House of Commons
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 4 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, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)
The Secretary of State for Scotland meets Cabinet colleagues regularly to discuss all matters of importance to Scotland. This Government are committed to levelling up across the whole United Kingdom, and that is why the Prime Minister has set out his ambitious 10-point plan for our green industrial revolution, which will support up to 250,000 jobs.
Rachel Hopkins
The SNP has joined the Tory party in abandoning workers at BiFab, forgoing the green industrial jobs they claim to want to encourage. Within days of the Scottish Government withdrawing their support for BiFab, they launched the Scottish National Investment Bank, stating it would support Scotland’s transition to zero carbon emissions. They say one thing and do another. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Scottish Ministers about protecting jobs at BiFab and developing a green supply chain in Scotland to facilitate the expansion of its offshore wind capacity?
David Duguid
After exploring all options, both the UK and Scottish Governments have concluded that there is currently no legal right to provide further financial support to BiFab in its current form. A joint working group will be formed between the Scottish and UK Governments to consider ways to strengthen the renewables supply chain in Scotland and to secure future possibilities and opportunities. Both of Scotland’s Governments have committed to exploring options for the future of the yards and to strengthen measures to support the renewables supply chain.
Tony Lloyd [V]
The Minister’s seeming disinterest belies the whole problem. His original words were fine. The reality is that when BiFab, the only manufacturer of the steel cases for these turbines, went into administration, the Edinburgh Government and the London Government walked hand in hand away from that situation. What does that say about the ambition to be the Saudi Arabia of offshore wind production, and what does it say to the workers and the skills base at BiFab when the Government simply abandon them?
David Duguid
The situation at BiFab is a culmination of a number of issues, the main one being the unwillingness of the parent company and majority shareholder, JV Driver, to provide working capital, investment or guarantees for the company. We are determined to secure a new future for the yards in Fife and the Western Isles, and we will explore options for the future of these sites and, through the new working group, work with the Scottish Government to strengthen the renewables and clean energy supply chain.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment at the SNP Scottish Government’s continued dogmatic opposition to nuclear power, despite the fact that in recent weeks it has been the leading source of zero carbon generation in the UK? Does he agree with me that the refusal to contemplate a replacement of the Chapelcross power station at Annan in my constituency is depriving the area of the high-quality green jobs from which it has benefited from the last 60 years?
David Duguid
It will come as no surprise that I do share my right hon. Friend’s disappointment. This Government believe that nuclear has an important role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power stations provide the dependable, low-carbon power that is required to complement renewable energy to ensure a low-cost, reliable, diverse generating mix to meet our net zero ambitions for 2020.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) [V]
Mr Speaker, this is the first Scottish questions since the Scottish football team qualified for Euro 2020, so I am sure you will allow me to pass on my congratulations to Stevie Clarke and his team for cheering up our nation, and of course we look forward to being further cheered when we win at Wembley in the championships in June next year.
I am sure the Minister is aware of the Proclaimers song “Letter from America”, which includes the line “Methil no more”, and that is what the decision of his and the Scottish Governments have delivered in reality for that community in Fife. Just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced that he was launching a 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution that would deliver a quarter of a million new green jobs. I did not of course realise he meant jobs that were overseas. Can the Minister inform the House how many current and potential green jobs will be lost following the Scottish and UK Governments’ joint decision, in the words of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, to collude to “pull support” from BiFab in Fife?
David Duguid
I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm. As a former card-carrying member of the tartan army myself, I might be enthused about rejoining it, but being a member of the Whips Office, I am not sure I would always get slipped to attend the matches.
We understand from the Scottish Government, who are closest to the company, that there is no commercial way forward that is compatible with state aid. The UK Government are equally bound by the state aid rules, at least for the moment, and therefore there is no legal way for either Government to intervene at this stage.
Ian Murray
I am sure that it will not have escaped anyone’s attention that the UK and Scottish Governments have just hidden behind EU state aid rules—the irony of that. The Minister did not give a figure, so let me give the figure: 500 highly skilled green jobs in Scotland abandoned. And it is not just the Tories who are to blame; unbelievably, the SNP has repeatedly hidden behind the same EU state aid rule, despite initially agreeing to support BiFab and then pulling it without notice. It has ignored a Scottish parliamentary vote to sort it out, and on the SNP’s watch fabrication contracts for offshore wind farms have recently gone almost exclusively—where? —overseas. The post-covid recovery has to be about jobs, yet both Governments are unnecessarily abandoning good clean jobs, and this Government are risking a disastrous no deal Brexit, which will further decimate jobs. So I ask the Minister this: the Prime Minister has broken his promise of an oven-ready Brexit deal, so how many jobs will be lost in Scotland as a result of the Tories delivering a no deal Brexit?
David Duguid
I have already discussed this Government’s commitment to the 10-point plan and the up to 250,000 jobs across the whole of the UK. That is still in play, but this is obviously a disappointing situation, and the recent revelation that a private firm bought a majority stake in BiFab for just £4 before it went into administration raises serious questions about how the SNP Scottish Government could pour tens of millions into a company without securing that yard’s future. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this whole matter requires a proper inquiry.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
My Department meets regularly with the Ministry of Defence to help raise concerns that are specific to Scotland. British armed forces personnel in Scotland play a crucial role in defending the whole of the United Kingdom, keeping us safe both at home and abroad, and assisting with such dedication at the height of this covid-19 pandemic.
Marco Longhi
I welcome the landmark £24 billion investment in our UK armed forces, as announced by the Prime Minister just last month, bringing economic and security benefits to all four nations of our great United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree, therefore, that this demonstrates the true value of the Union to Scotland, bringing jobs to Scotland, enhancing the security of the nation, and delivering on the Prime Minister’s levelling-up agenda across the country?
Mr Jack
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Scotland has always played a crucial role in the UK’s defence, and the projects that are supported by this spending, including shipbuilding on the Clyde, will directly benefit the people of Scotland, bringing security and economic benefits. This level of spending and investment is only possible through Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s response, but can he set out what support the British Army is providing to the Scottish Government to ensure the efficient delivery of the coronavirus vaccine in my constituency in the borders, but also across Scotland more widely?
Mr Jack
The Scottish Government requested a military planning team to assist with the planning for the roll-out of the vaccine in the borders and across Scotland, and I am very pleased that I was able to approve that request. The scale of the task is very considerable, but the logistics expertise with the British armed forces is making a huge difference.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the work that soldiers from Kinloss barracks in Moray have done throughout this pandemic in our fight against covid-19: they have been in Liverpool since last month, and earlier this week started assisting Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council in its community testing programme. This is in addition to the work they did throughout the highlands in the summer, covering 80,000 miles and conducting well over 3,000 tests. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating everyone at Kinloss on the effort they have put in during this pandemic, and agree that it underlines yet again the outstanding work they do in Scotland and across the United Kingdom?
Mr Jack
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in thanking everyone at Kinloss barracks. At the start of the pandemic our British armed forces distributed essential equipment and personal protective equipment. They helped build hospitals across Scotland and were instrumental in getting vital equipment to the Glasgow lighthouse lab. They operated the mobile testing centres, and, currently, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), there are 21 military planners working with Scottish health boards and the Scottish Government on logistical planning for vaccine deployment. Our offer remains open: if the Scottish Government require further assistance from our amazing armed forces, they are standing by and are ready to help.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
Good progress has been made on the Tay cities regional deal. The Chancellor announced at the spending review on 25 November that the UK Government investment will now be compressed to 10 years. We are working with local partners to get the full deal signed on 17 December.
Wendy Chamberlain
It has been almost a year since I was elected, and in all that time we have been assured that the Tay cities deal is just around the corner. I am delighted to hear that the deal is over the line. It will be a Christmas present for North East Fife and elsewhere, for which people have been waiting for some time.
Iain Stewart
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those comments. I know of her hard work especially in helping the Eden Campus project in her constituency to be a leading part of the deal. I had hoped to be up visiting it a few weeks ago, but unfortunately covid restrictions precluded that. I very much look forward to visiting in the new year when circumstances allow.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
I too thank the Minister for the reprofiling of the Tay cities deal from 15 years to 10 years. That will really help the projects. We now need to know when it will be signed. He will also know that we have an issue with the internationally renowned James Hutton Institute in my constituency. That is primarily a UK Government-financed project, but its place in the Tay cities deal has been put in jeopardy because of all the delays. To ensure that it can be started in year one, the Hutton needs the Government to draw down its funding early. Will the Government do that? If not, how do they intend to ensure that this crucial project can be guaranteed?
Iain Stewart
I have had many constructive dialogues with the hon. Gentleman on the Tay cities deal, and I am happy to confirm that we look good to go next Thursday to sign the deal. The delay was for a very good reason: as he alluded to, we were trying to get the UK Government side of the deal down from 15 years to 10 years. I am aware of the specific circumstances at the James Hutton Institute. I had a very constructive meeting with it on Friday last week, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are exploring every option to ensure that it gets its funding but that all the other very worth- while projects in the deal do too.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)
As confirmed in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, the Government are committed to the development of hydrogen as a decarbonised energy carrier for the UK. We are developing our strategic approach to hydrogen and its potential to deliver against our net zero goals, and we will set out our plans shortly.
Jacob Young
SGN has just secured vital funding from Ofgem to progress its landmark trial of green hydrogen in a new domestic gas network. I congratulate everyone at SGN and those working on the project in Fife on achieving that. Does the Minister agree that innovations such as that trial and the H21 project in Teesside, which is led by Northern Gas Networks, prove that the UK is leading the world in the hydrogen economy?
David Duguid
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and I congratulate him and the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen, which he chairs, on their work advancing the hydrogen agenda. I also congratulate SGN on achieving up to £18 million from Ofgem’s network innovation competition to support development of a hydrogen demonstration network in Levenmouth, bringing carbon-free energy to around 300 homes from late 2022.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I have frequent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which is vital to protect seamless trade and jobs across all four corners of the United Kingdom following the end of the transition period.
Stephen Flynn
Of course, what the Secretary of State did not say is that the internal market Bill is a blatant attack on devolution. That should not come as a surprise, because just three weeks ago the Prime Minister said that devolution was Tony Blair’s biggest mistake—a bigger mistake than even the illegal Iraq war. Does the Secretary of State disagree with the Prime Minister?
Mr Jack
What the Prime Minister said was that devolution was a mistake when it was set up to be put in the hands of separatists, and I completely agree with that. I totally agree with it. The Scottish National party is a campaigning organisation for independence—for separation of the United Kingdom—masquerading as a party of Government.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) [V]
The Secretary of State has regularly explained that, as we leave the EU, the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill will serve to strengthen the UK’s economy and the Union as a whole. Does he feel that the announcement yesterday from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office that Northern Ireland will have the “best of both worlds”, meaning that Northern Ireland will still have access to both EU and UK markets after Brexit, undermines his claims about the Bill?
Mhairi Black [V]
As the Secretary of State knows, Scotland voted to remain in the EU. The Scottish Government subsequently published a framework for how Scotland could still have access to the single market post Brexit. That was rejected outright by the UK Government. Given that Northern Ireland has been promised the very same thing, will he now make the case for Scotland to get the same concessions, and, like his predecessor, will he consider his position if such a request is not granted?
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) [V]
The Secretary of State would do well to remember that the SNP is a democratically elected party of Government in Scotland. Although we take nothing for granted, pollsters continue to suggest that the SNP will win a majority of seats in the Holyrood elections this coming May, and 15 consecutive polls show a clear majority mandate for Scottish independence. Does he believe that his Government’s disastrous internal market Bill has contributed to that rise in support for the SNP and Scottish independence?
Mr Jack
There is nothing disastrous about a United Kingdom Internal Market Bill that has mutual recognition and non-discrimination at its base, and that protects jobs in Scotland and people’s livelihoods, when 60% of Scotland’s trade is to the rest of the United Kingdom, worth over £50 billion and, as the Fraser of Allander Institute said only last week, providing 554,000 jobs.
Mr Speaker
As Mark Fletcher is not here, would the Minister like to give the answer to his substantive question? Then I can bring in shadow Minister Elmore.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
The Secretary of State for Scotland and I have frequent discussions with colleagues on the opportunities for COP26. That includes through the COP26 devolved Administration ministerial group, which brings the COP president, territorial Secretaries of State and devolved Administration Ministers together to ensure effective engagement and collaboration on COP26 and net zero.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I am exceedingly grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing the Minister to answer the question.
COP26 in Glasgow, as the Minister knows, is no ordinary summit. It is a huge opportunity to set the global agenda we need to tackle the climate emergency, but in my opinion the Government have so far not afforded it the attention and weight it requires. That has to change—urgently, I would argue—to make the summit the success the planet needs it to be. Cutting overseas aid has had a devastating effect on countries on the frontline of the climate emergency. That will undermine our role as hosts of COP26, as well as our international standing and moral authority around the world. What steps is the Scotland Office taking to ensure that, as hosts of COP26, we are leading by example and not turning our back on those who are living on the frontline of the climate emergency?
Iain Stewart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I point out that we will still be one of the world’s largest net donors to the most deprived communities around the world. That commitment remains absolute. We will be working over the next months to ensure that COP26 in Glasgow is as big a success as it can be. We will lead the global climate change agenda and I can think of nowhere better than my home city of Glasgow to be the showcase for that. There are lots of partners, from very small local companies right up to big multinationals, who will be playing a part. My colleagues and I will be engaging with them very much over the next few months.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I have regular conversations with the Scottish Government on preparedness for the end of the transition period, including meetings of the EU Exit Operations Cabinet Committee and the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I know he will agree with me that the Scottish Government have failed to prepare for the end of the transition deal and are letting the Scottish people down, in particular by failing to recruit the required number of environmental protection officers to assist our fishing industry as we leave the transition deal at the end of this year. Will he confirm that the British Government stand ready to assist the Scottish Government, should they require it, to get the required number of protection officers in place to support our fishing industry?
Mr Jack
As my hon. Friend knows, it is the Scottish Government’s responsibility to ensure adequate certifier capacity for exports to the European Union. The UK Government have been engaging closely with the Scottish Government, Food Standards Scotland and Scottish local authorities to clarify the capacity in Scotland for certifying export health certificates, and with them, we have determined the level of additional capacity that is needed. That is the sort of boring answer. I would add that we have provided the Scottish Government with £138 million of Brexit preparedness support for this purpose.
Gavin Newlands
Dearie me, Mr Speaker. Let me try this one. NHS Tayside has stated that a hard Brexit could
“lead to an inability to deliver safe and effective care”,
and NHS Lanarkshire says that Brexit poses a “very high” risk to the delivery of healthcare services. We also know that the Ministry of Defence is putting plans in place to fly the Pfizer vaccine into the UK to avoid the Government’s entirely self-inflicted border ports chaos. Given that we did not vote for any of this and that 15 polls in a row now show support for independence, does the Secretary of State still believe that the Union is “firing on all cylinders”, as he wrote at the weekend?
