructing it.
I make this point because later, much later, I became acquainted with a Labour MP who represented a constituency in Kent adjacent to HS1, and I asked him “How many complaints do you get about noise, visual intrusion and the like from HS1?”, all of which were made great play of during the inquiries. He looked at me a bit quizzically and said, “Well, I don’t get any, but I get sackfuls of mail about the noise, the dirt and the pollution from the M20.” I think we have to bear in mind that these construction sites, as the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, said, have to be unpleasant while work is happening but do not have to be unpleasant afterwards. The provisions that have been made by HS2 in terms of planting trees, accommodating various animals and other things go a long way to make up for the environmental damage that it is doing. I am quite sure that the HS2 railway, when it is built, will be a quiet and efficient railway and a much better neighbour than many people find who are have motorways and new roads built close to them.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is right. I would hate to see aggressive or arrogant behaviour on the part of anybody.
I pay tribute to three noble Baronesses. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has a short fuse, but a wonderful way of exciting our affection and admiration for her campaigning skills. She has total belief in what she says, even when she is wrong. I really do congratulate her on the way she has promoted the cause of ancient woodlands, done with a burning sincerity and not a little good humour—because she is very good- humoured.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has as much knowledge on this subject as anyone I know. She tabled a more modest amendment. I have a certain preference for the first one, but hers was a sensible amendment.
Here is where I pay tribute to my noble friend on the Front Bench; it is very good to be able to do so in a wholly unreserved way. I was delighted when I received the email this afternoon telling me she had a good mind to accept the amendment. It is good to be able to support the Government unreservedly on anything at present. Therefore, I thank her very much indeed.
I want to add to what was said by my noble friend Lord Randall in moving Amendment 9. I do not want to talk about those in charge of security—rather, those who are higher up in HS2. There have been examples of very arrogant behaviour towards people whose homes were threatened. I know of a case of a public servant who gave unstintingly to his county and was badgered and bullied when it came to the compulsory purchase of his much-loved family home. I do not want to identify him by saying any more.
It is important that those in charge of driving this great project—and while it does not have my unreserved support, I do believe that it is a great project—display a degree of sensitivity. I am delighted we are putting this amendment in to the Bill, but it is up to those higher up in HS2 to ensure that they handle issues and people with a degree of understanding. It is for the Minister to keep a beady eye on them all the time. When people are effectively driven out of their homes, seeing the countryside they love and in which they have lived—in some cases for generations—despoiled, although it might be true what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has said, that when it is all over and done with, it will be quiet, or quieter than people fear, nevertheless something will have gone for ever. It is important those in charge of this project are conscious of the wider public responsibility. I hope the Minister will have a gentle word with them on that subject.
I warmly welcome what is being done this afternoon. Again, I am most grateful to the three noble Baronesses.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a landowner, as set out in the register. I am also directly affected by HS2 south of Birmingham. I had not intended to speak on these amendments, but the groupings changed at some point, and my name seems to have been retained. Now, on further research, I think it worth making some basic observations.
HS2 claims that only 43 out of 52,000 ancient woodlands will be affected, and 80% of the 43 will remain intact. Therefore, we are talking about just 0.005% of ancient woodlands. We should also remember that, as we heard last week, some of these ancient woodlands are far from being ancient. I happen to own and manage such a designated wood. It was owned by the Forestry Commission, which felled and replanted it almost entirely with Corsican pine shortly after the last war. The wood failed: Corsican pine was the wrong tree to grow on heavy Oxford clay. I have replanted it with hardwood, and it is thriving, together with all the flora and fauna. I did not need a special report to do this—I just got on with it. HS2 will have a similar responsibility and opportunity.
My real comment is that although these amendments are well intentioned and harmless, they are unnecessary and a further bureaucratic exercise, something that most woodland owners and managers dread. The compilers and others involved in these suggested reports would be better occupied in actually managing these woodlands on the ground with planting, weeding, pruning and pest control. Erecting hides to help manage the barking deer population as well as removing squirrel dreys with poles and setting humane traps for this worst of pests would be a more constructive use of everyone’s time.
Having said this, I would certainly not oppose Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, but I believe that Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is a little over the top.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, because he picked up on an issue that I raised in the previous debate on this. Ancient woodland does not necessarily mean ancient trees—they are of variable quality. However, of course, they include a number of fine pieces of woodland that have rich ecosystems because they have been on that site for a very long time.
I am pleased that the Minister has indicated that she will accept Amendment 13. The previous debate was characterised by very vigorous discussion between Members of this House with a considerable knowledge of environmental issues. There was an obvious level of disagreement among the experts and, therefore, Amendment 13 enables this not to become the subject of the debate. One assumes that the reports concerned will follow on from expert advice.
I hope that these annual reports will not be yet another bureaucratic process but a mechanism to enable public scrutiny of how HS2 is performing in practice and to ensure that there is progress and improvement in standards of land and woodland management as the project progresses. This is a massive project and there is no excuse for getting anything other than the most expert advice on woodland issues. In financial terms, the cost of woodland replanting and improvement is very small indeed in comparison with the costs of the engineering aspects of the project.
I will repeat a question I have asked before and come back to a topic I have dealt with before. Our rich environments—areas of outstanding environmental importance—are not just limited to ancient woodlands: wetlands and meadows can be every bit as important in terms of environmental and ecological significance.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House for long. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone on achieving a positive result for her amendment on an issue that she has pursued with great tenacity and persuasiveness, not least during the passage of this Bill. I hope that the Government will also feel able to provide the assurances that my noble friend is seeking. It is very helpful that the Government are accepting the amendment in the name of my noble friend, with its requirement for the nominated undertaker to prepare and publish annual reports about the impact of the construction of each phase of High Speed 2 on ancient woodland. Hopefully, this will raise the profile of the actual adverse impact on ancient woodlands of the construction of HS2 and, by doing so, help achieve a better result as far as the protection of, or damage limitation to, such woodlands is concerned than would otherwise be the case.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, there are two amendments in this group, the first in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to which I cannot agree, and the second in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, which, if she chooses to move it, I will be pleased to be able to support. Turning to the first amendment, this might at first glance appear to be very similar to the second amendment—indeed, some noble Lords have referred to it as being “soft” or “gentle”. I would like to reassure noble Lords that Amendment 13 is not in any way less good. From my perspective, I would like to highlight the important differences, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. In putting my perspective on them, I hope that noble Lords will agree—and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in particular will agree—that their fears are unfounded, and that Amendment 13 is certainly a very good amendment indeed.
First, Amendment 10 calls for the frequency of reporting to be every six months, whereas Amendment 13 proposes that it be annually. I will explain a bit later why that is appropriate. Secondly, the amendment restricts the reporting required to only those works authorised in this Bill—phase 2a—where we believe, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, believes as well, that all HS2 phases could be and should be included in this report.
Thirdly, in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the report required is narrowed by the definitions of direct and indirect impacts. Again, I will go on to explain how that will be covered in the report that we propose, because we believe that we can go broader than that. Finally, there is a difference with regard to the requirement for a mini-consultation associated with each report.
I do not believe that these differences augment the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb; rather, they restrict it and place limitations on the value that more reporting on the impacts on ancient woodland could bring. On this basis, and given the knowledge that I am able to support Amendment 13, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, will withdraw her amendment.
Turning to Amendment 13, one of the aims of the HS2 project is always to try to reduce its impact on ancient woodland. As has been said before, some impact is inevitable. The environmental statement gives an assessment of the reasonable worst-case scenario. Although impacts on ancient woodland cannot be fully compensated, losses will be addressed through a range of measures, as I have outlined previously.
Through extensive engagement on phase 2a, HS2 Ltd has already found ways to protect some veteran trees which were previously expected to be lost. Furthermore, through the redesign of embankments in the Whitmore Wood area, HS2 Ltd has been able to commit to some reduction in impact on the ancient woodland there. Wherever possible, the Government will continue to push HS2 Ltd to go further on this matter.