Mr Jack
The Union is absolutely firing on all cylinders, whether it is the support of over 900,000 jobs in Scotland, the UK Government procuring, supplying and paying for all the vaccines for the United Kingdom, or the armed forces helping with the roll-out. As regards the scare story the hon. Gentleman is trying to start over the MOD flying the vaccine into the United Kingdom, all good Governments have robust contingency plans. That is No. 5 on the list of contingency plans, and they are not just for the transition period outcome. Those contingency plans are made for potential strikes, weather events and so on. It is entirely responsible to plan that way.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The end of the transition period has been described by Scottish businesses as a “catastrophic” situation. Some have argued that if they cannot trade with the EU, they are out of the game—it is an existential threat. Can I ask the Scottish Secretary to actually show some authority in the Cabinet and insist on a minimum six-month grace period, so businesses do not fall foul of regulations which are not yet developed for a deal that is not yet agreed, but which is supposed to be in place in barely three weeks’ time? This needs to be done; it needs to be done today. Otherwise, businesses will struggle dreadfully on his watch.
Mr Jack
There has been a major public information campaign running for businesses and citizens, telling them exactly what they need to do. We have always been clear that, whether it is deal or no deal, there are steps that have to be taken when the transition period comes to an end. We are not going to delay the end of the transition period, because it is only by sticking to that date that people can prepare responsibly, and it also holds the EU’s feet to the fire in getting a deal. We have been clear what measures they need to take. They need to look at the UK Government website, where they can see very clearly what preparations they need to make for the end of this month.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)
An effective response to covid-19 does indeed need to be a co-ordinated response across the whole United Kingdom, informing every aspect of the UK Government’s response. For instance, on 24 November, the UK Government and the three devolved Administrations published a joint statement on UK-wide arrangements for the festive season. We are currently working with the devolved Administrations on the deployment of vaccines and community testing across the UK.
Mr Dhesi
Last month, an opinion poll revealed that 68% of Scots want the Scottish and UK Governments to work more closely together. Minister, why is it that, despite that, the Scottish and UK Governments are not able to work in a co-ordinated manner, and why are we constantly seeing mixed messages and infighting?
David Duguid
It is not for me to say what mixed messages the hon. Gentleman might see in the press or get from political parties. The UK Government and all assemblies across the whole UK work together on a co-ordinated basis to deliver not just what has been delivered up to now; there was the excellent news yesterday of the first vaccines being provided across the whole UK—not in one part of the UK or another but across the UK on the same day. Vaccines are an excellent example of that co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, and the UK Government are procuring vaccines on behalf of the UK as a whole. The prioritisation of the vaccines is a devolved matter—
Andrew Gwynne [V]
The news of the vaccine’s approval is incredibly encouraging, but we now face the greatest organisational challenge perhaps since the second world war in distributing it to all who want and need it across the four UK nations. Given the botched roll-out of the flu vaccine in Scotland this year, how is the Minister going to ensure that Scottish Ministers are able to get the delivery of the covid vaccine right?
David Duguid
I am conscious of the time, so I shall give a very brief answer. Local deployment of the vaccines is a devolved matter, but Ministry of Defence Ministers have made military planners available to the Scottish Government to facilitate the complex task of mass deployment.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I visited Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital yesterday to see the first clinically approved vaccine being given to people in London, as it is now across the country. This is a fantastic moment for all of us in this House, and I know that everybody will want to join me in thanking the NHS, the vaccine taskforce, the scientists and all the volunteers who have made this possible.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Sir Edward Leigh
When I was a spear carrier in the Brexit referendum campaign, led by my right hon. Friend, we assured the British people that a trade deal was entirely achievable, so may I urge him to make one last effort? Surely that deal is achievable, because we have no intention of lowering our standards, but the EU should know this: if, consistent with national security, he cannot secure that deal for us, this parliamentary party will back him to the hilt, because strength comes with unity.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend. He is entirely right: a good deal is still there to be done, and I look forward to discussing it with Commissioner von der Leyen tonight, but I must tell the House that our friends in the EU are currently insisting that, if they pass a new law in the future with which we in this country do not comply or do not follow suit, they should have the automatic right to punish us and to retaliate. Secondly, they are saying that the UK should be the only country in the world not to have sovereign control over its fishing waters. I do not believe that those are terms that any Prime Minister of this country should accept. I must tell the House and reassure my right hon. Friend that, whether our new trading arrangements resemble those of Australia’s with the EU or whether they are like those of Canada with the EU, I have absolutely no doubt that, from 1 January, this country is going to prosper mightily.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) [V]
I join the Prime Minister in his comments about the vaccine roll-out. It was fantastic to see the first person, Margaret Keenan, receive the vaccine yesterday. It is a huge national effort, and I want to thank everybody who has been involved with it. Mr Speaker, I also want to thank you and the House authorities for enabling me to participate today, notwithstanding the fact that I am self-isolating.
A year ago, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and promised the country
“a permanent break from talking about Brexit”.
Can the Prime Minister tell us: how is that going?
The Prime Minister
I am delighted to welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman here, from his vantage point of exile in Islington, his spiritual home, and wish him all the best in his self-isolation. His own silence on this matter has been sphinx-like. I wonder quite what it is that has kept him from asking this question for so long. We delivered Brexit on 31 January, in case he failed to notice.
Keir Starmer
It is Camden, not Islington. The Prime Minister starts straightaway by deflecting—it is the same old, same old, whether on covid or Brexit. Twelve months ago, he told the British people that he had an “oven-ready deal”. He did not say he had half a deal or that the next stage would be very, very difficult. In fact, he faced the British people and told them, before the election, that the chances of no deal were “absolutely zero”. The Chancellor, as he is now, obviously took him at his word, because the Chancellor said in the run-up to the election:
“We won’t need to plan for no-deal because we…have a deal.”
So a year on, why should anyone who trusted the Prime Minister when he said he had a deal, including his Chancellor, apparently, believe a word he says now?
The Prime Minister
I hesitate to accuse the right hon. and learned Gentleman of deliberately trying to mislead people, but let us be in no doubt that we had an oven-ready deal, which was the withdrawal agreement, which the people voted for, as he rightly points out, and by which this country left the customs union and the single market, and delivered on our promises. I can tell him, although he must know this, that whatever happens from 1 January this country will be able to get on with our points-based immigration system, which we have put into law, in fulfilment of our manifesto commitment. We will be able to get on with instituting low-tax free ports, in places where jobs and growth are most needed around the country. We will be able to honour our promise to the British people and institute higher animal welfare standards; we will be able to do free trade deals; and we will get our money back as well. I do not know what else he wants to see from 1 January, but all those things will be delivered.
Keir Starmer
Oh, I see. Apparently, “Get Brexit done” just meant the first part of it—the easy bit. I do not remember that being written on the bulldozer at the time. Last September, the Prime Minister actually hit the nail on the head when he said that leaving without a deal would be a “failure of statecraft”. It would be—it would be a total failure—and it will be the British people who pay the price. Does the Prime Minister agree with his own spending watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, that the cost of that failure—of leaving the EU with no deal—would be higher unemployment, higher inflation and a smaller economy?
The Prime Minister
The more the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about Brexit, the more I can see why he tried to avoid the subject for the past year. We did leave with a very good deal, and in any circumstances this country will prosper mightily. He talks about the possible adverse consequences for this country of a deal on Australian terms—I think that is what he is talking about—but we have yet to hear from Labour party members what their view is of that matter. Would they vote for it, yes or no? He remained totally Delphic last week about his policy on fighting coronavirus and he is totally Delphic about what to do on Brexit as well.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister talks about indecision; he is absolutely stuck—this is the truth of it—and dithering between the deal that he knows we need and the compromise that he knows his Back Benchers will not let him make. I genuinely hope that this is the usual Prime Minister’s bluster and that, like one of his newspaper columns, a deal arrives at the last minute. But for some people, and their jobs, it is already too late.
Yesterday, INEOS, a major employer in this country, announced that it will not now build the new Grenadier car in Bridgend and will move production to France instead. This is a project that just two months ago the Prime Minister said was “a vote of confidence”. Hundreds of skilled jobs now will not go to Bridgend. Can the Prime Minister tell us how many more British jobs have to go overseas before he gets on with delivering the Brexit deal that he promised?
The Prime Minister
I think it is a bit much of the Leader of the Opposition to criticise the Government for failure to come up with a policy on Brexit and to attack the putative consequences of coming out on Australian terms when he cannot even say whether he would vote for that deal—yes or no. If he cannot say whether he would vote for our deal—yes or no—he simply cannot attack the Government’s policy. Until he is able to come up with a position of his own, wrap a towel round his head and decide what he actually thinks, I find it very difficult to take his criticisms seriously. What I can say is that this country will be ready for whether we have a Canadian or an Australian solution, and there will be jobs created in this country—throughout the whole of the UK—not just in spite of Brexit but because of Brexit, because this country is going to become a magnet for overseas investment. Indeed, it already is and will remain so.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister asked me how I will vote on a deal that he has not even secured. Secure the deal, Prime Minister; you promised it. I can say this: if there is a deal—and I hope there is a deal—my party will vote in the national interest, not on party political lines, as he is doing. This is about leadership. The Prime Minister has done 15 U-turns, he has had five different plans on covid, and last week 53 of his own MPs voted against him, so if I were him I would not talk about leadership.
The Prime Minister has not always wanted to listen to business—we know what his message to business is —but he should. Let me quote the CBI, which says that the message from business is this: “get a deal…quickly”. The National Farmers Union says:
“Time is really running out and…it’s very hard to get final preparations in.”
These are the people the Prime Minister should be listening to, not his Back Benchers.
On the question of preparation, the Government knew months ago that they needed 50,000 customs agents trained and ready to go from 1 January—deal or no deal—so can the Prime Minister tell the House how many of the 50,000 agents will be in place on 1 January? That is in 23 days’ time.
The Prime Minister
It is wonderful to get to the end of that question. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we have already invested £1 billion in getting this country ready for whatever the trading relationship is that we have on 1 January. We have invested £84 million into supporting customs agents across the UK and £200 million into supporting our ports, and they are doing an amazing job. I want to thank business for the incredible job it is doing to get ready. We have all got to get ready, because under any view there is going to be change from 1 January—there will be change in the way we do business and there will be more opportunities for this country around the world. I am delighted by what I take is the increasing signalling from Camden, because the message from Camden seems to be that, given the choice, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would vote for a deal rather than not. Did my Back-Bench colleagues get that impression? I think I did.
Keir Starmer
I take it that the answer is the Prime Minister has no idea whether the 50,000 customs agents will be in place on 1 January. He either does not know or he does not care. The Prime Minister said he had a deal. He did not. He said he would protect jobs. He did not. He said he would prepare for any outcome. He has not. Whatever may happen in the next few days, there is no doubting that his incompetence has held Britain back. Will he end this charade? In that uncertainty, will he get the deal that he promised and allow the country to move on?
The Prime Minister
I want to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his final baffling question. Last week, as I have said, he sphinx-like avoided any pronouncement on how this country was going to fight covid. He refused to support the measures that we have put in place. This week, he remains deafeningly silent on what he really thinks about a Brexit deal. While he puts a cold towel round his head, lost in thought, and tries to work out what his position is, we are getting on—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Bryant! I suggest the Whip has a word with him. We are not having that disgraceful behaviour.
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, you should summon him back—he seems to have vanished.
While the right hon. and learned Gentleman tries to work out what his position is, we are getting on with the work of government. As he says, it is a year since this people’s Government were elected and I am very proud that we are delivering on the people’s priorities: 6,000 of the 20,000 police officers; 14,800 of the 50,000 nurses already; and we are getting on with building every one of the 40 hospitals—it is about 48 hospitals—that we are going to deliver, along with the biggest programme of infrastructure investment in this country for a century. We are uniting and levelling up across the whole of the UK. Whether the outcome is Canada or Australia, we will be taking back control—we have already taken back control—of our money, our borders and our laws and we will seize all the opportunities that Brexit brings.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a big expert in this field and a great campaigner for transport. He is right about the massive impact that these programmes can have on jobs. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
I was saying, Mr Speaker, that my hon. Friend is completely right about the power of great infrastructure projects to deliver jobs, which is why we are getting on with both the eastern leg of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. What I have asked the National Infrastructure Commission and Network Rail to look at is how those two projects can best be integrated to boost the economy of the whole of the north of the country.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
Yesterday, by this Government’s own admission, it was confirmed that Northern Ireland is getting the best of both worlds: access to the EU single market and customs union. This is great news for businesses in Northern Ireland, but it leaves Scotland, which also voted to remain, dealing with the hardest of Brexits. What is good for Northern Ireland is surely good enough for Scotland. Why is Scotland being shafted by this double dealing? Can the Prime Minister explain to Scottish businesses why this is fair?
The Prime Minister
In common with the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom, Scotland will benefit. It will benefit from substantial access to devolved powers, it will benefit from the regaining of money, borders and laws, and, as I never tire of telling my friend, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), that, in spite of all his jeering, Scotland will take back control of colossal quantities of fish, which is something that the people of Scotland deserve to be able to exploit for the advantage of those communities.
Ian Blackford
The Prime Minister can spin all he likes, but everybody can now see the total contempt that this UK Government have for Scottish interests. Northern Ireland gets the single market and customs union; we get nothing. Members of his Scottish branch office told him how unfair and damaging it would be to deny Scotland’s access to the EU single market and customs union while at the same time delivering it for Northern Ireland. Ruth Davidson even said that such an act would “undermine the integrity” of the United Kingdom. The former Scottish Tory constitution spokesperson said that it would be the end of the Union. They, along with the former Secretary of State for Scotland, said that if this were to happen, they would all resign. Since the Prime Minister is ready to sell out Scotland’s interests with his Brexit deal, does he expect to receive these resignation letters from Baroness Davidson and her cohort before or after her travels to Brussels tonight?
The Prime Minister
The only reasonable answer to that question is that I think it is highly unlikely that those letters will arrive. The right hon. Gentleman does a gross injustice to Scotland and the future of Scotland, which will be assured within the single market of the United Kingdom. In spite of the slight negativity that I detect from him, I believe that Scotland, along with the rest of the UK, will benefit from a very strong trading relationship with our friends and partners across the channel, whatever the circumstances, whatever the terms we reach tonight.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am sure that I speak for many hon. Members when I say that I am a massive supporter of subtitles myself—particularly with some of these crime dramas from America. The campaign that my hon. Friend mentions is excellent. All the Departments that have a stake in this will be working with her to see what we can do to take the matter further.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
Last week, we learned that UK Export Finance has been approached to back the east African crude oil pipeline. This is a climate catastrophe that will produce emissions equivalent to all the UK’s annual flights. Not only that, but a recent response to one of my written parliamentary questions confirmed that UKEF has six more fossil fuel projects under consideration. Ahead of the climate ambition summit this weekend, how can the Prime Minister claim any climate credibility while ploughing public money into dirty fossil fuel projects overseas? Are these the actions of a rogue, out of control Government Department—or, worse, does the Prime Minister actually approve of them?