I am so grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her engagement on this matter; she brings vast knowledge and experience. I recognise that her amendment may not go quite as far as she would ideally have liked, but I hope she will agree that the outcome is a significant step forward. Her amendment places a requirement on HS2 Ltd to publish reports annually on the impacts on ancient woodland across the whole of HS2, not only phase 2a. This has the benefit of committing to reporting on phase 1 of the project as well as phase 2a, and, of course, on future phases. The annual nature of reporting fits well within the life cycle of trees, as the works undertaken follow the seasonal pattern of trees, as required by other legislation. But just because the reporting is annual, it does not mean that the monitoring is annual, or that lessons learned are put in place on an annual cycle—it can be more frequent than that.
Furthermore, by not defining the term “impacts”, HS2 Ltd will report on a wide range of issues relating to ancient woodlands, including those that could potentially be caused by non-compliance with the code of construction practice. The reporting will include measures undertaken relating to breaches of assurances for ancient woodland and lessons learned, should they occur—and, of course, we all hope that they do not.
The phase 2a draft code of construction practice sets out the management measures that HS2 Ltd will be required to follow during construction of the scheme. This includes measures designed to control and prevent the impacts on which noble Lords have raised specific concerns, including the protection of habitats such as ancient woodland, and the control of dust, water quality, noise, vibration and lighting. I believe that these are the sorts of indirect impacts sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
But, of course, there is more. There are also specific measures designed to minimise adverse ecological effects, including: developing a programme of ecological surveys to be undertaken prior to and during construction, including on bats; the relocation and translocation of species, soil and plants; the reinstatement of any areas of temporary habitat loss; restoration and replacement planting, for example of trees, hedgerows, shrubs and grassland; and using by-products of construction to enhance mitigation provisions, for example using felled trees to provide dead-wood habitats. There is also a requirement to consult with Natural England, the Environment Agency, local wildlife trusts and with relevant planning authorities prior to and during construction.
By committing HS2 Ltd to report on non-compliance with the measures set out in the code of construction practice, we are ensuring that all these impacts are captured and are not limited to the narrower definition of impacts in the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Further, the reporting will include the variance between what ancient woodland the environmental statement has assessed will be lost or impacted by HS2 and what actually occurs. The environmental statement is a reasonable worst-case scenario; in effect, it is an educated estimate of the impact. I hope very much that reporting on the actual outcome in comparison to the baseline in the environmental statement will have a positive impact on helping future programmes and projects improve their assessments for their own environmental statements and reporting.
I will go further. I am pleased to commit HS2 Ltd to reporting on the volume of metres cubed of ancient woodland soils that have been translocated, and to reporting on the number of hectares of ancient woodland compensation and restoration that have been included in the detailed design of the scheme. I am also pleased to commit the company to reporting on the number of hectares of ancient woodland creation and restoration delivered through all HS2 funds that deliver woodland creation. The intention is to publish the ancient woodland impact reports in the annual environmental report. Ancient woodland mitigation and impacts are discussed in the ecology review group.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, tried her luck in seeing whether we could go further on wetlands and meadows. Of course we recognise the importance of those environments so, if she is in agreement, I will write to her on the steps being taken to make sure that those impacts are also minimised.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for Amendment 13, and for taking me on a journey. I am not quite at the same point as she is on it, but I am not quite where I used to be. I hope that she will move her amendment when the time comes, and it will give me great pleasure to support it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, which has been quite interesting for me as well. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, that I am absolutely thrilled to be left holding the baby. It is a beautiful baby and I am honoured to do so.
I found the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, to be appalling. I was quite staggered to hear him say things like we must not be held prisoners of the past. Images came to mind of students pulling down statues of slave owners and I wonder if he supports those as well. It is absolutely fantastic if he does. He made comments about how the railway must be straight. It does if trains are going at 250 miles an hour, which is the planned speed for it. Of course, the railway will not do that at first—it will be 225 mph or something—but is still exponentially far less environmentally friendly at that sort of speed. Yes, it has to be a straight railway line because it cannot go around corners, which means that the line will go through a lot of extremely valuable land.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, talked about replacement trees. I congratulate them on wanting replacement trees, but there is also the fact that in the drought of summer 2018, tens of thousands of trees that HS2 Ltd had planted died. It said that it was cheaper to replace them than to water then, which means that 89,000 trees died and were replaced with, again, small trees. What is needed as a replacement is large trees; if you have to keep replacing them, you will keep on getting small trees. I would argue that HS2 is not entirely reliable about planting its trees.
As usual, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, was extremely kind to me, apart from the comment about my short fuse, which is sadly true. I am glad that he likes Amendment 10, which is a credit from him and I thank him for it. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on planting hardwoods instead of pines. I am not sure that I liked his description of Amendment 10 as “well intentioned and harmless”. I would like to think it is tough and radical. I also congratulate him on pronouncing my name correctly, which many Peers do not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, talked about the rich ecosystem that exists in ancient woods. That is the whole point: it is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate that when such biospheres are very precious. This is not just about preserving the past; it is about making sure that our whole environment stays healthy. Sometimes we do not know, until we have lost them, what the precious things we have do overall. I am also glad that she talked about wetlands and meadows, which of course are just as important. Had there been amendments concerning them, I would have supported them fully.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, congratulated the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on her incredibly important work on this. I thank the Minister. It was good that she talked about direct and indirect impacts. That was valuable, but I am not clear how the lessons learned will be dealt with by the Government and am not sure if the Minister is able to let us know. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 10.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Would the Minister care to respond at this point? She will do so later.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We come to the group consisting of Amendment 12. 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 amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 12
Lord Berkeley
“Non-disclosure agreements
(1) The nominated undertaker, or any subcontractors thereof, must not enter into any non-disclosure agreement with any party in connection with the scheduled works unless the assessor of non-disclosure agreements related to the scheduled works (“the assessor”) has certified that it is in the public interest.(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General must appoint a person to be the assessor.(3) The assessor must be— (a) independent, and(b) a current or former high court judge, higher judge or Queen’s Counsel.(4) In this section, “independent” means independent of—(a) Government,(b) HS2 Ltd, and(c) persons contracted or subcontracted to carry out the scheduled works.(5) The assessor must undertake his or her work with a presumption in favour of transparency and public accountability in matters connected to the scheduled works.(6) The assessor must review any non-disclosure agreement between the nominated undertaker, or any subcontractors thereof, and any party in connection with the scheduled works and in place before this section comes into force to certify whether it is or is not in the public interest.(7) The assessor may not determine that a non-disclosure agreement is in the public interest for the purposes of subsection (1) or (6) except for the reason that it is justified because of exceptional commercial confidentiality.(8) If the assessor certifies under subsection (6) that a non-disclosure agreement is not in the public interest that non-disclosure agreement immediately ceases to have effect.(9) In this section, a “non-disclosure agreement” means any duty of confidentiality or other restriction on disclosure (however imposed).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require HS2 to subject all proposed NDAs to independent scrutiny.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate non-disclosure agreements again. I have tabled the same amendment that we debated in Committee to get a little more information from the Minister concerning some of her answers. I am grateful to her for the meetings that we have had and the answers that she has given. We have to remember that an NDA goes much wider than a particular project —HS2 or any railway.
It is worth pointing out that this amendment, proposing an independent assessor, is something which would be voluntary. She said that NDAs can be entered into voluntarily, but I understand from the way that HS2 has developed the process that if you want information, you have to sign an NDA. It is voluntary if you want the information. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out that some local authorities like signing NDAs with other organisations, so that a small group or maybe even one person on the council can keep all the information to themselves and not inform their colleagues.
Another part of the Minister’s answer in Committee was that:
“If an independent assessor were appointed to scrutinise such agreements”—
NDAs—
“they would be breaching the privacy of those agreements.”
That is a circular argument. I am sure there would be a way of resolving it if both parties wanted to. My final comment is to question what she stated later:
“I am confident that the use of NDAs by HS2 is in the public interest.”—[Official Report, 12/11/20; col. GC 528.]
I agree that some certainly are in the public interest. We would not want to have every detail of every contractor whose contracts are being negotiated, or for them to be unable to have an NDA. Clearly that is confidential, but there are over 300 NDAs. HS2 Ltd is also quoted as signing an NDA with its own training body. If that cannot be kept confidential to the extent wanted, it is a bit sad.
I have taken a lot of useful evidence from a report by the former Construction Minister Nick Raynsford, who reviewed the process of NDAs. He concluded that they “undermine public trust” in major infrastructure projects and he criticised the
“widespread use of confidentiality agreements by the HS2 company”
and stated that they had a
“corrosive sense on the part of the public, that planning is no longer protecting their interests.”
This issue cannot be resolved today, and I have no intention of dividing the House. Personally, I think that having an independent assessor to review all the HS2 NDAs, and, with the presumption of transparency and public accountability, to check whether they are in the public interest, would be a useful thing. I suspect that it would cost very little and would delay things very little once it got over the initial stages. I end by asking the Minister: what do all these companies have to hide? I emphasise that I do not suggest that there should be no NDAs but that there should be some means of limiting them to those which are for good commercial reasons rather than possibly to avoid embarrassment. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in coming back on Report to the issue of confidentiality agreements, more commonly referred to as NDAs. Thanks to more recent news articles, we now know that HS2 has required 339 bodies to sign confidentiality agreements, and that is required because otherwise they get no access to the information necessary to discuss HS2-related issues. I therefore hope that HS2 is now beginning to take on board the concerns of the public and many Members of Parliament, local authorities and civic groups, that confidentiality agreements are hindering the transparency which should underpin such an important project. I say that as a strong supporter of the project; I always have considered HS2 vital to economic growth across the UK.
Of course there are issues of commercial sensitivity which need to be covered by confidentiality agreements, and this amendment both accepts that and provides for it. However, the presumption should always be for transparency, with confidentiality on an exception basis. I have some hope that the Minister, Andrew Stephenson, recognises the problem. Gagging of any kind cuts Ministers off from the information they need. The late and slow leak of information, especially related to cost, land purchases and compensation, has harmed HS2 and generated suspicion. We need to be very open in explaining that, in any project on this scale, projecting costs and timetables is very difficult and will always change. I personally believe that the biggest problem we have with HS2 is understating its benefits, since it will serve us for generations, and most of the longer-term benefits and regeneration benefits away from the stations are not included in the official analysis.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for organising a Zoom meeting between interested Lords, herself, Andrew Stephenson, who is the relevant Minister, DfT staff and HS2 to discuss the issue. I and others have received a follow-up letter. The letter does not exactly allay concerns, but it makes it clear that the risk assurance committee of HS2 will now review the matter and will, I hope, recognise the damage to trust and reputation that has been and is being caused. I have to say that HS2 is not alone. Organisations public and private across the globe are having to revise their notions of appropriate confidentiality. No entity any more can rest in the comfort zone of just releasing good news.
As we made clear in Committee, this amendment does not deal with the settlement agreements usually used to manage whistleblowers. The idea I have heard that settlement agreements do not act as gags is nonsense. Why does the Minister think that Doug Thornton—the best known whistleblower on HS2, who was HS2’s director of land and property until he was dismissed when he raised concerns internally—did not sign one? He could have saved himself years of agony if he had.
HS2 has provided me and others with copies of its whistleblowing policy. On paper it looks fine, but pretty much every financial institution, private sector company, hospital, care home, prison, social services department or bank that has been caught in appalling behaviour has an exemplary tick-box whistleblowing system. The system just does not work in practice. That is why the whole issue of whistleblowing needs an overhaul. Following the Zoom call I talked about earlier, I realised that some parties do not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I have spoken directly to only a few whistleblowers. It is because we are not prescribed persons. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, is not a prescribed person—the Minister, Andrew Stephenson MP, is a prescribed person, but it is a very narrow group. Any whistleblower speaking to me or to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is not protected by PIDA, the Public Interest Disclosure Act. I stop any whistleblower from speaking to me who is not going public anyway, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Berkley, does the same. It is much too risky for them.
I hope very much that when the audit and risk assurance committee of HS2 looks at confidentiality agreements, it will also do a deep dive into its internal “Speak Out” whistleblowing system, including talking to professional bodies such as the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors from which members often seek advice when they run into an issue like this. I also hope that it talks to civil society groups such as WhistleblowersUK and Protect. Those of us who are concerned with these issues are now relying on the Government to make sure that the flaws in the use of both confidentiality and settlement agreements at HS2 are sorted. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, the issue goes far wider than HS2 and far wider than rail, but we will be watching and listening because issues that are concealed never actually go away and, when they emerge, they come back to bite a project.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I thought at one point that I would scratch myself from the remaining amendments. However, as I noticed my name was still there today, I thought I would do noble Lords the courtesy of not pulling out, although I do not have a lot to say on the detail. I am not familiar with what happened on this in Committee, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley said that it was the same amendment. However, subsection (6) of the proposed new clause looks to me as though it is retrospective. Are the promoters of this amendment seriously contemplating a change in the law to retro- spectively have all the current arrangements that, one assumes, have been mutually entered into reviewed by this independent assessor? Have I got that right? I do not quite see where the benefit of that would come from.
I fully accept, of course, that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is in support of HS2, but there are people who could look at this amendment and say, to be honest, that it comes from a desire for disclosure of sensitive information to damage the project. I know she does not have views in that respect and I can remember her support when she was a Minister, but the fact is that this amendment could turn into that problem. I am not familiar with all the details, and I was surprised at the number of non-disclosure agreements; there have been over 300. On the other hand, when one looks at what is involved here—at the scale of the project, the number of contractors, the number of people involved in it or affected by it—that turns out, on reflection, to be quite a small number.
Of course, if it is true that this helps to avoid placing homes and businesses in unnecessary blight, as HS2 claims, that is a good reason for such agreements and for protecting the personal information of the people involved. I am not in favour of curtailing the activities of whistleblowers, but I fully take the point that Members of the House of Lords are in a different position from Members of the House of Commons—rightly so, frankly.
I will leave it there, but I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this amendment, which is ill thought-out and does not have my support.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak to the principle behind the amendment rather than its exact terminology.
There was a time when NDAs were exceptional, but well over 300 of them for HS2 show that we have moved a long way from that in terms of commercial procedure. Why do we have FoI questions and FoI legislation? In many cases, processes such as NDAs were being used to hide inconvenient pieces of information. Information is power; it always has been and always will be.
My noble friend Lady Kramer excellently outlined the complex issues associated with this, particularly on proscribed people. That picks up on the Minister’s response when we discussed in Committee the issue of the number of people coming forward as whistleblowers.
However, the issue goes far wider than HS2 and will, I am sure, be aired in this House on other occasions. The Grenfell inquiry is totally separate, but that public inquiry has revealed how important the detail of commercial arrangements is and what motivation there may be for such hiding that detail. There is commercial realism, but nevertheless, there is a balance to be struck. When individuals sign these agreements they often do so without fully appreciating the complexity of what they are signing up to.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too attended the Zoom session on this issue. I thank the Minister and those present for organising it.
I can see that NDAs were necessary in the consultation stage, but there is a question mark, which is difficult to debate, over whether they were necessary in such volume. More importantly, was there possible misuse to suppress whistleblowers? We were given some assurances about that, which, once again, I found at least partially convincing. I hope that the Minister will repeat those assurances for the record.
There is a more general point as to whether NDAs are overly used in public procurement. I believe that there may be a case for more transparency and that the Government should consider launching a general investigation into transparency in public procurement. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that that is a bigger issue and it would be inappropriate to pursue it further at this point.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that transparency is a key issue in relation to HS2. It enables oversight by Ministers and Parliament, and provides accountability to the public on how we are spending taxpayers’ money and on how the project is being delivered. This amendment is trying to get to the heart of this issue of transparency. However, I do not recognise that it is of any aid in this endeavour. I am not sure that I can add much more to what I already said in Committee or in subsequent meetings, but I will happily go round the track again to put the Government’s position on record.