The Prime Minister
I hope the hon. Lady knows that we are moving away dramatically and at speed from UK Export Finance supporting fossil fuel exploration around the world, but, of course, hydrocarbons remain a significant industry in Scotland and many other places. In so far as there are legitimate contracts that are at risk of being frustrated, we cannot do that. I really think that her criticism of the Government is absurd. Look at the overall record and ambition of this Government; this is the first country in the developed world to set a target of net zero by 2050. I know that when she is being less polemical, she has had some kind words to say about the Government’s programme, and I certainly support her in that.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Indeed; I was astounded to see that 42 Opposition Members wrote to the Home Secretary opposing the deportation of foreign national criminals, while the leader of the Labour party maintained his characteristic delphic silence on the matter.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The people of Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, voted in 2014, by a substantial majority, to remain in the UK. I believe that was the right decision, and I believe that were they ever to be asked the same question again in the future, it would be the same answer. But has he has said, and as his hon. Friends have said, many times, it was a once-in-a-generation event.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. No. 1, yes of course we will do everything we can with NHS Test and Trace, plus our armed forces, to roll out community testing in Stafford; and No. 2, of course we want to support Stafford and the people of Stafford with a massive programme of business support, including nearly £1.4 million in bounce back loans, grants, rate relief and VAT deferrals.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The Government of this country have done everything we can to support business and support lives and livelihoods throughout this pandemic, with now, I think, more than £260 billion of support, and that remains the case. The hon. Gentleman mentions France and Germany. He should know that unemployment, in spite of all the difficulties this country has faced, remains lower in this country than in France, Italy, Spain and the United States. Yes, it is tough, but we are going to get through it and we are going to get through it together.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his achievement and on his anniversary. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is looking very seriously at the project that he mentions. I know that the Department is going to be assessing that application very carefully and will keep him informed.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am delighted to accept the thanks of the hon. Gentleman. I have to say that it is really thanks to him and the Scottish National party that we have been able to keep our wonderful United Kingdom together, because it was the sheer incoherence of their position, their refusal to address the tough questions of what breaking up the UK really means—the impact on our budgets and our economy and the impacts on Scotland and on our whole country—and their manifest inability to explain what they actually mean that meant that the people of Scotland voted in 2014 to remain part of the UK. They were right then, and they will be right in the future to stay.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to this injustice and what is happening with leaseholders at the moment. That is why we have put £1.6 billion into removing unsafe cladding. I do not want to see leaseholders being forced to pay for the remediation, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are looking now urgently—before the expiry of the current arrangements—at what we can do to take them forward and support leaseholders, who are in a very unfair position.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government risk failing a generation of children in my constituency of Enfield North and across the country, as analysis shows this week that only one in six pupils on free school meals—those who are most likely to fall behind their peers—will benefit from the programmes to help them catch up on learning lost as a result of covid? Does the Prime Minister agree that is simply not good enough, and can he explain why we are in this dire situation nine months on?
The Prime Minister
I share the hon. Lady’s anxiety about the impact of differential learning on kids in our schools across the country, because there is no doubt that different groups have been affected in different ways by the pandemic. That is why we have put a billion pounds or more into the catch-up funds, but it is also why it is so important to ensure that kids go to school and stay in school. That is why we have put all the emphasis, as we have throughout this pandemic, on maintaining kids in school, even if that has put pressure on the hospitality sector and other parts of our economy.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am thrilled that the Black Country Living Museum is in line to be a covid vaccination centre. I have had many happy meetings with my hon. Friend in the Black Country, and as a proud former resident of Bilston, I look forward to returning before too long.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I know you are a strong supporter of the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islands face the prospect of their fisheries exports to the European Union being subject to tariffs of between 6% and 18% from 1 January. Fisheries exports to the European Union account for more than 40% of the islands’ gross domestic product, and up to 60% of their Government’s revenue. This poses a serious challenge to the Falkland Islands. Will the Prime Minister raise this matter when he meets with the President of the European Commission later?
The Prime Minister
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of the Falkland Islands and, indeed, other Crown territories and overseas dependencies around the world, whose future and future trading arrangements must be secured. That is indeed something that we have raised and will continue to raise on their behalf to make sure that they get the satisfactory assurances they need.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I will indeed. I think everybody in the House recognises the distress that unauthorised camps and encampments can cause to local communities, and my right hon. and learned Friend is right to draw attention to this. He is also right to call attention to the new powers we are giving both to the police and to councils to tackle the matter, and I am glad to have his support.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Could the Prime Minister kindly explain to the people of tier 3 Birmingham, with a population of over 1 million and where almost 2,000 have lost their life, why he has not considered them a priority for receipt of the vaccine?
The Prime Minister
I really must respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has set out very clear criteria for the groups, starting with those over 80, care home workers, NHS workers and those in care homes, and he knows the criteria very well. Birmingham, of course, will be among them, and of course that is right. I am afraid that I simply cannot accept the premise of his question.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, and just this morning I was discussing Derbyshire’s bid for a big community testing programme. We will obviously do everything we can to support them, and I thank my hon. Friend and local leaders for what they are doing to promote community testing.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
Real-terms pay cuts for millions of public sector workers, an insulting 37p increase in benefit levels and broken promises on minimum wage increases show that the Prime Minister wants to pay for this crisis on the backs of the working class. Would it not be fairer to impose a windfall tax on the wealth of the super-rich and on those who have made super-profits out of the covid crisis, including those who won contracts because of their links to top Tories?
The Prime Minister
I must, again, strongly disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says. Everybody on this side of the House is proud not just of the living wage but of record increases in the living wage, of above inflation pay rises across the board and, of course, of what we have done to support nurses and the NHS with record investment. I do not think anybody who looks at the investment this Government have made in the public sector could doubt our commitment. We will continue to do that, but what we want to see is our economy recovering and our strong and dynamic private sector, which the hon. Gentleman disparages, enabling the country to forge forward as it should.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It is crucial to understand that the 10-point plan for the green industrial revolution is about jobs, jobs, jobs. This plan, whether it is retrofitting homes or making wind turbines, will generate 250,000 jobs across the country in just the first few years.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Many constituents, especially those emanating from the Punjab and other parts of India, were horrified, as I was, to see footage of water cannon, tear gas and brute force being used against peacefully protesting farmers. However, it was heart-warming to see those very farmers feeding those forces who had been ordered to beat or suppress them. What indomitable spirit—it takes a special kind of people to do that. Will the Prime Minister convey to the Indian Prime Minister our heartfelt anxieties and our hopes for a speedy resolution to the current deadlock? Does he agree that everyone has a fundamental right to peaceful protest?
The Prime Minister
Of course. Our view, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, is that we have serious concerns about what is happening between India and Pakistan, but these are pre-eminently matters for those two Governments to settle. I know that he appreciates that point.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his campaign and for everything he does for his constituents. I can tell him that the bid process for the remaining eight hospitals, on top of the 40, is currently being designed. The Department of Health and Social Care is working with a variety of trusts, including the Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn NHS Trust, as that work continues.
Mr Speaker
May I gently say to the Prime Minister that next week will be the final Prime Minister’s questions before Christmas? Will he update the House on the leak inquiry? It would be helpful.
Mr Speaker
Thank you, Prime Minister.
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members who participated in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for a few minutes.
Petition
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I rise to present a petition to the House of Commons from the residents of Gillingham and Rainham.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Gillingham and Rainham,
Declares that the proposal in Maidstone Borough Council’s Local Plan Review for up to 2,000 homes at Lidsing, which borders Hempstead in the constituency of Gillingham and Rainham, would negatively impact local infrastructure and green spaces; and further that the building of this proposal would be detrimental to road capacity, school place availability and local GP services for the local residents of Hempstead and the surrounding areas.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take action to ensure that the 2,000 home Lidsing proposal in Maidstone Borough Council’s Plan does not go ahead.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002638]
EU Withdrawal Agreement
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House, and indeed the people of Northern Ireland, on the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol as part of the withdrawal agreement with the European Union. Throughout 2020, we have worked intensively to ensure that the withdrawal agreement, in particular the Northern Ireland protocol, will be fully operational on 1 January 2021. Our aims, and the proportionate and pragmatic way that we intended to pursue them, were set out in the Command Paper that we published in May, “The UK’s Approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol”. This set out three key commitments that we believed needed to be respected in all scenarios.
We had to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses retained unfettered access to the rest of the UK market. Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory had to be protected, and that meant that goods that stayed in the UK were not subject to tariffs. We had to ensure that the important Great Britain-Northern Ireland trade flows, on which lives and livelihoods depend, were not disrupted; we needed to ensure a smooth flow of trade with no need for new physical customs infrastructure.
I am pleased to say that on Monday, the European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič and I, as co-chairs of the Joint Committee set up to negotiate the implementation of the protocol, came to an agreement in principle on a deal that meets all those commitments and puts the people of Northern Ireland first. I would like to begin by paying tribute to Maroš Šefčovič and his team for their pragmatism, collaborative spirit and determination to get a deal done that would work for both sides. I would also like to thank the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and all the Members of the Northern Ireland Executive for their crucial intervention at significant moments to ensure that the rights of the people of Northern Ireland were protected.
I turn now to the first Government commitment. This deal protects unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to their most important market. As the Prime Minister underlined, this had to be protected in full, and that meant removing any prospect of export declarations for Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. That is what our agreement will do. There will be no additional requirements placed on Northern Ireland businesses for these movements, with the very limited and specific exceptions of trade in endangered species and conflict diamonds.
On the second commitment, the deal safeguards Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory. As recently as July, the Commission had envisaged a default tariff scenario in which
“all goods brought into Northern Ireland”
were
“considered to be at risk…and are as such subject to the Common Customs Tariff.”
If that had been implemented, that would have raised the prospect of a 58% tariff on a pint of milk going from Scotland to a supermarket in Strabane or a 96% tariff on a bag of sugar going from Liverpool to the shops of Belfast. As we have repeatedly made clear, this could never have been an acceptable outcome.
Instead, I am pleased to say that under the agreement that we have reached, Northern Ireland businesses selling to consumers or using goods in Northern Ireland will be free of all tariffs, whether that is Nissan cars from Sunderland or lamb from Montgomeryshire. Internal UK trade will be protected as we promised, whether we have a free trade agreement with the EU or not.
Thirdly, this deal would keep goods flowing between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in January and provide some necessary additional flexibilities. It protects Northern Ireland’s supermarket supplies. We heard throughout the year that traders needed time to adapt their systems. That is why we have a grace period for supermarkets to update their procedures. Our agreement prevents any disruption at the end of the transition period to the movement of chilled meats. British sausages will continue to make their way to Belfast and Ballymena in the new year, and we have time for reciprocal agreements between the UK and the EU on agrifood, which can be discussed in the months ahead. This deal also protects the flow of medicines and vet medicines into Northern Ireland. That means we will grant industry a period of up to 12 months to adapt to new rules under the protocol, which will avoid any disruption to critical medical supplies.
So those are three commitments entered into, and three commitments that we have upheld. But this agreement goes further still, providing additional flexibility that will enable us to make the most of the opportunities that face us as the transition period ends. As you know, Mr Speaker, this House has been concerned about the risk of so-called reach-back from the state aid provisions that the protocol applies. The concern that many colleagues had was that a company in Great Britain with only a peripheral link to commercial operations in Northern Ireland could be caught inadvertently by the tests within the protocol’s text. That would not have been acceptable, nor was it what the protocol had envisaged. That is why I am pleased that the agreement we have addresses that risk. It means that firms in Great Britain stay outside state aid rules where there is no genuine and direct link to Northern Ireland and no real foreseeable impact on Northern Ireland-EU trade. That is an important step forward in dealing with an issue raised by a number of Members across the House.
This deal also ensures that Northern Ireland will be out of the common agricultural policy, which means that the Northern Ireland Executive have full freedom to set their own agricultural subsidies for Northern Ireland’s farmers. It also means appropriate and flexible arrangements, so that more than £400 million of spending each year is totally exempt from state aid rules. As well as that, the deal ensures that support for fishermen in Northern Ireland will be exempt from EU state aid rules, which means more than £15 million of flexibility for Northern Ireland’s fishermen over the next five years. And, of course, Northern Ireland’s services industries are totally outside the scope of the protocol and its state aid measures.
The agreement also respects the protocol provisions, which were endorsed by Parliament, that allow some EU officials to be present at Northern Ireland ports as UK authorities carry out our own procedures. Let me be clear: there will be no Belfast mini embassy or mission, as some in the EU originally sought, and the EU officials will not have any powers to carry out checks themselves. There will instead be sensible, practical arrangements, with co-operation and reciprocal data sharing, so that both sides can have confidence in these unique arrangements. We also want to leave no doubt about our ongoing commitment to peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary will set out in the coming days further measures of financial support to help businesses and communities to prosper and thrive from the end of the year and beyond.
We have been able to deliver a package which now means that the protocol can be implemented in a pragmatic and proportionate way. It takes account of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, and it protects the interests of both the EU single market and, more importantly, the territorial and constitutional integrity of the whole United Kingdom. This agreement will be approved officially at a Joint Committee meeting in the coming days. Of course, the agreement we have reached also enables the Government to withdraw clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and avoids the need for any additional provisions in the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill. Having put beyond doubt the primacy of the sovereignty of this place as we leave the EU, we rest safe in the knowledge that such provisions are no longer required.
We know that we now need to get on and give further clarity to business as to the specifics of what this deal means for them and how it will work in practice, and we will do that through the publication of further guidance. That will sit alongside the ongoing intensive work that we will take forward to implement the protocol. Above all, we will always work with the interests of the people and businesses of Northern Ireland in mind, as this agreement and the important flexibilities it will provide reflects. We must all remember that, if the protocol is to work, it must work for the whole community in Northern Ireland. Whether it is to be maintained in the future, as the protocol itself sets out, is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide through the democratic consent mechanism that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated. On that critical note of the primacy of democracy, I commend this statement to the House.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. We welcome it and are pleased that a decision has been reached on the Northern Ireland protocol. The Good Friday agreement is a source of immense pride on this side of the House, given the role that Tony Blair’s Labour Government played in building on the work of Sir John Major in achieving it. Neither of those Governments would play games with the peace process, and nor would a Government led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). Game playing, with threats to break international law, has consequences, and it is also a dangerous distraction.
Northern Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs says that the border infrastructure simply will not be ready in time. Manufacturing NI says that just 9% of businesses in Northern Ireland are ready for the end of the transition period. The systems needed to make trade flow, such as the trader support service, reportedly will not even be going live until 21 December—eight working days before the end of the transition period. This really does give new meaning to “the night before Christmas”.
Last December, the Prime Minister said:
“We’re a UK government, why would we put checks on goods going from NI to GB or GB to NI? It doesn't make sense.”
With that in mind, will the Minister explain why today’s documents confirm that on trade from GB to NI there will indeed be a range of checks? The trusted trader scheme will be removed after three and a half years and reviewed then, with further uncertainty at that point.
The exemption on agrifood checks is available for only three months, so will the Minister tell us what guarantees there are on prices and availability of fresh food supplies in Northern Ireland after 1 April? Will custom checks be required just three months into 2021? All that raises the question: did the Prime Minister actually know what he had signed up to last year, and then give false assurances to the House, or did he simply not care? This is a disgraceful way to treat businesses in good times, never mind in the middle of a pandemic.
On the trade deal needed for Northern Ireland, and for Great Britain too, we are told that the level playing field remains an outstanding area of disagreement, yet the Prime Minister’s political declaration, which he signed with the EU, spoke of a future relationship with
“open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field.”
Some Conservative MPs are agitated by the idea of a floor on workers’ rights. Indeed, no fewer than three Cabinet Ministers jointly wrote a book that said that British workers are
“among the worst idlers in the world.”
We on this side of the House do not agree with that statement. Neither do the people of our country, who want more security at work, not less. There are some siren voices among those on the Government Benches, who appear to view any agreement with the EU as a betrayal. The Minister should know that the true betrayal would be job losses, border chaos and price rises in our shops.
The Minister referred to cars from Nissan and lamb exports from Wales, and that they will be tariff-free in Northern Ireland, but as he knows, they need to be tariff-free with the EU too. We on this side of the House want the negotiations to succeed. We want the Government to keep their promises and come back with the oven-ready deal that we were promised at the general election less than a year ago. Sometimes it feels as though we on this side of the House want the Government to succeed and bring back this deal more than those on the Government’s own Back Benches do.