HS2 enters into two types of agreements—confidentiality agreements and settlement agreements. Confidentiality agreements enable the exchange of information between HS2 and other individuals or organisations, including local councils and businesses. With such an agreement in place, HS2 Ltd can have open and frank conversations with the other party about a range of plans and proposals, some of which may not come off. These could include early considerations of different design options that, if made public, could cause unnecessary alarm and blight local properties.
Confidentiality agreements also enable those other parties to share information with HS2 Ltd without it being made public. These agreements are being made not because HS2 Ltd wants them, but because the other party does. For example, a small local business could share its accounts to determine the compensation available to it. This could not happen if confidentiality was not ensured.
As a number of noble Lords have noted, in the history of HS2 since 2011, 339 confidentiality agreements have been signed. Not all will have been required by HS2; some will have been required by the other contracting party. I know that some feel this is too many. I have to disagree. Thousands of landowners, businesses and councils are involved with the project, so I do not think this is disproportionate. I have the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, does not think it is disproportionate either.
Confidentiality agreements are not entered into with staff members at HS2 Ltd. There are confidentiality obligations within staff members’ employment contracts, but this is standard business practice, consistent with that in other public sector organisations.
Settlement agreements are a completely separate form of legal undertaking. They are entirely voluntary and include confidentiality provisions in line with the guidance set out by the Cabinet Office. These agreements can be signed only when an individual has taken independent legal counsel and fully understands their rights and obligations. Settlement agreements are entered into with a small minority of staff who are leaving HS2 to document mutual actions that avoid tribunal claims, or to keep private the sums involved in certain redundancies.
Neither confidentiality agreements nor settlement agreements can be used to gag those who wish to raise concerns about HS2. Whistleblowers are protected by law and none of HS2 Ltd’s business practices contravenes or frustrates this. HS2 Ltd has a whistleblowing procedure called Speak Out, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, noted. This provides a route for staff, contractors and members of the public to raise concerns. The operator of this line is independent of HS2. Queries or concerns raised through this process are investigated by HS2 Ltd’s counterfraud and ethics team, and any necessary action is taken. Where necessary, suitable independent third parties will be brought in to investigate the issues raised. Updates are provided regularly to senior HS2 leaders, including non-executive directors, who act within the seven principles of public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
A number of noble Lords have noted that there may be one or two deficiencies in the amendment. It states that an independent third party should have control over how HS2 Ltd uses what it refers to as non-disclosure agreements—NDAs—which are those two previous agreements I spoke about. We do not feel that this is appropriate, necessary or, indeed, helpful. This issue was considered by the Secretary of State for Transport during the passage of this Bill in the other place, including whether it might be pertinent to appoint further observers or implement new complaints processes. The conclusion was that the use of these standard agreements should not be constrained by the imposition of a third party. There is simply no evidence that such an imposition is necessary or in the public interest.
If a party wishes to enter into a confidential agreement with HS2 Ltd, they should be free to do so. Indeed, they should also have the option for the very existence of that agreement to be private. I tried to follow the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, earlier, and I thank him for it, but I was a little confused. On the one hand, he said that he wanted an assessor for the public interest and to look at all the agreements that have happened in the past—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out, is slightly problematic—but on the other hand he noted that the use of a third party should be voluntary between the two parties. I could not figure out how that would work or, certainly, what problem it would solve.
I do not believe that the amendment has merit but I recognise that transparency is important. HS2 Ltd already publishes the number of settlement agreements it has signed in its annual report. In addition, HS2 Ltd will begin reporting the cumulative number of confidentiality agreements it has signed in that same report. I believe that HS2 Ltd is using these agreements in the public interest, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, particularly the Minister, for the meetings, the letter and other comments she has made. I shall respond very briefly to some of the comments made by noble Lords.
I say to my noble friend Lord Rooker that this amendment started in the House of Commons probably two years ago. As the Minister said, it was rejected at that stage, but there seemed to be quite a lot of support in some parts of the House, which I thought was interesting.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned balance. I think that goes to the heart of what I believe is necessary. Of course, there have to be NDAs. My point about NDAs being voluntary was that companies or individuals did not have to sign an NDA if they did not want to—that was the voluntary bit. On the question of balance, we have talked about more than 300 NDAs that have been listed, but I suspect there are very many more among landowners that we have not discussed. Of course, it is perfectly reasonable that they should sign NDAs as part of their negotiations.
This is an issue that will go on. It is helpful that the risk assurance committee set up in HS2 will look at some of these things. I am not actually suggesting that we go back to square one and look at every NDA that HS2 has signed, but one could say that one would look only at new ones signed after the Bill gets Royal Assent. However, this has been a very useful debate and I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Ancient woodland
(1) The nominated undertaker must prepare and publish annual reports about the impact of the construction of each Phase of High Speed 2 on ancient woodland.(2) A report must contain— (a) information about the impact on ancient woodland of the construction of each Phase of High Speed 2 during the period to which the report relates;(b) such other information as may be specified by the Secretary of State.(3) The first report must be published before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force. (4) Subsequent reports must be published before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the previous report was published.(5) A report is not required in relation to a Phase of High Speed 2 in respect of a period during which no construction works take place for that Phase.(6) The nominated undertaker must publish reports under this section in such manner as the nominated undertaker considers appropriate.(7) In this section “Phase of High Speed 2” means—(a) Phase One of High Speed 2 (within the meaning of section 1 of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017);(b) Phase 2a of High Speed 2;(c) any other railway line which forms part of the high speed railway transport network referred to in section 1 of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the nominated undertaker to prepare and publish annual reports about the impact of the construction of each phase of High Speed 2 on ancient woodland.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to Amendment 16. 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 amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Schedule 23: Party walls etc
Amendment 16
The Earl of Lytton
“9 (1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make such alterations as may be necessary to the provision under this Schedule for—(a) the notification to adjacent owners, and(b) disputes and their determination.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (1) must be laid before Parliament in sufficient time to allow the regulations to come into force not later than the commencement of works authorised by this Act. (3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (1) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to commit the Government to producing statutory guidance to resolve an apparent gap between safeguards under the Party Wall etc Act 1996 and those remaining following the partial disapplication of that Act by Schedule 23 and the alternative measures in Schedule 2.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 16, I will speak also to Amendment 17, both relating to party-wall procedures. I thank the Minister and the Bill team for hearing me out on this quite narrow issue and for convening several online meetings. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and a number of external experts in this specialist field for their advice and support. I remind noble Lords of my own professional involvement in party-wall matters. I hope the Minister will be able to suggest something here, and therefore I trust that it will not be necessary for me to press these amendments.
I proceed by making an apology. In Grand Committee the Minister asked about the numerical incidence of cases in phase 2a that might be subject to party-wall procedures. The estimate of numbers that I provided informally to her was produced by someone else and is probably a mistaken figure, so I confess that I am no further forward. However, I have put out further inquiries and will let her know what the situation is. Of course, cases relating to party-wall procedures under the existing phase 1 are only now beginning to trickle in, so there is a long time lag between setting the Act in motion and cases emerging.
I will summarise for the record the current situation, as follows. First, the Minister told us that Schedule 23 to Bill as drafted, while removing key sections of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996—which I will refer to as “the 1996 Act”—for HS2 purposes, would none the less leave the main elements of the 1996 Act procedures intact. I must beg to disagree. If the claim to entitlements under the 1996 Act is not formally notified, it is incapable of agreement or dissent and there is no default to the dispute procedures or a party-wall award, so the entire rationale and balance of a process that impinges on common-law rights is thereby lost.
Secondly, the Minister suggested that for HS2 arbitration would be simpler and quicker than the 1996 Act dispute procedure, which she claims would delay HS2. I have to say that in all my years of practice I have never heard such a claim, even less seen substantive evidence supporting it.