Deal or no deal, there are preparations that still need to be made for Northern Ireland, and for Great Britain too. I want to ask again about customs agents, because just minutes ago, the Prime Minister did not seem to have any answers on how many there are. Earlier in the year, the Minister agreed with industry estimates of 50,000 customs agents needed. Since then, he has told the BBC that the number had increased fourfold, but he omitted to tell us what the figure was. Let us give him another chance: how many customs agents are in place and are we ready for the end of the transition period?
It is not just me asking these questions. Richard Burnett, chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, says:
“The big issue that we face is that there are insufficient customs agents”
and that without them and the correct paperwork,
“we are likely to see vehicles being turned around… That is going to create significant chaos and significant queues.”
On lorry parks, will the Minister tell us how many inland border facilities are ready and will they ensure the free flow of lorries and vehicles from 1 January? Can he guarantee the House that there will be no disruption to medical or food supplies from 1 January?
Ours is a great country, and Labour wants to see a good life for all our people, but, as great as our country is, it cannot afford to be afflicted by Government incompetence. Every price rise, every traffic jam, every lost contract and every redundancy caused by this Government’s mistakes and poor planning holds our great country back. Next year must be a year of rebuilding and recovering from covid-19, not dealing with the fallout of reckless decision making, tariffs or incompetence. So this is decision time for this Government, and it is time to get the deal.
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the warm welcome that she gave to this agreement, and I also thank her for the kind words she offered Sir John Major: the process of concluding the Good Friday agreement, as she quite rightly reminds us, was a signal achievement of Tony Blair’s Government but was also achieved as a result of hard work across this House. And of course there has been since the Good Friday agreement was concluded 22 years of progress in Northern Ireland, and it is important that we seek to underpin and secure that.
The hon. Lady asked about border infrastructure. Let me emphasise that this border infrastructure is there to ensure that sanitary and phytosanitary checks can be made. As she and the House know, it is already the case that the island of Ireland is a single epidemiological zone, and therefore when live animals move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland there are physical checks. There will be border facilities in order to ensure that these limited and proportionate SPS checks can be carried out at the port of Foyle, Warrenpoint, Belfast and Larne, and we have reassured the Commission, and indeed others, about the speed and effectiveness with which the necessary limited infrastructure will be in place.
The hon. Lady also asked about the trader support service, which is there to help Northern Ireland businesses. I am pleased that we spend over £200 million in order to support Northern Ireland businesses, and I think it is the case that more than 10,000 businesses are now signed up to the trader support service in order to ensure that they will incur no costs as a result of the protocol.
The hon. Lady also asked about the future of the trusted trader scheme, which, as she rightly pointed out, guarantees that goods being sold in Northern Ireland and businesses operating in Northern Ireland will face no tariffs. It is the case that we will have an opportunity to review how that scheme operates, but it will only need to be reviewed if there is a demonstrable diversion or illegal activity, and in those circumstances there is an obligation on both parties to seek alternative arrangements. I should stress again that no additional customs checks will face goods going from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
The hon. Lady asked about customs agent capacity overall. It is the case that £84 million has been made available in order to increase capacity, and the latest survey by HMRC shows that there has been a fourfold increase in capacity. Of course, one of the reasons why we are phasing in import controls over six months next year is to ensure that the sector can increase even further, but that fourfold increase in capacity gives us the confidence we need that all the staff will be there.
The hon. Lady mentioned Richard Burnett of the Road Haulage Association. He, along with Dave Wells of Logistics UK and other figures in the haulage and logistics industry, has played an invaluable role in making sure that the Government do everything necessary to prepare, but I would never shirk from saying that more needs to be done.
The hon. Lady asked about the level playing field and workers’ rights. We have a proud tradition of upholding workers’ rights and ensuring that we have social and environmental protections in this country that are higher than in many other European countries. That will not change—that is a source of pride—but one thing we cannot accept in the course of the level playing field negotiations is the demand from some in the EU that if the EU adopts new laws, we would automatically have to follow those laws or face penalties. We are not afraid to say that our standards are high and we will uphold them, but we are also not afraid to say that the people of this country voted to take back control, and that is what this Government will do.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
The implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol has become my right hon. Friend’s equivalent of the Schleswig-Holstein question, given the variety of interpretations that surround it, but fundamentally does what my right hon. Friend agreed yesterday make it more or less likely that a free trade agreement with the European Union that, crucially, ensures United Kingdom sovereignty in its entirety can be secured?
Michael Gove
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs for his question. I think it was Palmerston who said that there were only three people who knew the answer to the Schleswig-Holstein question: one was dead, another was mad, and he himself had forgotten what the answer was. But on the Northern Ireland protocol, there are all sorts of hon. and right hon. Members in this House who have played a part in making sure that we can indeed secure Northern Ireland’s constitutional future within the UK and ensure that we leave the European Union as one country, whole and entire.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his statement. It is one of these statements that I suppose is good news until we actually see the scale of the Brexit horrors that are now just in front of us. We are now at the stage of this chaotic Brexit where we have a sort of Schrödinger’s deal—one that is sort of there but also not.
I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has come to the House today looking for some sort of “congratulations and well done” for all this. I suppose it is “well done” for taking us all to the very brink with the very worst of negotiation statecraft on what was supposed to be the easiest deal in the world, “well done” for the emerging chaos at our ports and businesses taking flight, or maybe even “well done” for in a few weeks denying our young people the right to live, work and love freely across a continent. Tonight, we are going to have the last supper—but we know it is the British people who will be crucified.
Yes, what Northern Ireland has got is great for it. “Best of both worlds” is a phrase that we in Scotland are pretty much familiar with; it is what we were promised in 2014. Now, in 2020, we are faced with the worst of all worlds. We would give our right arm for access to the EU single market and unfettered access across the rest of the UK market, so can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explain to the Scottish people exactly why Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom that will not get any part of what it voted for on Brexit?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman once again for his questions; they are masterpieces of metaphorical concatenation. He managed to bring in both Schrödinger’s cat and the Easter and Passiontide narrative before he eventually got to his question. It was a masterpiece, as I say, of lyrical concision, which we would expect from Runrig’s principal star.
On the basic question, it is the case—the hon. Gentleman recognises, as I recognise—that Northern Ireland has a unique position within the United Kingdom as a result of having a land border with the European Union, which no other part of the United Kingdom does, and that requires specific arrangements. But whatever those specific arrangements, it is the case that Northern Ireland, by the will of its people, remains part of the United Kingdom. Long may it remain so.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I very much agree with what the Prime Minister said today at Prime Minister’s questions. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also agree? And is there anything in his statement that would be allowed to undermine the unfettered sovereignty of the United Kingdom as asserted by successive democratic votes and the referendum, and successive Acts of Parliament, including sections 30 and 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020?
Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also confirm today that he will appear before the European Scrutiny Committee? As he knows, he has declined to do so on at least three occasions, most recently on 26 November. We put this to him in writing but so far he has not been able to come. Will he please commit right now, today, to coming before the Committee as soon as possible?
Michael Gove
On the first point, my hon. Friend is absolutely right: section 38 of the Act that gave effect to the withdrawal agreement upheld the sovereignty of this place, and there is nothing in what we have concluded that in any way diverges from that. On the second question, I am very sorry that I have played hard to get, but I will make sure that we can have a date before Christmas when the two of us can meet in suitably covid-compliant surroundings.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s statement, because it shows what can be achieved with political commitment, and I do hope that we will see more of that later today. However, he seems to have brought back not a permanent arrangement but a series of grace periods, and I want to ask him about that.
For example, it has been reported that food products coming from GB into Northern Ireland will be exempt from export health certificates for a period of at least three months, and that chilled meats—the right hon. Gentleman referred to sausages—will be allowed for a period of time, pending a review, after which they might be prevented any more from moving from GB to Northern Ireland. What is going to happen after those dates? How exactly are businesses going to be able to prepare when they have not yet seen the detailed arrangements, because the Joint Committee is not going to meet for a couple of days, and when those details may well change yet again in a few months’ time?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions—and indeed for the work of his Future Relationship with the European Union Committee, which has helped us as we have sought to resolve these issues—and his welcome is very welcome. On the detailed points he makes, we have been talking to traders, supermarkets in particular, to make sure that they are ready for any export health certificate requirements. We know that some supermarkets are already ready. One or two others need time in order to get ready, and they requested a grace period. Originally, those in the Commission argued that that would be impossible or, if it did exist, that it could only be a matter of weeks. We have managed to secure three months, which is sufficient time, we understand, to ensure that supermarkets are ready. On the chilled meat provision, it is the case that we have secured a six-month period during which there will be absolutely no change. Again, it was the case that there were some in the EU who argued that that should be a strictly non-renewable provision. We secured an approach that meant we could keep under review how things were operating in order to ensure that we provided people in Northern Ireland with access to the food they currently enjoy, without any disruption to the integrated supply chains that supermarkets have and which they will adjust.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Many of the life science and other businesses of South Cambridgeshire export to Northern Ireland. Can my right hon. Friend reassure them that they will not face any new bureaucratic obstacles or tariffs as they sell their goods and services there?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for the life science sector, and I know that it provides jobs and investment in Cambridgeshire and beyond. It is also the case that there is a thriving life science and pharmaceuticals sector in Northern Ireland, and it will be the case that there are no impediments to the continued successful integration of that work.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman and I have known each other for many years, and while we might have differed on Brexit, there is another issue—and it is Scotland—on which we are very much in agreement. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us today that every effort will be made to ensure that this agreement, good as it is for Northern Ireland, is not used to undermine Scotland’s position within the Union, and does he consider that my constituents in Edinburgh West and elsewhere might benefit from the same sort of phasing-in agreement as has been agreed for Northern Ireland?
Michael Gove
I have known the hon. Lady, as she says, for a few years—she is a brilliant MP and she is absolutely right. The shadow Minister said that people should not play politics with the Good Friday agreement, and I do not think they should. I think it is important to recognise that Northern Ireland is in a unique position within the UK, and I think the majority of people in Scotland and across the UK recognise that, but it is also important—the hon. Lady is absolutely right—that in our arrangements with the EU, we take specific account of the needs that Scotland has. On everything from the provision of seasonal agricultural workers to making sure that we can expedite fish and shellfish from the north-east to the EU, and indeed the principled position that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is taking on whisky exports, it is absolutely important that we recognise that Scotland has distinct needs and that working with the Scottish Government and Scottish MPs, like herself, we can advance Scotland’s interests.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the EU’s request for a mini embassy in Northern Ireland was inflammatory for communities in Northern Ireland and is not required to allow the EU to supervise processes carried out by UK authorities?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There were some in the EU who wanted to mount a sort of land grab, as it were, and to have a part of Northern Ireland that was forever Brussels. But what we have agreed is a pragmatic approach, which means that the EU, quite rightly, can have people in Northern Ireland so that it can be assured that the UK officials who are carrying out our own sovereign procedures are doing so in a way in which everyone can have confidence. I want again to place on record my thanks to Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič for making sure that it was pragmatic arrangements, rather than symbolism, that won through.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is as passionate as I am about the Union. Article 6 of the Act of Union states very clearly there should be no barrier to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as is now. Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol also makes it clear that if
“this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist…the United Kingdom”
Government
“may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”
Safeguarding the Union is not a three-month, six-month or three-year project; it is an enduring commitment. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster now give a commitment that, if necessary, the Government will introduce safeguard measures to ensure unfettered access in both directions for trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point in drawing attention to a very important provision within the Northern Ireland protocol. The Government came under criticism from some for having provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill that upheld the sovereignty of this place in order to uphold the constitutional and territorial integrity of the UK. We no longer need to use those provisions, because of the agreement we have reached, but he is absolutely right. Of course, that provision remains, but I hope it will be the case that through patient and pragmatic discussion we can resolve any future issues in the way that we have resolved existing issues.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on reaching his agreement in principle, which shows that Britain is willing to make constructive compromises. As it now stands, is there any part of the withdrawal agreement that requires direct application of EU law to any part of the UK?
Michael Gove
Yes, it is the case that as a result of some of the provisions in the Northern Ireland protocol, there will be a requirement on some businesses in Northern Ireland specifically to follow the acquis. That is one of the ways in which we can ensure that there is no need for border infrastructure between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
We welcome yesterday’s agreement. We want for Northern Ireland just what we want for Wales: unfettered access to our most important markets with the rest of the UK and with the EU. However, the fundamentals of trade, particularly between Wales and Northern Ireland and indeed the Republic of Ireland, remain uncertain. Hauliers fear serious disruption on the Holyhead to Dublin route, with the Welsh Government’s plans, agreed on Monday, for contraflows and parking lots being too little, too late. What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to lessen this potential disruption?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that because of the geographical proximity of his constituency to Ynys Môn—to the island of Anglesey—he has a particular concern. However, we have been working well with the Welsh Government—I particularly thank their Counsel General, Jeremy Miles—to make sure that we will have infrastructure in Holyhead that can ensure that the second busiest roll-on roll-off port in the UK continues to prosper.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I just point out to my right hon. Friend that whatever he agreed in the Joint Committee yesterday remains subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice under the disputes procedure? Moreover, whatever he agreed yesterday was agreed only because we had the clauses in the UKIM Bill that were threatening to block the ECJ’s jurisdiction. Does he agree that it is very important that we maintain the position that this House can at any time put blocks in front of the ECJ while this withdrawal agreement remains in force?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is right: this House is sovereign. This is as a result of bringing forward the UKIM Bill. I understand some of the unease and controversy that it generated, but he is absolutely right that following on from that we were able to make progress. We are now no longer in a position where we need to bring forward those clauses, but of course it is the sovereign right of this Parliament to legislate as it thinks fit.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
We welcome details that businesses have sought anxiously all year, and of course we keenly anticipate a wider trade deal that might finally allow us to continue to enjoy the conditions that we currently enjoy. How does he propose to ensure continuity of supply for squeezed Northern Ireland households so that they can have choice and affordability after mitigations on export health certificates expire in six months?
Michael Gove
We have been working with supermarkets and other traders to ensure that their supply lines and the provision of all the goods that consumers in Northern Ireland currently enjoy, which I hope in future will be enhanced, can remain. The Trader Support Service is there, alongside other support that we are giving to businesses in Northern Ireland and indeed across the UK, to make sure that a fully integrated part of the UK internal market enjoys the same access to the same goods as the rest of us.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend assure me and all my constituents that, should we strike a trade agreement with the EU, we will not compromise in any way on our fishing waters, our borders and our laws, and, most importantly, that any governance arrangements that may flow from any trade agreement are completely consistent with those of a fully sovereign country?
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I wish we were in a different place, where we did not need the protocol, but I recognise the progress that has been made through the provisional agreement. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster recognise that there is a range of unfinished business in relation to protecting the Northern Ireland economy, including on issues such as: transit from Great Britain via the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland; access to EU free trade agreements, particularly for our agrifood and dairy sectors; data adequacy and the protection of the service sector on an all-Ireland basis?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those points. He is right that there is important work still to be done. As I think he noted, it is the case that the services sector in Northern Ireland is totally exempt from any state aid provisions. However, it is also the case that Northern Ireland has benefited from commercial links with the Irish Republic, as well as its strong position within the UK internal market. More work is required to strengthen Northern Ireland’s formidable competitive position.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The good people of my Workington constituency stand squarely behind my right hon. Friend and Lord Frost in the negotiations. Will he confirm that, with the agreement on the protocol in place, the UK will leave the transition period at the end of this month regardless of whether we reach an agreement with the EU?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whatever happens—and we do hope that we get a free trade agreement—we will leave the customs union and the single market on 31 December.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Secretary of State will be—I hope—aware that many of us will feel very sad that his career will end in failure if we do not get an agreement with the European Union today or very soon. The Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union, of which I am a member, recently listened to leaders from the Northern Ireland business, manufacturing and farming communities saying that they do not think that everything is fully operational. They do not think anything is oven-ready. They think that if anything were in the oven, it would be pretty thin pickings. Will he please, please, at this late stage, make every effort to make sure we get a deal, rather than leave without a deal?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words. We will do everything we possibly can to get a deal, but it cannot be a deal at any price. As for his point about my career ending in failure, my career has, I am afraid, been marked by failure consistently in so many ways. Often in politics I am reminded of the words of Winston Churchill, who said that success means going from failure to failure with undiminished enthusiasm. That is what I hope to do.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and careers advice. I warmly welcome the news of this significant progress, but can he reassure the House that while the Government have said they will withdraw clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, the rest of the Bill will remain in place, so we can ensure that goods can move seamlessly across the UK, benefiting businesses and consumers across all four nations?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is a critical piece of legislation which safeguards the rights of producers and consumers across the UK. The clauses she mentions excited controversy, but I think they were necessary. In any case, that controversy can now pass because they are being withdrawn. I hope the Bill will pass as well.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Government’s “Get Ready for Brexit” campaign looks lovely, but it does not answer the question: get ready for what? Deal? No deal? What deal? Businesses have a pandemic to deal with. Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the combination of Brexit shambles with the absence of proper support for small businesses facing covid-19 measures, and the total exclusion from support of so many businesses, means that the Government are totally letting down small businesses in the north-east and across the country?
Michael Gove
It will probably not surprise the hon. Lady to learn that I do not agree with her. When it comes to Brexit transition, we know that because we are leaving the single market and the customs union, and whether or not we secure a free trade agreement, much of what most businesses need to do is broadly the same, and of course the Government stand ready to help businesses to adjust.
The fate and the future of businesses in the north-east are very dear to me, having lived and worked in Newcastle in the past. It is striking how many of those who work for businesses in the north-east voted Conservative just 12 months ago, which is why Conservative MPs in Blyth Valley, in Bishop Auckland, in Redcar and across the north-east are standing up—[Interruption.] I will mention more constituencies that the Conservatives won if the hon. Lady likes: North West Durham, with Consett, is now a Conservative constituency; Sedgefield, with Spennymoor, is now a Conservative constituency—[Interruption.] Anyway, as the hon. Lady and the House know, the north-east is Tory, and that is because we stand up for workers.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I remind Opposition Members that we all want a deal. There is no one on this side who does not want a deal, but it must be a fair deal and one that respects the UK’s integrity. On that point, my right hon. Friend has said on many occasions that we must leave together. In answering questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), he said—unless I am incorrect—that EU law will apply in Northern Ireland, as will the European Court of Justice. We have gone to all this effort to be free of those structures. Can he say whether I have got it wrong or he has got it wrong—one or the other?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend never gets it wrong, and he is right. It is there in the withdrawal agreement and in the protocol that we accept the acquis in a specific number of areas in Northern Ireland. That is part of the withdrawal agreement, which was signed before the general election, and which many, though not all, Members of this House supported. It was also in the Conservative manifesto. Of course there were understandable concerns that the way in which the protocol applied would mean that we would face tariffs and other restrictions. The agreement that we have concluded means that that will not be the case. The UK will leave and Northern Ireland will be capable of benefiting from trade deals that we do as a result of Brexit; it will also be outside the common agricultural policy and it will benefit from the Australian-style points-based immigration system that applies across the UK.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
While the Minister is telling Northern Ireland that it can have the best of both worlds, he is using the same reasoning to tell Scotland, “Shut up and get back in your box,” all the while claiming that any negative impacts are not Brexit-related. Perhaps he has now become the Government’s very own Bart Simpson, causing chaos in presenting their agenda regardless of cost while claiming, “I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove anything.”
Michael Gove
The Simpsons character I most remembered was Groundskeeper Willie, because he is an Aberdonian. [Interruption.] I am not sure what his position is on independence, but as jannies go, he is certainly one of the best. To the hon. Gentleman’s point, Scotland does have the best of both worlds. It has a devolved Administration in Holyrood and representation by great MPs such as himself here in Westminster.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]
I commend my right hon. Friend for the role he has played and very much welcome this agreement. It is good news that the EU has compromised; its previous position on everything from unlimited checks to export declarations could have choked trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Given that this agreement will add an impetus to the wider trade talks, will he commend the Prime Minister for not making last-minute compromises just to get a trade deal over the line? The Prime Minister has the support of the Conservative party, should he decide to walk away and trade on Australia and Canada terms. After all, a trade deal is for keeps, not just for Christmas.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The point he makes, and the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made earlier, reinforce the fact that the Conservative party is united behind the Prime Minister. It is willing him to get a deal, but it is also ready to accept that if we cannot get the deal we want, we will not accept a deal at any price. That has to be the right way forward.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Some 95% of Cumbrian farm exports are to the single market, so our farmers too need unfettered access to that market. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said at the weekend that British farmers would not find tariffs with the EU to be “manageable”. In addition, in three weeks’ time, deal or no deal, English farmers will see the beginning of huge, uncompensated cuts to their income. We risk the loss of hundreds of family farms in the Lakes, the Dales and elsewhere. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a country that cannot feed itself has no sovereignty?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes several very important points. The first is that we absolutely need to support upland farmers, not just in his beautiful constituency and Cumbria, but across the United Kingdom. It is the case that sustainable livestock farming is the only way in which we can make sure that we have agriculture in the future in upland and grassland areas such as the one that he represents. The second thing is that, yes, there is a prospect of tariffs if we do not secure a free trade agreement, which is why we need to have support systems in place for those. The third point is that the new system of support that we are giving to farmers combines support not just for small farmers, but for the climate change and environmental goals that we both share. It is important that we reform the common agricultural policy in that way, but I look forward to continuing to work with him, because I know that his commitment to rural England and our farmers is resolute.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) [V]
I welcome the principle that exit summary declarations for goods from Northern Ireland to the rest of UK will not be required, but while it is reasonable for EU authorities to supervise the application of the protocol to Northern Ireland, can my right hon. Friend assure me that all processes in UK sovereign territory will be carried out by UK authorities?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is about UK authorities carrying out our procedures in our territory under our laws.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
This was the never-ending story, but it seems a bit like it is turning into a never-ending nightmare for businesses, which have been told not of a settled situation, but that the can is going to be kicked down the road for three to six months. Is it not time to be honest with the British people and say, “This will never end. Negotiations will continue forever,” because this Government are just not capable of securing decent deals that are settled wills with the European Union?
Michael Gove
I absolutely take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it is the case that in the future we will be negotiating new free trade deals, as it happens, with other countries outside the European Union that we could not have negotiated inside the EU. These negotiations are led by my brilliant colleague, the President of the Board of Trade. She has secured deals—for example, with Japan—that are even better than that we had in the EU, so negotiating going on is what Trade Secretaries do, and we are lucky to have the best in the world.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, in which he spoke of the importance of providing clarity for business. Will he confirm that clarity will include ensuring that manufacturers from across the UK will continue to be able to trade freely with a market of 500 million consumers who are on our doorstep?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He has been a consistently strong and coherent voice for manufacturing, not just in his native west midlands, but across the United Kingdom. One of the things that we want to secure is a free trade agreement that ensures that our manufacturing and advanced manufacturing sector can continue to sell into a market on our doorstep.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Emma Lewell-Buck. Not here.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I, too, welcome this package and what it means for business, peace and our Union. Dare I say that news of tariff-free lamb comes close to being glad tidings for the shepherds on the hillsides above Aberconwy this Christmas time. Lest we get lost in that kind of detail, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing in this agreement that compromises the integrity of either our sovereignty or the Union?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This House remains sovereign and it is the case that the territorial and political integrity of the United Kingdom remains robust.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Democratic Unionist party opposed the protocol and warned about all the problems that the Minister is now having to address. We welcome the changes that have been made today. Nevertheless, the real test will be how these measures work on the ground, rather than the spin that we get in this House. As far as EU officials are concerned, is it not a fact that although they will not carry out the searches and investigations, they will be able to direct UK officials on the ground, and, under article 5 of the protocol, UK officials will have to carry out their demands? The Irish Government are now spinning that the six-month period is simply to allow supermarkets in Northern Ireland to source their products from the Irish Republic. Does the Minister believe that we have gained back sovereignty if we are allowing EU officials to direct our officials and other Governments to tell us where we can get our food from?
Michael Gove
As the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly points out, there were a number of very principled opponents of the whole idea of the protocol itself. He and his colleagues in his party laid out some of their concerns in a very cogent fashion. In the end, the House of Commons decided that the protocol, as part of the withdrawal agreement, was the right way to proceed, but, as he quite rightly points out, it was important that a number of difficult questions were addressed. He is also absolutely right that the proof will be in the implementation on the ground.
Let me turn to the two specific areas that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. It is the case that the limited number of EU officials—I think it is probably no more than two dozen at most—who will come into Northern Ireland will be working alongside UK officials. The UK officials will be in the lead there, but we want to provide the EU with assurance. On the matter of where goods are sourced from, I cannot think of any better place for goods in Northern Ireland supermarkets to be sourced from than Northern Ireland itself. Wonderful though produce in the Republic of Ireland is, I do not think it is the case that there is any better producer—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) asks about bananas. I think he is referring, of course, to SNP policy on trade. But when it comes to pork products, there is nothing better than an Ulster fry.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your kindness—and I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office for his kindness—towards my many children, who have been here on many occasions. My nine-year-old, Atticus, said to me when he got sight of the question that I was going to ask today, “But, dad, the answer to that question is so obvious!” I am going to ask it anyway. Despite our desire for a good trade deal with the European Union, does my right hon. Friend agree that we must never again cede control of our borders or coastal waters to a foreign power?
Michael Gove
Well, I knew that my hon. Friend was a great dad, because his son absolutely hits the nail on the head in saying that the answer to that question is obvious. No, we absolutely should not cede that control. Very good question; the answer is clear. Excellent son; brilliant dad.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
The vehicle industry has consistently warned that a no-deal Brexit risks the future of UK plants and skilled, unionised jobs. Without a deal, Luton-made Vauxhall vans could face tariffs of 22%. Coupled with covid, cuts to our council and no support for our aviation industry, for Luton no deal would make this a job-killing Government. With just 22 days to go before the end of the transition period, can the Minister guarantee that there will be no tariffs on vans and cars made in this country?
Michael Gove
The automobile sector is important not just in Luton, where there are so many skilled people producing fantastic products, but across the UK. Of course, if we secure a free trade agreement, it will be a zero-tariffs, zero-quota agreement. If we do not secure that agreement, there will be tariffs, but there will also be tariffs on automobiles coming into the UK, and that will have an impact on industry in the EU.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We are only halfway through the call list. It would be best if I can manage to get everybody who wants to ask a question on this very important subject in to ask such a question.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I see that I have some agreement from the right hon. Gentleman, who is quite far down the list. I must therefore insist on having questions—just short questions—and not great big statements. We all know what has already happened. Let us just have questions for the Minister, so that we can then just have answers from the Minister.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I welcome the agreement and thank my right hon. Friend and his civil service team for getting us to this stage, but may I urge him to spend some time with the Protestant Unionist loyalist community, who have retained concerns about the detail? I suggest that Mikala’s Kitchen on the Shankill Road is the best place for that engagement. Could he also now spend some time with the nationalist community, unaligned voters and passionate supporters of the European Union in Northern Ireland to demonstrate to them that the practical approach that he and the EU have taken on the protocol can now be replicated on issues such as climate change, health, jobs and the future of all people across the island of Ireland?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is more work to do. I always enjoy any opportunity to be in Northern Ireland with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) was an outstanding Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and he makes a series of very important points that I take completely to heart.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Honda has just announced that it has had to pause production because of problems with getting components through ports. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster suggest that failing to get those parts is entirely down to Honda, or do the Government share some of the blame?
Michael Gove
No, I do not think that it is Honda; I think that there is a global problem with container traffic. That point has been well made by those who are leading our major ports.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Is the recent removal of clauses from the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill a sweetener for the European Union or an indicator that early white smoke might be forthcoming on a wider trade deal?
Michael Gove
We made that decision as a Government because we believed that we had satisfied all our aims in the discussions on the protocol. It was a sovereign decision, but I hope that it will help to ensure that we get a free trade agreement.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I welcome the withdrawal of clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, but has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster any plans to carry out an assessment of the impact of the threats to breach a recently signed treaty on the United Kingdom’s international standing and its ability to enter future agreements, given that it is now known across the world that the United Kingdom is prepared to break its word to get its way?
Michael Gove
The hon. and learned Lady will know that since we introduced those clauses into the Bill, we have succeeded in signing any number of trade agreements with other countries. That is because the reputation of the UK continues to stand high.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend has played a blinder, but given that the EU withdrawal means that British Government procurement will no longer be subject to Official Journal of the European Union rules, what concrete steps will he take to ensure that Northern Ireland companies and businesses across Great Britain that wish to procure contracts with Government can do so only if they employ a significant number of apprentices?
Michael Gove
The Chairman of the Select Committee on Education makes a very important point. My noble Friend Lord Agnew will shortly bring forward a paper on procurement reform, which will show exactly how we can achieve the ambition for apprenticeships that my right hon. Friend has so consistently and brilliantly put forward.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
May I follow on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) about the situation with Honda? Given that chaos at ports is already occurring before the end of the transition period—I understand that that is because people are stockpiling because they are so worried about what will happen next year—can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confidently say that the perfect storm of Christmas, Brexit stockpiling, covid restrictions and the new customs regime will not lead to significant disruption come January?
Michael Gove
It is a very fair point that a number of things are coming together this Christmas, and it is helpful that the hon. Lady contextualises the fact that the situation with containers is a result of many factors. We are doing everything we can to ensure that trade continues to flow freely, but as she quite rightly points out, there are a number of factors with which all Governments are having to grapple.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
With clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill now withdrawn, can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that seamless trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK will continue, despite any suggestion from the European Union to interpret the withdrawal agreement in such a way as to prevent our internal market, which has functioned for centuries?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I should stress that there were some in the EU who did have precisely that agenda, but Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič has done a great job of making sure that this is an arrangement that works for everyone. The superb ceramic products made in my hon. Friend’s constituency will continue to flow on to tables in Belfast, Ballymena, Strabane and Derry/Londonderry.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Does the Minister regret the fact that the Government abolished the expert trade advisory groups, which were set up to advise the Government on customs and continuity in trade, and were disbanded in July because some of the members refused to sign non-disclosure agreements? Would it not have made more sense to keep the trade advisory groups going to help to avoid the disruption we have been hearing about at the ports and the delays in essential food and manufacturing parts that are being widely reported today?