Thirdly, the Minister averred that Schedule 2 to the Bill provides an adequate replacement for Section 6 of the 1996 Act—the bit relating to adjacent excavation—which is otherwise disapplied by Schedule 23 to the Bill. Replacement in part I can acknowledge, but I have to point out that it is on distinctly less than equal terms. I point in particular to changes in which consent, if a notice is not responded to, is deemed to have been given, instead of the 1996 Act protection of deemed dissent.
Safeguarding adjoining property and the notification of that is, it seems, the sole option of a nominated undertaker—which I will refer to as the NU—whereas this would be challengeable and potentially liable to counternotice under the 1996 Act. To explain further, safeguarding practices may be followed where risks to adjacent buildings arise from HS2 works, but based on internal assessment by the NU in which up to 10 millimetres of building movement is considered acceptable. However, in combination with natural subsoil shifts, this may well be mutually exacerbated and is therefore of considerable significance to owners of nearby buildings even if unimportant in engineering terms.
Fourthly, the Minister stated in Grand Committee that the NU would have to get agreement before commencing work falling under Schedules 2 and 23. However, there is no apparent mechanism for that in the Bill.
Neither external experts nor I agree entirely with the Minister’s analysis, but we do agree on some things: namely, that identical measures already exist in the phase 1 Act, that they were not challenged at the time, and that there was no consultation with expert practitioners on them. I suggest that practitioners were accordingly largely unaware of the proposals. In any event, accepting that phase 1 provisions exist does not make the risks go away.
I submit that for HS2 purposes the 1996 Act process does not remain intact; the essential balances of powers and responsibilities, of investigation and brokering of practical outcomes, cease to exist in the HS2 world. In the 1996 Act, it is a combination of the defining notice, a response and a challenge, followed by an award that gives rise to the rights—not a simple statement in Section 2 of the 1996 Act. The 1996 Act provides that the person proposing works meets the reasonable costs of the neighbour. This follows the obligation to make good any loss or damage occasioned. I am not clear what happens under the Bill, as notice under the 1996 Act customarily sets a clock ticking on costs and expenses. The removal of the requirement for notice, or perhaps a predilection for leaving notice under Schedule 2 to the last moment, might well mean that a prudent neighbour could themselves potentially incur an irrecoverable cost in obtaining advice on physical aspects, possibly before the NU had started to engage.
Of course I accept that we cannot have neighbours running up needless costs for reimbursement or, worse, undermining or destroying essential HS2 works. But this is a far cry from disapplying the provisions for everything that HS2 Ltd may happen to own or control and removing established protections. Hollowing out the 1996 Act and cherry picking the bits that suit HS2 is, of itself, questionable.
I do not see the Bill’s arbitration solution covering anything like the same process as the 1996 Act, in which surveyors negotiate the outcome based on a broad investigative process. Arbitration, after all, is a quasi-judicial process of a scope that needs to be defined. It used to be relatively cheap and quick, but a common criticism now is that it has become legalistic, expensive and slow, and so, I suggest, a good deal less flexible than party wall procedures. I think there will be arguments over the scope of arbitration.
It is clear to me that the Bill, by virtue of Schedules 2 and 23, and for HS2 purposes, does a great deal more than harmlessly disapply parts of the 1996 Act. It is a profound change of procedure and balance and will make the Act scarcely recognisable to most practitioners, especially when the customary consensual process is replaced with an essentially an adversarial one in which previous precedents are not a given. In short, it will require a significant realignment of skills and is likely to involve greater legal input. Awards of the type that occur under 1996 Act will not apply, and the intervention of the courts seems more likely. However, I accept that the bird has largely flown here. It is apparent that the Government will not accept any material changes to the Bill in respect of this matter. Fortunately, it is limited to HS2, but it makes for a bad precedent.
In discussions with the Bill team, the desirability of guidance was raised. I see three justifications for this: first, as a guide to professionals, given an unusual procedure and a significant departure from current established practice; secondly, as an indication of what an adjoining owner can expect; and, thirdly, as a means of fostering good order, cost control and consistent administration.
In the hope that there might be a partial solution in this direction, I took the liberty of asking the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, of which I am a fellow, if it would be prepared to set up a working group, as consultee. I am glad to say that it has agreed to do so if the principle is agreed. I hope this will be welcomed. I have already flagged 14 initial points of my own which I believe any guidance should cover.
I now turn to Amendment 16. I recognise the implications of amending the Bill and the potential practical outcomes for the phase 1 Act of so doing, although of course phase 1 represents the greatest likelihood of issues arising because of the urban nature of some of its route, but future phases of HS2 might also benefit from sorting things out now. However, I believe that there ought to be a statutory hook for any guidance, and that is why Amendment 16 is so framed. The purpose will, I think, be entirely clear—namely, to put on the face of the Bill the requirement for guidance, to identify the means of parliamentary scrutiny and, lest it be forgotten or overlooked, to establish a clear timeframe for its coming into force.
Amendment 17, which I shall speak to extremely briefly, is the fallback. If nothing is agreed, this is “exit without a deal”. It would leave the 1996 Act provisions largely intact, but I accept that it is far from a perfect fit in the Bill simply to disapply Schedule 23.
Therefore, I invite the Minister to confirm what is intended. If she cannot agree to Amendment 16, might she commit to bringing forward a government amendment at Third Reading or, if not, to guidance?
Finally, on an allied matter, I remind the Minister of the query that I raised earlier about the form and final repository for long-term liabilities and obligations arising from works in, adjacent to or beneath neighbouring properties. HS2 Ltd is a delivery vehicle and, I assume, will at some point cease to exist. Can she indicate where long-term legal responsibility will lie and how it will be enforced? I appreciate that she may need to write to me on this subsequently, but it is an important matter, whatever agreements or arbitration awards are reached. I look forward to her reply. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to support the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on these two amendments. We had some useful discussion in Committee, and I know that the Minister and her officials have been working very hard on seeing what the problems are and what the best solution is. Amendment 16 is certainly a way forward, because the status quo is, unfortunately, very unsatisfactory.
One problem, which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, alluded to, is that party wall issues come only well after the legislation is completed. We are now beginning to see some problems with phase 1. It will be a long time before we see similar problems, although of a smaller scale, with phase 2, but I hope that we can really move forward on this. The RICS and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have offered to take this forward, with the hope of creating some statutory guidance, but, if not, there needs to be some other means of ensuring that there is fair play without the project being delayed. I think we all agree that this should not be a way of delaying the project; it should be a way of getting party wall issues resolved quickly and cheaply to everybody’s satisfaction. As the noble Earl said, if we do not get it right, the prospect of litigation and even class actions, with knock-on effects for the cost of HS2, would be very real, and I am sure the Minister will agree that we do not want that.
It is clearly the Government’s view that Schedule 2 to the Bill would be an alternative way of dealing with access to carry out investigations and notifying owners, particularly before carrying out safeguarding works, given the disapplication, by Schedule 23 to the Bill, of Section 6 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which relates to adjacent excavations for construction. In a minute I shall come up with an example which I fear rather indicates that this is not working at the moment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has withdrawn, so we now turn to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his sterling efforts to help us poor lay men understand the complexity of the topic involved in these amendments. I have a rather unfashionable approach to experts; I tend to think that we should listen to them. On this occasion, I also urge the Government to do so.
Having reread the Minister’s response to the last debate on this, I did not gather from that a good, clear reason why the well-established practice is being abandoned. It is clear that the 1996 Act is well established and has worked well, and it seems strange to replace a consensual approach to a problem with an adversarial system. In my experience, adversarial systems always cost more in the end. They can also prove very unfair to those who do not have the nature or the money to embark on an adversarial fight, which can often last months and years, and who therefore decline to press their case when indeed they should be doing so. I urge the Minister to ensure that HS2 is approaching this in a sensible manner for the next phase of the development.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. It seems that the 1996 Act covers these issues, and I am very suspicious of why HS2 needs such a significant change to the provisions of that Act for its project. I am not convinced that it needs these powers. I believe that, with modest alterations, good management should be able to overcome any problems. However, one faces the classic dilemma of a specialist area in an important Act, which is that I cannot know that I am right because we have not been able to listen to various points of view other than the expert knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and it is possible that the project needs these powers. As I understand it, there are likely to be few party walls in this phase of the project. He may be right that a dispute might significantly delay the project. Hence, I am unwilling at this stage to support the amendment if there is a Division.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, as I know the noble Earl is already aware, the Government cannot accept either amendment to the Bill. I will address the first amendment in this group and then move on to the second.