Michael Gove
Well, that is all news to me, but maybe the hon. Gentleman has a point—I do not know.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
I commend my right hon. Friend, and also the vice-president, for reaching an amicable and sensible agreement. I also wish the Prime Minister well, and hope that neither of the two diners tonight gets indigestion and that they achieve an acceptable deal for both the EU and, in particular, our own country.
At the end of last month, Jim Harra told the Public Accounts Committee that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is concentrating on seven key IT systems that need to be changed or built from new to enable GB-EU trade to continue and to enable us to comply, particularly, with the Northern Ireland protocol. Will my right hon. Friend update me on those systems? Will they be completed before the end of the transition period?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are a number of systems: the trader support Service, or TSS; the movement assistance scheme, or MAS; the goods vehicle management scheme, or GVMS; and CDS, or the customs declaration service, which is the new replacement for CHIEF—customs handling of import and export freight—in HMRC. That is quite a lot of acronyms. A lot of work has gone into making sure that we will be ready. Some of it is close to the wire, but I am confident that everything will be in place.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
From 1 January onwards, if he was a business owner primarily exporting to the UK, would the right hon. Gentleman prefer to be located in Northern Ireland or Wales?
Michael Gove
That is the most difficult question I have ever faced in this House, because I love Northern Ireland and I love Wales as well, and there are all sorts of advantages to being located in either jurisdiction. I suspect that my choice would be made even more difficult if I had to choose between, say, Carmarthenshire and North Antrim—two uniquely beautiful parts of the United Kingdom. It is Sophie’s choice, in business terms, because wherever you are located in the United Kingdom, you benefit from having a strong Government determined to ensure that this country can take advantage of global opportunities.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Will the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice continue to prevail in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol, and if that is the case, how is that state of affairs compatible with the restoration of United Kingdom sovereignty?
Michael Gove
In the withdrawal agreement that we concluded before the last election and which this House voted on—not every Member, of course, supported it, but a majority did—we made it clear that within the Northern Ireland protocol there would be a limited portion of the acquis relating to goods in the single market that would apply in Northern Ireland. It was the aim of this House and the aim of this Government to ensure that we could reach a satisfactory arrangement on the protocol in line with the principles that we laid out in the Command Paper, and that is what we have done. That upholds the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and the ability of every citizen of the UK to benefit from all the opportunities that Brexit provides.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Will the Minister comment on the UK Government’s commitment to the Peace Plus programme, which, as he will know, has played such an important role in underpinning peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland?
Michael Gove
We are totally committed, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be saying more about that in the coming days.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that in tonight’s negotiations, and in the ongoing negotiations with the EU, the Prime Minister and his team will remember just how important securing a deal will be to Cumbrian farmers, and indeed farmers across the four nations?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. For Cumbrian farmers, and also for manufacturers in Barrow, we will be doing everything possible to get the best possible set of arrangements.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The temporary food waiver for trusted traders is very much to be welcomed and my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on securing it, but may I press him a little on the detail of what will then follow, because businesses need certainty? What he has had to say will of course be welcome to the big supermarkets, but smaller operators, small shops and street traders, on whom the great Ulster fry depends so much, will still be left in a level of uncertainty, particularly if they are not signed up to the trusted trader scheme. Will he say to what extent the trusted trader scheme will extend to small operators of that sort?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend, who was an outstanding Northern Ireland Minister, is absolutely right. Once the Joint Committee concludes, we will go into more detail on exactly how we can safeguard the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises as well. We will notify the Commission of those businesses that need to take advantage of the grace period that we have got.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
RTÉ reports on the derogation for sausages, chilled meats and unfrozen prepared meals and notes that
“once a derogation period has elapsed, Northern supermarkets will have to source such products locally or from the South.”
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is acceptable to him to disadvantage Scotland and our food exporters in such a way? Is it not just another example of why Scotland would be better off as an independent nation state within the EU?
Michael Gove
If Scotland were an independent nation state, it would face trade barriers at Berwick and Cairnryan. By leaving the European Union, Scotland would be—[Interruption.] I am just pointing out the inevitable consequences of the course on which the hon. Lady has set her heart, which would make sure that if Scotland became independent, it would face tariff and regulatory barriers to access its biggest market, which is the rest of the UK. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady asks why; that is the inevitable consequence of independence, alongside the abandonment of the pound sterling and re-entry into the common fisheries policy. It is a terrible course to go on. Because I admire the hon. Lady so much, I hope she will recognise that the future of her Glasgow constituents is better secured by staying in the United Kingdom than by going down the perilous path to separation that the SNP have argued for, like a pied piper, for many decades.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I welcome the pragmatic approach that has been taken in reaching this agreement, which respects the UK’s sovereignty and independence as we leave the EU while recognising the need for the EU to protect its single market. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that same pragmatism now needs to be applied to a trade deal, while respecting those same principles? Will he join me in wishing the Prime Minister well at his dinner tonight?
Michael Gove
I absolutely do, and I also hope that on the EU side we see something of the same pragmatism that we have seen on this particular issue.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
If there is no data adequacy agreement by the end of this month, what is the right hon. Gentleman’s current estimate of the legal and admin cost to businesses of putting in place the new contractual clauses they will have to introduce in order to continue to exchange data with their European partners?
Michael Gove
That is a very important question. I do not have an exact estimate of what the cost of the standard contractual clauses would be, but because we are currently compliant with the general data protection regulation, I see no reason why data adequacy should not be granted.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and congratulate him on his hard work in achieving this agreement. Will he confirm that this is a pragmatic and sensible approach to protect Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory?
Michael Gove
Absolutely—my right hon. Friend has been a consistent champion for business and enterprise in all his years in this House, and he is absolutely right. This pragmatic approach works for businesses in his constituency and in Northern Ireland.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman correct his claim on this morning’s “Today” programme that, in the event of no deal, we will continue to benefit from free healthcare if we visit the rest of Europe after 1 January and our students will continue to benefit from the Erasmus programmes?
Michael Gove
It is the case that students who are currently engaged on Erasmus programmes will continue to be part of them until the end of that academic course. It is also the case that UK citizens who have been living in EU countries are covered by the withdrawal agreement rights that we all voted on—I think the right hon. Gentleman voted against, but nevertheless we protected their rights.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for suggesting the lucrative opportunity of exporting conflict diamonds, but just how burdensome will the additional paperwork of which he spoke be?
Michael Gove
Given that there is very little trade that I am aware of in conflict diamonds from Northern Ireland to Great Britain—if anything, it is an even smaller trade than, for example, endangered species products such as tiger skins—I suspect that the bureaucratic burden will be so small as to be almost naked—sorry, I mean invisible to the naked eye. [Laughter.]
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The mind boggles.
I am all for pragmatism, because that is the best way to sort out a deal that works for Welsh lamb farmers and, for that matter, British car manufacturers and all the rest of it, but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about the foreign policy element. On a pragmatic basis, we have always done rather well out of persuading other countries in Europe to adopt, for instance, sanctions against Putin, and we have tried to get people on board with our policy on Hong Kong. How will we be able to do that in future if we have poisoned the well by not having any long-lasting trade deal at the end of the week?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Obviously it would be in our interests to secure a deal, but not at any price. He has been a consistent champion of a tougher approach towards Russia and an advocate of the Magnitsky sanctions. The Foreign Secretary also was a consistent champion for that. We adopted those sanctions, and the EU followed. That is no criticism of the EU, but it is the case that we can continue to have influence. Obviously, if we have a satisfactory arrangement with the EU, that would work for everyone.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that today’s welcome announcement is the perfect combination of principle and pragmatism—an approach to the negotiations that our businessmen take every day, which will serve them well as we embrace the future, and that only the Opposition seem to find exceptional?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend has had a brilliant business career, and he is absolutely right: we need to negotiate toughly and be prepared to be flexible in certain circumstances but know ultimately what we want. As we heard from the Leader of the Opposition earlier, I am afraid that when it comes to Brexit, we still do not know what Labour wants.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
If Brexit is shaping up to be such a success, why is it that four and a half years after the referendum, no other European country is seeking to follow the UK out the door? Why are they not looking at these deals being negotiated with envy and thinking that they want a piece of the action? In fact, what is happening is that countries such as Scotland are looking at the European Union and deciding that that is where they want their future to be. It is the United Kingdom that is being left isolated.
Michael Gove
What a remarkable rewriting of history. Just yesterday I was watching CNN, and I saw an amazing 91-year-old gentleman called Martin Kenyon—one of the first people in the world to be vaccinated, and he was vaccinated here in the United Kingdom. It is because of the United Kingdom’s superb regulatory work, our vaccine taskforce, our NHS and our Health Secretary that the first people in the world to be vaccinated were here in the United Kingdom. There are vaccines in Scotland thanks to the UK. The rest of the world is looking on in admiration at our British NHS. On today of all days, it would be nice—and, to be fair, lots of Scottish nationalist Ministers have made this point—to acknowledge that the UK Government have been working in the interests of everyone, and people have been looking at Britain and saying, “That’s great.”
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I commanded on and off a hard checkpoint on the A5 between South Tyrone and County Monaghan for up to two years, where we had chicanes, sangars and obstacles. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, on 1 January, there will be no sign of that hard checkpoint left?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend, like so many who served with distinction in Northern Ireland, contributed to ending terrorism. Those were hard-won gains, and there will certainly be no return to physical infrastructure of the kind that he had to negotiate when he so bravely served his country.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an indication of when we will finish negotiating and debating Brexit, given that 10 months on from getting Brexit done, we are still debating the same issues, and he said in his statement that further details will be worked through in the month ahead?
Michael Gove
Far be it from me to prevent Liberal Democrats talking about whatever they wish to talk about. As I recall, the first person in this House to argue for an in/out referendum was the former right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam and Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, and people in the Liberal Democrats are still calling for referendums. I am a traditionalist; I love the fact that the Liberal Democrats are consistent in their determination to ensure that, however many referendums we have, we must have more. I am sure that Gladstone, Grey, Harcourt and Chamberlain would all salute the determination of the Liberal Democrats to stay true to their tradition and, when everyone else has settled the question, to say, “Let’s reopen it.”
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this agreement. It is absolutely right that it must be only the UK authorities that perform any checks. When it comes to the EU authorities supervising or observing, will he confirm that they will be paying for that and that they do not expect UK taxpayers to pick up the bill for their presence?
Michael Gove
It is absolutely the case that the EU will be paying for it. I hope that while people from the EU’s agencies are in Northern Ireland, they will take advantage of Northern Ireland’s wonderful hospitality as well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Democratic Unionist party has remained consistent that there must be no border down the Irish sea. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster give me an assurance that in 2021, the year we mark the centenary of the Union, the good people of Strangford will have no impediment placed on them by Brussels to buying foodstuffs from fellow British citizens in England, Scotland and Wales?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. The citizens of the beautiful Ards peninsula will continue to enjoy the rights that we uphold as shared UK citizens.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
My constituents will be joyed by the changes to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, as my right hon. Friend knows. The Joint Committee has clearly done its job and shown that rumours of compromise’s demise are greatly over- stated. The British Government have moved and shown much seasonal goodwill, but does he agrees that this announcement truly works for us all only if it is followed imminently by good news on the wider EU-UK trade deal?
Michael Gove
The deal works in its own right. It shows the virtue of principle and pragmatism allied. If we do secure a free trade agreement, that would be an additional helpful bonus.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend on arriving at the position that he has. The Good Friday agreement is protected, the Union has been secured and, more importantly, the rule of law has been upheld. I seek his assurance that, during the grace period, he and his ministerial colleagues will provide strong and active support to businesses of all sizes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure that they are able to meet the challenges of the new regime successfully.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely critical point. I thank him and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which he chairs, for the rigorous scrutiny that they have applied throughout this process, which has ensured that the Government have been kept up to the mark. He is right that concluding the agreement is just one step. We need to continue to support businesses in Northern Ireland, large and small, as they face the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now suspend the House for three minutes to allow Members to leave safely and compliantly, and to allow other Members to come in.
UN Mission in Mali: Armed Forces Deployment
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement to update the House on UK support for the UN stabilisation mission in Mali, which supports the peace process, helping to counter the spread of instability in the Sahel.
This month, 300 United Kingdom troops led by the Light Dragoons battlegroup will complete their deployment into the United Nations mission in Mali, known as MINUSMA. Over recent years, Mali has become one of the most unstable countries on the African continent. Terrorist aggression and conflict between communities have been on the rise and the United Nations Multi- dimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali is mandated to support the Malian people in their effort to secure sustainable peace, to support the re-establishment of state authority, to protect civilians and to promote and protect human rights in Mali.
By 22 December, the majority of our 300 UK armed forces personnel will have deployed to MINUSMA and completed quarantine. Our contingent consists of 250 troops from the Light Dragoons, the Royal Anglian Regiment and other attached personnel, and a further 50 forming a national support element. They will soon begin operations in Mali, joining some 60 other nations contributing to the UN mission.
The UK has committed to a three-year deployment to MINUSMA, with a review to be held at the 18-month point. UK personnel will deploy on six-month operational tours. Accordingly, the first deployment, led by the Light Dragoons, will be replaced by a second contingent, led by the Royal Anglian Regiment, in the summer of 2021. This Government take their responsibility as a permanent member of the UN Security Council seriously. Our deployment to MINUSMA reflects our continued commitment to, and growing leadership in, multilateralism and international peace and security. Our nation has a proud peacekeeping track record, as we demonstrate global Britain in practice. This deployment builds on a successful multi-year commitment to the UN mission in South Sudan, where UK peacekeepers were responsible for building hospitals, bridges and roads.
In the Sahel region, more than 15 million people need humanitarian assistance. Some 11 million are food insecure and more than 3 million are displaced because of the conflict. As with many conflicts around the world, women and girls in Mali are disproportionately affected by the continuing instability. The Sahel is the worst region on earth to be an adolescent girl seeking 12 years of quality education, as it accounts for an astonishing 7% of the world’s population of primary age girls who are out of school. By 2030, almost one in five women aged 20 to 39 in the continent of Africa who have no education will be living in the Sahel.
Mali is at the forefront of countries in the Sahel affected by instability. Terrorism and conflict are sharply on the rise. Mali has already registered more deaths due to violence this year than any previous year in the past decade. This violence is costing lives, hindering development across one of the world’s poorest countries and spreading instability to the wider region.
International action is the right thing to do from a humanitarian perspective, but history shows us that international efforts to restore law, order and security are also the best way to prevent unstable regions from becoming safe havens for terrorist groups. It is in the UK’s interests to act.
Terrorist violence and conflict have risen sharply over recent years, and the permissive environment provided by the current instability in Mali and the wider region creates the space for developing threats. That harms UK interests and also those of our allies and partners, especially France and others in Europe. It is in all our interests that we work together to protect civilians and help build a safer, healthier and more prosperous future for the region.
Our contribution will provide critical capabilities to the UN mission at a vital time. We can have genuine impact on the mission’s overall approach. To help reduce the spread of conflict and insecurity contributes to the protection of civilians and supports Mali’s pathway to sustainable peace. This deployment is a vital part of our work in the Sahel to build stability, bolster conflict resolution, improve the humanitarian response and strengthen partnerships between the international community and regional governments in responding to the crisis.
We will be joining a UN mission led by a civilian special representative of the UN Secretary-General and an international peacekeeping force of over 60 nations, led by the Swedish UN mission force commander Lieutenant General Dennis Gyllensporre. It is a truly global collaboration, with contributions from our western allies, including Germany and France, and African nations contributing large contingents to support their regional stability.
The initial objective of the first rotation of troops will be to understand the operating environment so that they are best placed to support the UN mission going forward. The UK taskforce will be under command of the Light Dragoons’ commanding officer. Armed with cutting-edge technology, our troops will provide a specialist reconnaissance capability, which aims to improve the mission’s overall performance, particularly in protecting civilians. Our contingent will offer crucial support to the mission to better understand threats and to shape the mission’s response, enabling intelligence-led operations across the mission’s mandate.
Our MINUSMA deployment complements existing commitments we have in the region, including helicopter support to Operation Barkhane, the French-led counter-terrorism initiative in the Sahel region. Although the two missions are complementary, they are distinct in their objectives and tactics. Our experience in Mali will also help to develop our world-class training for peacekeepers that we provide each year in Africa. Our aim is that the response to more security challenges in Africa will be African-led, and we are mentoring and training others on the continent to help us achieve that goal.
The UK believes in peacekeeping as a way to stabilise and contain conflict. Our contribution to MINUSMA, alongside our enduring commitments to the UN peace- keeping operations in Cyprus and Somalia and the staff officers we have deployed to six other UN missions, is the UK playing its part in a multinational effort to contain the worst consequences of violent conflict and to help build confidence in the political process under way supporting longer-term peace and reconciliation.
UN peacekeeping operations are currently protecting more than 125 million of the world’s most vulnerable people across 13 different missions, consisting of more than 98,000 troops, police and civilians. Combined, they provide a critical tool in containing and reducing conflict in the world’s most fragile environments.
To function effectively, UN peacekeeping relies on contributions from its members, especially more experienced militaries such as the UK’s. Our deployment is a highly capable contingent able to support stronger mission performance and longer-term reform. The UK’s military contribution to UN peacekeeping in Mali is a clear illustration of how our defence and security capabilities can contribute to the UK’s role as a force for good in the world, working hand in hand to support the Government’s development and diplomatic agenda.
It is important to stress that deploying to MINUSMA does not come without risk. However, our forces are world-class and we have provided them with the right training, equipment and preparation to succeed in a complex operating environment. We have taken steps to mitigate the risks, and I am confident that our troops will make the UK proud by having a strong impact on the ground in Mali. They will bolster our standing in the United Nations and will help us in our endeavours to make the UN and its peacekeeping missions as effective as possible.
As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, we are fully committed to supporting the UN’s peacekeeping missions around the world and to encouraging them to be as effective as possible. Our MINUSMA deployment is a key part of that commitment and, as the Prime Minister recently noted, our uplift in defence spending should allow the UK to shape international security and provide a stronger contribution to global Britain.
Finally, may I thank all those serving in Mali and around the world this Christmas for their service to our nation and extend that gratitude to their families, friends and loved ones who will be celebrating Christmas in their absence? I know everyone in all parts of the House will want to wish all our service personnel serving over Christmas a safe tour and as merry a Christmas as they can manage.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. It was good to have the written statement last Thursday, as troops began to arrive in Mali; it is better still to have his oral statement today, with the Minister ready to answer the range of questions that arise from this new deployment.
Let me say at the outset, as I said to the House on Monday, that Labour strongly supports this commitment of UK troops to the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali, and we do so with our eyes wide open to the risks they face. The public expect Ministers to be open about this too, so I hope the Minister will undertake to give regular reports on progress to Parliament during this deployment.
The Minister rightly said today that deploying “to MINUSMA does not come without risk.” The UN has described this as its most dangerous mission, with 227 personnel killed since 2013, so what assessment has he made of these risks and what specific steps have been taken to reduce them? Last week the French base in Mali at Gao was attacked; where will our troops be stationed and how secure will the British base be?
The Defence Secretary has told us:
“This deployment reflects our continued commitment to multilateralism and international peace and security”.—[Official Report, 3 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 14W.]
As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Britain does have this special responsibility, which we in Labour also take seriously; too often, however, there has been a view that, somehow, peacekeeping is beneath Britain, so I hope to see confirmation in the integrated review that this has changed as part of the Government’s plans for a post-Brexit global Britain.
Certainly, as with Mali, where Britain has special military skills we should step up, and the Light Dragoons and the Royal Anglian Regiment are filling a capability gap in Mali as long-range reconnaissance specialists. Since the Government first announced the intention to deploy these troops in July 2019, however, Mali has become more complex, less stable, more violent. This deployment is rightly limited; what measures must be met for the Government to judge it a success, are there circumstances in which the Government would widen the scope or increase the size of this UK military mission, and could troops in this UN deployment also serve in the distinct and complementary French-led Barkhane mission?
The Government have said that
“it is stepping up its engagement in the Sahel across the development, diplomacy and defence pillars”.
The Minister says that there is, rightly, very significant development interest in Mali, with 6.8 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. There are also significant security concerns, with drugs cartels, arms traffickers, and al-Qaeda and Islamic State terror groups all active in the region. When co-ordinated action and help are clearly needed, the deep cuts made in the spending review to the conflict, stability and security fund could not have come at a worse time for the Sahel. Will the costs of this Mali deployment be met from that fund? How much in development aid is planned for Mali and the other Sahel countries over the three-year period of this military deployment, and how are Britain’s development, diplomatic and defence activities being co-ordinated within Government?
Finally, Britain’s responsibilities as a leading UN member are being met with this Mali mission, alongside our continuing commitment to peacekeeping operations in eight other countries around the world. I pay tribute to our armed forces personnel who serve in these missions. They will, as the Minister says, continue to make the UK proud.
James Heappey
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his positive response to the statement. As we were saying in the Remembrance Day debate a few weeks ago, as people deploy on missions such as this it matters enormously to see support on both sides of the House for what they are going out to do. He rightly asked some questions that I will do my best to answer, starting with, of course, an intent to regularly update the House either verbally—although that met with no support from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—or otherwise on the progress of the mission and the threat as it evolves.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to pick up on the line in my statement that says that this mission is not without risk. This is a dangerous part of the world in which to be operating. It is because it is such a dangerous part of the world that the case for being there as part of a peacekeeping force is so easily made. We should be clear that, despite all the training, all the equipment and all the mitigations that we will put in place—I will explain some of those in a second—our troops are accepting a risk to life and limb in serving in the Sahel, and we thank them for that. We genuinely believe that it is in the interests of the UK and the people of Mali that we contribute to that mission.
We have recognised that in previous deployments perhaps there has been a gung-ho willingness to expand the mission quickly and get on with things without fully understanding the realities of the threat on the ground and how that manifests itself in relation to military operations. In this first rotation—the first six months—we will be expecting the Light Dragoons battle group to deploy and to find its way in the immediate vicinity of Gao, the city in which the UN camp where they will be based is. If, over time, we come to understand that they can operate at range, we will consider that on its merits, depending on the mission design from the UN force commander. Our intention is to find our way slowly, to build our confidence and our understanding, and then to grow the mission, within the confines of MINUSMA. It is important to stress that there is no UK agency in being able just to decide what we do; we are under the command of the UN force commander.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the camp. It is a brand-new camp, and it is indeed in the UN super-camp at Gao. That camp is protected by a German early warning system called MANTIS—the modular, automatic and network capable targeting and interception system—which picks up the IDF, or indirect fire attack, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his reply. That allows people in the camp to take cover and adopt all of their drills when there is incoming indirect fire. Sadly, as a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, I know that that is just the reality of being in camps in those places, but these early warning systems give people great confidence that they can find cover before the rounds start landing.
This is, indeed, a complex mission. The UN’s mission is made all the more challenging as a consequence of the changing political tides in Mali—there was a coup only four months ago—and that means that the military mission, as designed by the UN force commander, and the political mission have some work to do to evolve and to react to those new political realities in Mali, hence our caution over the speed at which we unleashed the Light Dragoons on their mission. We want to see how things develop, and we will update the right hon. Gentleman and colleagues as that happens.
There is no scope to widen the size of our force; we are limited by what the UN requires of us. There is also no scope for us to decide unilaterally, as the United Kingdom, that we want to do more; we are within the UN’s mission. MINUSMA and Operation Barkhane are entirely separate; there is no opportunity to flex one from the other, as to do so would be to break the rules on UN peacekeeping contingents. In any case, the missions are so different; Barkhane is a more offensive, counter-terrorism operation, chasing both JNIM—Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin—and Islamic State in the Greater Sahara around not only Mali, but Burkina Faso and Niger. MINUSMA is a Mali-only peacekeeping operation led by the UN.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about funding. We are talking about £80 million over three years, which is indeed funded by the conflict, stability and security fund. It will matter enormously to people deploying on this operation to see the tone of these exchanges. Our intention is to keep the House informed as best as we can. This is a dangerous mission, but our people are well-trained and well-equipped. They are ready and they are up for it, and I wish them a good tour.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I join the Opposition and our Front-Bench team in wishing our forces well and a very safe tour. The Minister speaks about wanting to increase our profile in the Sahel. The west has been without resolve in that area; this has been a hidden conflict. I am pleased that we want to close down this permissive environment, which he spoke about, of extremism, criminality, human trafficking and regional conflict spilling out beyond the Sahel. However, I hope that that commitment is matched by a greater western resolve to tackle the underlying causes of those issues, because we will not solve the challenges there through military means alone.
I must tell the Minister—I am pleased that the Defence Secretary is in his place— that I am sorry to learn that as we have in the Sahel taken a step forward with greater resolve, here we are taking a retrograde step with talk of reductions to our reserve forces and to their training. They are the very people who are the in-fill to the regular forces that go out to these places; I have not been on an operational overseas tour where I did not have reservists under my command as well. I say to the Minister that I hope that as we step forward with greater resolve on the international stage we will think more carefully about these cuts to our reserves.
James Heappey
I am delighted to say that there are a number of reservists within the deployment to Mali. Their skillset is well valued and they will do a great job. The Secretary of State and other Ministry of Defence Ministers have, like me, all served alongside our fantastic reservists in various theatres over the course of our military service. Their value is undeniable and they are an integral part of the force. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) is right to say that to some degree this is a hidden conflict, although with the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq we now have the largest western troop deployment on earth in the Sahel. However, it is incomplete, no matter what the size of the force, unless a political and diplomatic effort goes around that response. He is right to encourage, not just here in our diplomatic and aid effort, but within the UN and across all the troop-contributing nations, the political effort to match the military one.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. It is important that the House is kept fully informed on issues such as this. The Scottish National party firmly supports the deployment of UK personnel in supporting the UN mission in Mali. It is important that the UK continues to promote global justice and peace. I support the Minister from a humanitarian perspective and echo his point that international efforts to support law, order and security are also the best way to prevent unstable regions from becoming safe havens for terrorist groups. Many areas of concern in Mali need to be addressed by this international action, including food security, health and child protection. This conflict has led to displacement and death, and most disturbing are the UN reports that rape is being used as a weapon of war, with both women and young girls the target of these attacks. It is therefore conspicuous that while the UK is sending personnel to the area, which of course is most welcome, it is also cutting aid by 30%. These two issues cannot be considered separate when we are looking at the humanitarian response.
The Minister stated that the UK troops will support the Government’s development and diplomatic agenda
“as a force for good in the world”.
Will he explain how the cuts to aid described could impact the UN mission in Mali? Will he detail whether any civilian support has been cut on the ground, including to those working with victims of sexual violence? Given the increase in terrorist activity and instability in the region, what safeguards are being considered for the personnel who are being deployed? At what point will our troops be withdrawn, and what are the success criteria for that to happen?
Finally, I would like to pay tribute, on behalf of those on the SNP Benches, to all those serving in such missions, especially all those personnel who will be away from their loved ones over the Christmas period.
James Heappey
On the official development assistance point, rather a lot of MOD activity, which has huge humanitarian advantage, was not counted under the ODA definition. We are rather proud of the amount that we do that does not make it into the accounting against that budget.
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the importance of human security as part of this mission. I had the pleasure the other week of doing a roundtable with the Countess of Wessex and the vice-chief of the defence staff, using Mali as a case study for exactly how the UK should lead in human security, and the role of the MOD and our armed forces in that leadership. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that within the deployment to MINUSMA are specialist human security officers, who will add immeasurably to the emotional intelligence of the deployment and a recognition of the needs of women and other minorities in the community, so that human security can be integral to the UK’s effort within MINUSMA.
The hon. Lady asks about the term of the mission and the success criteria. This is very different from Iraq and Afghanistan, where the circumstances for our withdrawal were principally around political intent in London. We have signed up for a three-year commitment to the UN MINUSMA mission. We have said that we will review that commitment after 18 months to check that we still think it is the right contribution for us to be making. It is a time-limited commitment to the UN and we leave at the end of it, just as we did very successfully from South Sudan earlier in the year.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
By way of a declaration, I am a reservist. I welcome the Minister’s statement. Terrorists and insurgents are exploiting open borders in this region to smuggle weapons, arms and drugs. Do the British Government support the French initiative to increase regional co-ordination through the G5 joint force to deploy 5,000 personnel from five neighbouring states? With France’s key role in intelligence in the Sahel region, what does the Minister make of the point made by some that France should be included in the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing system?
James Heappey
My hon. Friend’s last point may require a statement entirely in its own right. France is clearly an important partner in the international activity in the Sahel. It is really important, however, to note that the French-led Barkhane mission is entirely separate from MINUSMA. The Secretary of State and I both participate in conferences with other NATO Defence Ministers and Defence Ministers from across the Sahel, so we are aware of and support what France is doing to generate more mass to its Barkhane mission, but it is really important to note that that is separate from what we are doing with MINUSMA.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for providing such a comprehensive statement this afternoon, so soon on the back of last week’s written ministerial statement. That is deeply welcome, and I want to place on the record our support for our service personnel as they deploy. The Minister will know through correspondence from the Defence Committee and media reports that there are some concerns about the availability of the appropriate equipment for the circumstances, so may I ask him to place it on the record publicly this afternoon that those who are prepared to put themselves in harm’s way will have adequate and appropriate protection for the situation in which they will find themselves?
James Heappey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The environment in Mali requires a balance between ballistic protection against the threat of improvised explosive devices, and an environmental challenge where heavy rain and mud can easily lead to heavy vehicles getting bogged in. It is our assessment that Foxhound, Ridgeback, Coyote and Jackal—all of which were purchased for the Afghanistan deployment, have proved themselves against a far more severe IED threat than the one in Mali, and have been upgraded in the decades since—achieve that balance between the ballistic protection required against an IED threat such as this and the environmental challenge of such weather as is likely to be experienced in Mali.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
This is the latest in a long line of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions undertaken by our armed forces with the support of this Conservative Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that, thanks to this Government’s support of our armed forces, in words and in actions, they have been able to deliver an immeasurable impact on the lives of those most in need of security and stability across the world?
James Heappey
Yes, I do. This is in addition to Defence’s contribution to the life of the United Kingdom this year, of which we are very proud. Within the next week or two, our armed forces will be actively involved in peacekeeping operations in Mali, in addition to all that Defence is doing at home in response to covid, in addition to all that the Royal Navy is doing to protect the UK’s interests around the world, and what we are doing in Afghanistan, and what we are doing in Iraq, and, and, and, and, and. Our armed forces are a fantastic example of the very best of British and we in this Government are delighted to be supporting them in their endeavours.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
May I too pay tribute to the troops involved in this deployment and others globally at this time? Reports from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that 230 children were recruited by armed groups in Mali in the first half of 2020 alone, compared with 215 cases in the whole of 2019, are deeply concerning. What steps are the Government taking with international partners to help to protect vulnerable children who have been taken advantage of in this way and to ensure the sustainability that the Minister referred to in his statement?