At the outset, I extend my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for the time and effort he has taken to work so constructively with department officials over the last few weeks. He has painstakingly explained his concerns both in writing and over the course of several meetings, as well as in the debate today. I am pleased that this work has been productive and that the first of these two amendments today recognises that we have moved on from the discussions in Grand Committee.
Schedule 23 to the Bill amends the operation of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996—which I too will call the 1996 Act—to enable the railway to be built as swiftly as possible. At the same time, Schedule 23 retains many of the protections for adjoining owners found in the 1996 Act. This schedule exists to reduce delay in construction due to any disputes which could otherwise arise if party wall matters were sorted out solely under the provisions of the 1996 Act. It also ensures the safety of the railway itself by providing for the railway to be constructed to the right engineering standards next to neighbouring properties. Lastly, it ensures that affected adjoining owners are afforded the protections and compensation due to them.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this short debate. In particular, I thank the Minister for her generous comments towards me and, most of all, for agreeing to the principle of guidance; I am sure that many professionals will be extremely relieved by that. With that in mind, I can certainly confirm that I will not press this amendment, in the light of what she said.
On the nature of guidance, again, the Minister may not be in a position to respond to me today but perhaps she could guide me on that. I ask her to comment on how non-statutory guidance will sit alongside the Bill’s specific provisions, in the knowledge, of course, that we are all seeking best practice and not just the cheapest and quickest procedure available.
I thank the Minister for agreeing to write to me on the question of residual liabilities. As I anticipated, this matter obviously requires further thought and consideration.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his continued support. He gave the interesting example of Park Village East, which is in the phase 1 scheme. I want to explain in non-technical terms my take on this, which is as follows: are the ground anchors being placed underneath a nearby owner’s property for the purposes of restraining something else that is not part of that property, or are they to safeguard the adjacent property itself from the HS2 works? If it is the former, I suggest that it is a question of compulsory purchase to acquire the necessary rights. If it is the latter, it might fall under Schedule 2 to the Bill. This highlights the need to clarify what procedure is being engaged in any given instance. That is what I suggest formal notice should do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, kindly lent me her listening ear; I am extremely grateful to her for her confidence. She asked what I will call the $96 question, which remains unanswered. I am grateful to her for raising that issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked why significant changes to the Party Wall etc. Act were needed. Crucially, he pointed to the question of good management. I agree with that, but I also note his caveats and reasons why he would not have been in a position to support the amendment had it been pressed to a Division.
I finish by paying tribute to the group of party wall specialists who have put in hours of time to help and advise me. I say this to them: I could not have done it without you. I thank them very much indeed.
On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Agricultural Transition Plan
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I start by declaring two interests—at Rothamsted agricultural research institute and as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority, which is involved in several of the tests and trials.
To those of us who sat through the many hours of debate on the Agriculture Bill, the premise of this Statement is very familiar. As we have said many times, the shift from payments made on the basis of land ownership or tenure to payments for improved environmental performance and other social benefits is very welcome. I am sure that the new levels of detail contained in the transition plan are appreciated by those directly affected. Given that we voted to leave the EU in 2016, I am inclined to say, “What took you so long?”.
The Minister will be all too aware of the criticisms from the farming community that these details have been published only three weeks before they are due to take effect. Although the Minister talks about a seven-year transition, the confirmation of an immediate cut in basic farm payments from 1 January 2021 is a bitter pill to swallow, so I would like to probe this decision in more detail.
The transition paper spells out a minimum cut of 5% in subsidies next year, but the opportunity to reclaim these payments does not kick in until 2022. The Statement talks about wanting farmers to come with us on a journey, but this seems the wrong way to go about building their good will towards the huge upheaval necessary to deliver the transformation. Why do the Government feel that this payment gap is necessary? Have they done a risk assessment on the number of farmers who will be unable to operate with this reduced income? Will there be any financial compensation as part of the resilience package for those whose livelihoods are threatened? How will the £170 million saved by this cut in the first year be reallocated? What proportion will be available in 2022 for individual farmers to claim through the sustainable farming incentive?
Between 2021 and 2024, a total cut of 50% in basic farm payments is proposed. The NFU projects that livestock farmers will have lost between 60% and 80% of their income as a result of these reductions. Can the Minister assure us that, during this period, equivalent payments will be accessible to those who are willing to embrace the philosophy of the new schemes? When we will see the details of these schemes, so that farmers can be reassured that it can work for them on their farms? Is it intended for there to be a variety of projects of different lengths and complexities, so that all landowners and tenants will have the opportunity to make the positive difference to which we all aspire? Can the Minister assure us that any money that is not spent in year one, before the schemes are fully implemented, will be rolled over for payments the following year and will not go back to the Treasury?
I also want to ask about the impact of devolution on these measures. This is an England-only proposal, as agriculture is a devolved matter. As we know, the devolved nations are drawing up their own proposals to maintain more financial support for their farming communities. This could have a detrimental effect on the price of English livestock and arable produce compared with their Welsh and Scottish counterparts.
In his response in the Commons, George Eustice said:
“We will set up a joint group across the UK to do market surveillance, to ensure that there is not disturbance to the internal market and to share ideas on what works.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/20; col. 42.]
Does the Minister agree that this sounds far too complacent for an issue that many people fear is an immediate and escalating danger to market access and price stability for English-grown food?
Finally, I want to ask about the ultimate goal of this transition. The Government’s press release states:
“These changes will be designed to ensure that by 2028, farmers in England can sustainably produce healthy food profitably without subsidy”.
Will this mark the end of subsidies for English farming? Is this the future of farming, predicated on a free market principle that you can compete in the market on price or you will not survive? What will this mean for UK farmers competing in a global market where the majority of their competitors, including obviously the EU, continue to receive farm subsidies? Also, what is the strategy for upland farmers, who will struggle ever to make a profit but who represent an iconic part of rural life? What are the implications for our food policy if the race to the bottom on costs becomes the driving principle?
I fear that the consequences of these proposals will be the end of small family farms and the rise of big corporations farming on a grand scale. They may indeed deliver some environmental benefits, but they also risk changing the nature of farming and the rural community for good in ways that I do not think we envisaged when we were debating the Agriculture Bill not so long ago. I hope that the Minister can persuade us that there is a plan for long-term financial support for those delivering environmental outcomes way beyond 2027 and that profit in the long term will not be the only measure of success. I look forward to his response.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement on the agriculture transition plan. There is much to be commended in the document, which sets out some of the detail that was absent from the Agriculture Bill. However, it is clear that many aspects of the plan are still in a state of flux and are being worked out as the implementation begins.
The document covers the period of 2021 to 2024, although the changeover from direct payments is scheduled to run for seven years. Farmers have been heavily dependent on area-based subsidies and it is welcome that these will reduce on a gradual basis. Next year, the reduction in basic payments of £30,000 will be 5%, followed by a further 15% reduction in 2022 and 2023, and 50% by 2024. For those with payments of over £150,000, the reduction will be 70% by 2024. This is a significant reduction and it is unclear whether it will be replaced by the three components of the Environmental Land Management scheme, especially since the landscape recovery component will not commence until 2024.
Can the Minister reassure us that farming incomes, which will become increasingly dependent on environmental measures, will be capable of sustaining both farmers and their families? I welcome the fact that all farmers will be eligible to apply for the first component of the sustainable farming incentive scheme. This is a step in the right direction in order to gradually introduce some farmers to the Government’s environmental agenda. However, there is no detail of how this will reward family farmers financially. The move by the Government to make all farms financially viable by the end of the transition period will need to be monitored very carefully, as some will see it as a leap of faith in the dark.
There is considerable mention of the environmental measures for which the Government will provide payments, including establishing animal health and welfare pathways. However, there is very little in the document that relates to food. Moving farmers from their previous way of working to a new environmental basis will be successful only if they are also able to produce food, whether in the form of animals or horticulture. Does the Minister agree that food production needs to be at the forefront of the reason for agriculture?
I welcome the scheme to help farmers who wish to exit from agriculture. Can the Minister give details of what the payments will be for this section of the scheme? Will it be funded from the £1.8 billion earmarked for agriculture over the next three years? Can he give reassurances that the land and farms thus released will be reserved for new entrants into farming? If the Government’s aim to transform our agriculture is to be realised, it will be vital that new entrants are given first preference for the farms of those who are exiting the sector.
The Government are clearly still at the development stage of their thinking on environmental land management reforms, and they promise to adapt the components as they go along. If some do not work, they will be altered and amended to improve them. This is to be welcomed but it does not provide certainty for farmers. Farming is not a short-term activity; it takes planning ahead and capital investment. The Government are looking to the private sector to help to finance some of their components, but the private sector is unlikely to come forward if it feels that the Government may be likely to move the goal- posts half way through the scheme. Can the Minister give reassurance that the three components of the Government’s agriculture policy will be fully tested before farmers are asked to commit their livelihoods to them?
The Government expect the environmental land management scheme to deliver the benefits of England’s peat strategy by paying for sustainable peatland management and restoration. Can the Minister provide the House with some more detail on exactly how and when that will be achieved?
I turn to the tree health pilot. It is vital that we protect our iconic trees from pests and diseases, which have decimated our hedgerows and forests in the past. There is evidence that huge numbers of saplings have been planted without any real sense of how they will be cared for and nurtured into adult trees. Can the Minister give reassurance that the thousands of trees that the Government quite rightly want to see planted will be the correct indigenous species to the area in which they are planted? As many as possible must survive to become the forests that the country will need to reach its zero-carbon targets.
I welcome this transition plan and look forward to more detail of the schemes to come, and to the Minister’s response.
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, particularly—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to—in a family farm. I therefore understand the importance of more detail. I also understand that change can be daunting, and therefore the importance of advice and guidance on what is a partnership. This will work only if the Government and other bodies working with landowners and farmers of all tenures and sizes, across the country, work together.
Although I am not permitted to repeat the Statement, I will say that my honourable friend the Secretary of State said:
“We want this to be an evolution, not an overnight revolution. That means making year-on-year reductions to the legacy direct payments scheme and simultaneously making year-on-year increases to the money available to support the replacement schemes.”
In a sense, that is my first response to the point about reallocation. It is very important that that is seamless. The first reduction is 5%, which is in the scheme because, very often, there are currency exchange rate fluctuations. That is precisely why, when it comes in in December 2021, there will be a range of other schemes and so forth, which I will elaborate on.
Among other things, there is more detail to come because it is absolutely essential that we co-design all of these schemes with farmers—the people who are going to have to work through them. That is why, picking up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on new entrants and retirement, we want to co-design these schemes so that they can enable farmers who wish to retire to do so, but we also want to get it right for new entrants. The new entrants support scheme will therefore be developed as a co-design. We are working with organisations that have the capacity and interest to provide lasting opportunities; we want this to be a success to support the next generation. We will support the development of the detailed eligibility criteria through a consultative co-design process, starting by the end of 2020 and concluding by September 2021, with a view to introducing a scheme in, for instance, 2022.
It is very important to say that this is money within the agriculture budget, and it will be retained as part of the work that we want to do. It is money that we promised through our manifesto pledge and we will retain that amount of money.
The issue of uplands has obviously come up in our consideration of the Agriculture Bill. As I have said before, upland farmers are very well placed to benefit from environmental land management, which is going to be very important. In addition to other policies proposed in the agricultural transition plan, we are proposing a specific and time-limited package to support farmers and land managers so they can work with protected landscapes to deliver environmental outcomes. This scheme will deliver funding through the protected landscape bodies to support farmers—particularly upland farmers, 75% of whom live and work in protected landscapes —to make improvements in the natural environment and cultural heritage.
Clearly, long-term financial support under the productivity schemes, in reference to the farm investment fund, will be very important in incentivising and supporting the purchase of equipment, technology and infrastructure—for example, the farm equipment and technology fund and the farming transformation fund. We will work to help with on-farm water storage infrastructure precision. Agriculture equipment is also going to be so important in reducing chemicals and the impact on the environment.
Again, I emphasise the importance of food production, which will be an absolutely essential part, and will remain so, of this dual purpose. With 70% of land farmed in this country, we need to ask farmers to produce excellent food for us at home, and that will be assisted by the productivity grants that will start to come in next year. Work is under way on that and on ensuring that, in the long term, there is a very strong business profile for the production of food. If we remember, the fair dealings provisions that we worked on together also play their part in ensuring that farmers get a fair price and a fair deal for their products.
I think that the interconnection of the environment is an important feature. There are three components. We want a large proportion of farmers to join the sustainable farming incentive early on, as part of moving to the full rollout of ELM in 2024 and, before that, to national pilots. It is all to engage farmers in that work.
It is absolutely right to also mention the work that we are going to undertake on the tree health pilot. Again, eligibility is still under development. We know that we all benefit from trees, woodland and forestry. Eligible participants will be invited to apply for the pilot based on confirmation by the Forestry Commission of pest and disease issues on their land. If a land manager is eligible for a countryside stewardship tree health grant, they are unlikely to be eligible for a tree health pilot. We want to ensure that this makes a contribution, as all the ELM points are about more tree planting.
A point was made about the internal market. Another important element of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is that it will guarantee that companies can trade unhindered in every part of the UK. I have to say again that that Bill will not lower standards. The UK has some of the highest and most robust standards on goods in the world.
We have a strong future for agriculture and horticulture in this country, which have a dual purpose of food production and enhancing the environment. The work and responsibility of Defra is to ensure that farmers have the detail of the schemes. That is why work is already under way on codesigning them. Farming has a strong future, which we must ensure.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and pay tribute to my noble friend for his patient and painstaking approach during the passage of the Agriculture Bill—now the Agriculture Act. I will focus in particular on how all three strands of support outlined in the Statement and White Paper are more of an environmental charter than perhaps sustainable farming and a move to food production, with potentially less reliance on imports.
I press my noble friend to understand the implications for upland farmers. He said that they would be well placed to benefit from land management systems, but how will that be when they do not own the land? Some 47% of farms in North Yorkshire are tenanted, so I would like to understand how this will be beneficial to them. Many have a bent towards livestock farming, at which they have been very successful, but they do depend on the current stewardship and payment schemes. Going forward, I would like to know that a heavy emphasis on food production will continue, so that farmers who do not own but tenant the land will continue to benefit from the proposals for sustainable farming set out in the Statement today.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I thank my noble friend. We have worked together on these matters, which is why I go back to the importance of codesign in the tests and trials. We have contracted 72 tests and trials involving 5,000 farmers and land managers. We have nine tests and trials in upland areas: three are taking place across multiple regions, two in the south-west, two in the north-west, one in the West Midlands and one in Yorkshire. We are working with a total of 811 farmers and land managers. Our portfolio of tests and trials involves at least 76 tenant farmers, of whom approximately 62% are upland tenant farmers.
Clearly, we want to ensure that there is a vibrant tenanted sector in this country. I am well aware of the importance of the uplands. I might diverge from my noble friend here. If we had more time, we could go through the many schemes that are coming forward, whether for owner occupiers or tenants, where productivity grants and environmental schemes will be extremely valuable, whatever the tenure. We want to ensure that these schemes are of value to farmers across the piece as they seek to produce excellent food and enhance the environment for us.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition and pay tribute to the Minister, who has worked so hard on getting this through. In the ELMS policy discussion document, Her Majesty’s Government recognised the bureaucratic burden that the CAP had placed on farmers and administrators. We were optimistic that the rollout of rural broadband would help a great deal, although the comprehensive spending review seems to have drawn back, and many people in rural areas are deeply concerned about how these new processes will be worked through. Can the Minister outline the plans for the ELMS application process and how it is intended to reduce bureaucratic constraints? Can he assure the agricultural community that there will be adequate helplines staffed by those who have been fully trained in these new processes?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, broadband and mobile connectivity in the countryside is clearly very important, which is why the Chancellor announced the first £1.2 billion, as I recall, of the £5 billion scheme that we wish to roll out. Clearly, this is a project of huge importance in rural areas. As the Minister for Rural Affairs, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that I am constantly in communication with DCMS about this.
The right reverend Prelate is right in using word “bureaucracy”. That is why we have wanted to simplify the BPS and, as we move forward, remove some of its most complex aspects by removing greening rules and improving arrangements for cross-border farmers, and removing the complicated rule that required farmers to claim payments on their entitlements every two years.
I understand the frustration about whether there should have been more detail but, in our quest for a less bureaucratic ELMS—a less bureaucratic arrangement —I emphasise that we must co-design these schemes with farmers so that the farmer sees it is as their scheme, not the state scheme. We want to make sure that it is not bureaucratic. The advice, support and guidance that will be available to farmers will ensure that, while there will undoubtedly always be worry, they get a helping hand rather than a heavy hand, so that they understand what schemes are available and, I hope, will apply for them and be successful.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Statement refers to a modern approach to regulation. When will a formal timeline for farm regulatory reform be published so that taxpayers can have confidence that this new approach genuinely delivers public goods for public money?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
We want to ensure accountability and value for money; we think that the situation has been unduly draconian under previous regimes. This came up with regard to regulatory models in the health and harmony consultation and, indeed, in the Dame Glenys Stacey review. There are key improvements that we can make next year: increasing the use of warning letters instead of resorting always to penalties, introducing a greater range of more proportionate penalties for some breaches, improving inspection experience and simplifying, for instance, the cross-compliance guidance. Of course, all this is predicated on ensuring that there is value for money. We will be consulting on this so that we get the appropriate regulatory regime and can ensure that the taxpayer—and anyone else—realises that not doing the right thing has consequences. However, we think that the previous regime was not proportionate.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, as before, I declare my agricultural interests as detailed in the register. I have been most interested by the exchange this evening and, as other noble Lords have done, I commend the Minister for his total commitment to this new government policy.
My concern remains, as it always has been, for the small family livestock farm, and I have not yet heard enough to convince me that this matter is being sufficiently taken into account. In particular, I am not sure how these small farms can be sustained in the intervening period between now and the introduction of the environmental land management schemes in 2024. I am not as confident as the Minister that they will find it easy to adhere to either a widened countryside stewardship scheme or the sustainable farming incentive. And, of course, their income will be cut in 2021 by 5%, rising by 2024 to a cut of 50%, and we should never forget that the small livestock farms depend almost wholly on this taxpayer support.
As the Minister mentioned, they will undoubtedly need a great deal of advice on how to transform their businesses. It is, I fear, an uncomfortable fact that these small livestock farms in England will not be as well treated as their counterparts in Scotland and Wales, where the reduction in the basic payment will come later. I therefore ask the Minister to consult his ministerial colleagues as to whether more cannot be done to support small family farms in the next two to three years, as they are such an important part of so many rural communities in this country.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I agree with the noble Duke that the small family farm is an intrinsic part of our landscape and our rural culture. That is why it is important, on taxpayer support, that I should quickly run through the opportunities starting next year. Applications for new countryside stewardship agreements will open from February to March 2021. The farm resilience scheme will open in June 2021. The farming investment fund—equipment, technology and transformation—will open in December 2021. I mention those schemes in particular because obviously, as part of the work we want to do to ensure enhanced productivity, all farmers will be able to apply for them next year. With the countryside stewardship and the sustainable farming incentive, I think that upland farmers and small farmers are well placed to join. Further information is coming out on the sustainable farming incentive national pilot in spring 2021.
It is very important that advice and guidance is given, and I said in an earlier reply that that is part of what we will be doing to ensure that there is a vibrant future for small and livestock farms, not only in producing food but in their custodianship of the land, which I think the pastoral system has been very good at.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, a lump-sum exit scheme is envisaged, and it is assumed that this will bring in new entrants, because new holdings will become available. I am not sure I share the Minister’s confidence that that on its own will bring new entrants into farming. But one thing is for certain: we will need a skilled workforce. Can the Minister assure the House that he is talking to colleagues in the Department for Education, which is in the process of publishing a White Paper on further education apprenticeships, so that they will take into account the needs of agriculture in the years to come?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, was here because we have been working very closely on the skills leadership group and the imperative, as the noble Baroness has said, of having a skilled workforce as we enhance technology and innovation. Appropriate skills and the skills of countryside management are important. We need a range of educational opportunities at all levels, whether at agricultural college or in apprenticeships; the whole range is very important. This is an area where we in Defra are in touch with the department, because it is very important there is a skilled rural workforce now and in the future.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, reference has already been made to devolution settlements. I wish to refer to the ability of Northern Ireland to diverge from these ELM arrangements in order to meet the needs of our own localised system of agriculture, in terms of different farm patterns, land-leasing arrangements and now, of course, the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. What can the Minister advise about his ongoing discussions with the Minister in Northern Ireland regarding the ability to diverge from these arrangements to ensure the proper delivery of good farm management for upland and lowland farmers?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I understand that today the co-chairs of the EU-UK joint committee have announced their agreement in principle on all issues with regard to the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland. I think this will have some impact on some of our areas, and further details will be given. I believe that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is making a Statement tomorrow. I put that in the context of the recognition that agriculture is devolved. If one remembers, we included provisions in the Agriculture Act respecting the devolved arrangements of all parts of the United Kingdom, the importance of ensuring that Northern Ireland can make its own provisions as a devolved part of the UK and respecting the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland. Our manifesto pledge was to maintain the current annual budget to farmers, and that would mean that the total farm support provided to Northern Ireland farmers was £330 million. It is within the scope of the Northern Ireland Administration to ensure that they have the policies that they would wish for Northern Ireland farmers.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I must draw attention to my agricultural interests in the register. Like all other speakers, I welcome the publication of the agricultural transition plan, but, like them, I also recognise that it leaves a huge number of questions still unanswered. Can the Minister confirm that all the money taken away from the BPS each year will be transferred to schemes which will pass it on in its entirety to farmers and land managers and will not be used for the government administration of the scheme? Furthermore, can he confirm that the new arrangements will not lead to additional bureaucracy imposed on the payees, which in turn will cost them money?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, as I said at the outset, and as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in his announcement, it is designed so that the reductions in the legacy direct payments will be transferred into a whole range of schemes within the agricultural budget. These might be productivity schemes, environmental land management schemes or slurry schemes, and this will ensure that farmers and land managers have that resource available within the amount of that budget that was promised for every year of this Parliament. The money being transferred from the direct payments will go into the schemes that I have outlined.
Picking up the point about bureaucracy, I assure noble Lords that all Ministers are determined not to replace one sort of bureaucracy with another. Complaints such as “We have not got the detail” are, I believe, precisely allayed by us wanting to ensure that at every turn—whether in simplifying the BPS or in having ways in which we do things differently—the schemes are not bureaucratic, and that their design is straight- forward. This is so that people such as me can understand them, and not have to read them three times or employ someone to help with that.
I assure my noble friend Lord Inglewood that the whole point of what we want from the codesign is for all farmers to feel that these are their schemes, because for so many it may involve retirement, new entry or productivity. It is about environmental land management in all its component forms. All the tests and trials in that area involve working with farmers, precisely to ensure that they are not bureaucratic and that we are not asking for mission impossible. We want farmers to have a sense of achievement not only because they produce public benefits, but because they feel that this is a worthwhile part of their joint endeavour in producing food for the nation.
Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations and Order laid before the House on 10 and 12 November be approved.
Relevant documents: 35th and 36th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 7 December.