James Heappey
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. The recruitment of children to the conflict is something we abhor. I refer her to the answer that I gave to the SNP spokesman on our enthusiasm for growing our human security capability. Those human security officers are within the force to deliver exactly this sort of thing—to recognise the needs of women, protect vulnerable children and ensure that the needs of the whole community are considered as we go through peacekeeping missions such as this.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I too welcome the statement. At heart, all UK Defence operations are focused on building stability and security worldwide, from which all nations and people are able to benefit. Can my hon. Friend assure me and the House that, thanks to the record spending review, we will be able to continue to contribute to global safety and prosperity in the years to come?
James Heappey
I can, and what we aim to do, through a more forward presence of our armed forces around the world, is find ourselves in a position whereby we can more easily respond to the needs of different regions where there are UK interests or where the UK simply needs to be a force for good, alongside friends and allies in the international community. This integrated review gets after exactly the problem my hon. Friend describes, and we are excited about what the opportunities in the IR mean for us to do the right thing in different parts of the world in future.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Mali is one of the world’s poorest countries, but it seems to be the vast network of small gold mines that is attracting jihadist and other terrorist organisations there. What can be done as part of this international effort to try to get those gold mines put to use in getting the country out of poverty, rather than funding terrorism?
James Heappey
If I am honest, the hon. Gentleman raises a point that I have not come across in all the briefings I had before the deployment. I will of course look into that dimension, but I am not sure that those terrorist groups are motivated simply by any pecuniary advantage arising from securing the mines that he mentions. These people are ideologically opposed to any sort of religious freedom or social freedom, and I fear that their determination to disrupt and to be violent would endure irrespective of what natural assets lay beneath the earth, but I will of course go and inform myself on that point.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The Minister says that this force of 300 will form a specialist reconnaissance capability. To do that, the troops will have to speak to the local people. Some 5% to 10% of the local people speak the official language, which is French, and the rest do not. When I took 900 soldiers to Bosnia, I required 20 interpreters—minimum. I suspect we will need at least seven for this force. May I ask my hon. Friend whether there is an ability to recruit interpreters locally, and whether interpreters in both French and local languages—there are quite a few of them—have been thought about? I am sure the answer is yes.
James Heappey
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right: interpreters are an essential part of any population-centric military mission. There are French-speaking personnel within the force itself and we will be recruiting local interpreters to join the force. Crucially, they will not just be male interpreters who stand on the shoulder of the male platoon commander but female interpreters who work alongside human security officers, so that we are able to engage with all parts of the community in the course of our mission.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
We all send our best wishes to our troops on this mission. The Sahel is a complicated place. It has a lot of long-term problems in terms of both security and long-term development and governance. I appreciate that the Minister says this is a three-year deployment, but is he confident that the UN has criteria and definitions of success in which we can be confident, and an exit strategy for the mission?
James Heappey
The Algeria accords still set the conditions for the both the political and military response of the United Nations. I do not think anybody involved in the UN political mission in Bamako would dispute that the coup and political instability in Mali over a number of years have made the political mission very challenging, but that does not affect, necessarily, the duration of this military commitment. The way that UN peacekeeping missions work is that you sign up to do your turn, and we have done so. That notwithstanding, we of course want to see greater success from the political mission and an enduring political stability in Bamako, so that the UN mission can succeed.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is not, of course, for MPs to dig into the tactical weeds of military deployments, but given the vast lines of communication in Mali can the Minister please assure the House that British forces will be operating with sufficient mass, force protection and an effective reserve to deal with a potent insurgency?
James Heappey
There speaketh a voice of great experience. My hon. Friend’s caution is well noted. He will be reassured to know that, as I said in my statement, we will start with the first rotation focusing on understanding the ground immediately around Gao. As we develop that understanding, grow in confidence and develop our in-country ability to support ourselves at greater range, then we will expand the mission as the UN mission commander requires.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I very much welcome this deployment, as I think everyone here does. In the ’90s, Britain was one of the largest troop-deploying nations for UN peacekeeping forces and now we are not. This is 5% or thereabouts of what Bangladesh, the largest troop-deploying nation and one of the poorest countries in the world, contributes. While the money the Government have agreed to invest in our armed forces is welcome, it does not include an increase in personnel and it does not include an increase in reservists—in fact, the opposite. Will the Minister look at changing some of that, and will he consider the fact that troops might help to stop violence but they do not bring peace? Development does, so what are the Government doing to make sure development money pours into this country so that our troops can leave it stable?
James Heappey
On the last point first, I do not think that anybody in uniform within the Ministry of Defence or even MOD Ministers would pretend that a military solution uniquely is the answer to any of the world’s problems. Of course, the military sets the conditions within which prosperity and a political process can succeed. The hon. Gentleman also makes the excellent point that the campaigns of the past few years in the Balkans, Iran and Afghanistan have consumed UK military effort to the detriment of our contribution to peacekeeping missions. One of the great opportunities afforded by the end of major combat deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan is that we now have the mass available to support very worthwhile missions like this one in Mali.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) [V]
In order to ensure that this peacekeeping mission does not become permanent, may I ask my hon. Friend what steps he is taking in conjunction with our partners in the UN to support the Government and armed forces in Mali with investment, equipment and training so that they can tackle the jihadist threat in the longer term?
James Heappey
It is not part of the UN MINUSMA explicitly to be developing the capability of the Malian armed forces, but that clearly has to be a part of delivering a lasting peace in Mali, and the political mission does, of course, have within it security sector reform. I have said that our exit from Mali is time-limited, based on the three-year commitment, but what we hope to do as part of the MOD’s wider effort in west Africa is to develop during that time the capability of other west African states, so that they are better able to replace us in three years’ time as the troop-contributing nations in Mali. We think that that is the right way both to deliver success within the mission itself and to ensure that the mission continues to succeed in our absence, after we have gone.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
I would like to extend my wishes for a successful deployment to everyone involved in what is seen as the UN’s most dangerous peacekeeping mission. According to the UN, about 12.9 million people are affected by the crisis in Mali, with 6.8 million in need of humanitarian assistance. Does the Minister agree that the situation highlights a strategic weakness inherent in the UK’s cutting international aid budgets?
James Heappey
No, I am not sure that I do. I think it highlights the success of being a part of a successful UN mission that is resourced in terms of its ability to make political progress, and that it is adequately resourced to make military progress. I am confident that the military part of MINUSMA is well resourced, and the UK will play an important part within it. As I said in response to a number of hon. Members’ questions about the political mission, we just need the politics in Mali to stabilise so that the UN political mission can gain traction too.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is absolutely right that the UK should play its part in this, but MINUSMA is the most costly of the UN’s peacekeeping missions, it is the most dangerous, and it is arguably one of the least successful. Furthermore, Mali can hardly be said to be a country of primary interest to the United Kingdom. Can the Minister assure me that our involvement will be largely technical and logistical in nature, that it will be modest, rather like our engagement with Operation Barkhane, and that we will not be subject to mission creep?
James Heappey
I can reassure my right hon. Friend that there will be no mission creep. This is a UN mission and our role is confined to that. I cannot, however, tell him that it is limited to logistical and technical involvement. This specialist reconnaissance force has been committed to MINUSMA precisely to provide an ability to understand where the threat is and to deliver a population-centric peacekeeping mission. This is time-limited and necessary. I accept that there is no obvious UK interest in Mali itself, but there is a great deal to be said for being there: first, because the humanitarian situation requires it; and, secondly, because the Sahel is a huge space on Europe’s southern flank in which violence is flourishing, and it is in the interests neither of countries in Europe nor of countries in coastal west Africa, where the UK has more obvious interests, that we do not work against the violence in the Sahel, but see it exported to places where the UK has more obvious interests.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).
Points of Order
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point of order naturally draws on comments that the Minister for the Armed Forces made in his statement to highlight the importance of reservists. Over the past several months, I have been very encouraged by the strength of feeling in the Chair that Parliament has primacy, and that it is important that when announcements are made, we hear them first and have the opportunity to probe and challenge them. In the Select Committee on Defence yesterday, we spent two hours interrogating the Ministry of Defence’s accounts, but no mention was made of the announcement that appeared in The Daily Telegraph today that 2,700 Royal Navy reservists would be stood down for four months, in order to penny-pinch. That decision has been described as “short-sighted”, and it is ill-judged. Could you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am grateful that the Secretary of State for Defence has remained in the Chamber—how parliamentarians who believe in the reservists and believe that we need to explore the matter further can best get an appropriate opportunity to do so?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I will take the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) first and then come to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood).
I thank the hon. Member for Belfast East for his point of order and for giving me notice that he intended to raise it. I will repeat what Mr Speaker has said many times from the Chair: if an announcement is to be made by a Department or a Minister, it must be made first in this Chamber. Any announcement must be made to Parliament. If there was an article in The Daily Telegraph or any other medium, I cannot comment on its veracity; that is not a matter for the Chair. However, it most certainly is a matter for the Chair if an announcement has indeed been made by other means than to this House and in this Chamber.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I think that there has been a slight element of confusion, Madam Deputy Speaker. The management of the three services—the Navy, the Army and the Air Force—is obviously a matter for the chiefs of staff. As they manage their services, throughout the year they make thousands of decisions about activity, deployments, training and so on. This is not a matter on which a single statement would have been made by any Government. I think the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) was referring to a newspaper article, but there are hundreds of announcements on a weekly basis. I think that that is where the point that he refers to comes from.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for responding to the point of order. I take it from what he says that he is undertaking that if any notable announcement is to be made by him or his Department, it will be made first in this Chamber and to this House.
Mr Ellwood
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing a little latitude on this important issue. I am also grateful for the Secretary of State’s clarification, because there are concerns that the size of our reserves will be reduced and that, just as concerning, their training hours will also be reduced at this critical time. It would be helpful if he came forward with more information and at least quashed the stories and rumours that are going around, because they do damage to the reputation and morale of those in the armed forces.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I allowed the Chairman of the Defence Committee his moment, but he knows and we all know that it is not a point of order. He has made his point to the Secretary of State and I am sure that there will be other opportunities to explore the matter further.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful for your indulgence, as I speak as one of the reservists in question. I just want to point out that it is deeply demoralising for members of the armed forces if they are not told about this in advance but learn about it from the pages of The Daily Telegraph, excellent though The Daily Telegraph is. Can I seek your advice on whether you feel that that is appropriate?
Madam Deputy Speaker
No, the right hon. Gentleman cannot seek my advice, because it is not my business to decide whether it is appropriate. However, given his position in this House I have allowed him to make his point, and I believe that it has been heard and paid attention to by the Secretary of State and the Minister.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your helpful advice on getting a response from the Home Secretary to 17 constituents for whom I have made representations. I have been chasing and chasing for a reply. Some of these constituents have been waiting for years, most for many months, and all have life-changing issues that affect their whole family. Surely it is the duty of the Home Secretary to respond to letters from Members of Parliament?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Once again, I will repeat from the Chair what Mr Speaker has said on many occasions: it is indeed the duty of every Minister to respond to letters and questions from Members of this House. I know that, as constituency MPs, we are all finding it very difficult to get responses to our inquiries on behalf of our constituents within a reasonable time. It is noted that the Home Office is possibly not giving the Home Secretary and her Ministers the support that they need at a time such as this to answer our inquiries on time. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this point of order and I merely repeat what Mr Speaker has said many times, but I do hope that not only Ministers but those who are employed and trusted to support Ministers would please pay attention to this situation.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like some guidance on the question of the content of the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, which we are about to discuss, relating to the question of taxation and, on the basis of a statement made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the removal of the clauses—the “notwithstanding” clauses—that would otherwise have appeared. They remain part of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, from which they have not been removed. I am putting down amendments to reinsert the “notwithstanding” clauses on Report, and I would be grateful if, first, you could note that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, secondly, you could provide some guidance.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Is it about the timing by which he can submit amendments for Report? Obviously, the amendments for the Committee stage are already submitted and we will very soon be debating them. We will come to Report tomorrow. Is he asking me by what time he can submit amendments for tomorrow?
Sir William Cash
I am most grateful to you for the way you put that, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I want to be clear that I am going to do it, and, secondly, I would like to know by what time I need to put my amendments down. With all this virtual stuff, it is quite difficult to know.
Madam Deputy Speaker
It is indeed difficult to know. I decided yesterday to have the deadline today at 12 o’clock. I am not quite certain exactly at this moment what the deadline will be for tomorrow, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am asking the Clerk to note and to pass on to the appropriate offices that he wishes to submit amendments. Thank you.
There was to be another point of order, but the hon. Gentleman concerned has left the Chamber.
Sexual Exploitation
Wednesday 9th December 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sexual Exploitation Bill 2019-21 View all Sexual Exploitation 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
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to criminalise paying for sex; to decriminalise selling sex; to create offences relating to enabling or profiting from another person’s sexual exploitation; to make associated provision about sexual exploitation online; to make provision for support services for victims of sexual exploitation; and for connected purposes.
This is a Bill to bust the business model of sex trafficking. Today, the UK is a high-value, low-risk destination for sex traffickers. Why? Because our law fails on two critical fronts: first, it fails to discourage the very thing that drives trafficking for sexual exploitation—demand—and secondly, it allows ruthless individuals to facilitate and profit from sexual exploitation. What does this mean in practice? It means that the minority of men in England and Wales who pay for sex do so with impunity, fuelling a brutal sex trafficking trade and causing untold harm to victims. It also means that profit-making pimping websites operate free from criminal sanction, helping sex traffickers to quickly and easily advertise their victims and reaping enormous profits from doing so.
Right now there is a sexual-exploitation scandal playing out in towns and cities across the UK. An inquiry by the predecessor of the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation, which I chair, found that the UK sex trade is dominated by organised crime, with sex trafficking taking place on an industrial scale. Vulnerable women are moved around networks of brothels and hotel rooms to be raped and abused by men who pay for sex. The trauma and suffering inflicted on victims of this abhorrent trade is truly horrific.
One woman who was trafficked by an organised crime group and abused by men in the UK recalls:
“To begin with [the offenders] were my friends but, as soon as we came to England, they started to physically abuse me. He beat me many times because I was not earning him enough money…Even though the clients did not physically abuse me I felt abused because I was forced to have sex with them even when I did not want to do so. Sometimes that was painful. After a while, I felt disgusted by what I was doing and I wanted to stop but [he] wanted more money and he forced me to continue. I was scared because he kept threatening me that he was going to hurt my mother.”
So, who are the women who are being subject to this horrific abuse? Research by the APPG shows that it is predominantly vulnerable, non-UK-national women who are being abused in brothels across Britain, and a significant proportion of them come from one particular country: Romania. Over a period of two years, Leicestershire police visited 156 brothels, encountering 421 women, of whom 86% were from Romania. Northumbria police visited 81 brothels over two years, and of the 259 women they encountered in those brothels, 75% were Romanian.
What motivates the traffickers and pimps? The answer is simple: money. Trafficking for sexual exploitation is the most profitable form of modern slavery. Take, for example, a British man who was convicted in 2017 of trafficking and sexually exploiting vulnerable women. He made £1.6 million a year from his brothels. Sex trafficking is profit-driven. The crucial question to ask, though, is where those profits come from. The answer is sex buyers. Only 3.6% of men in the UK have paid for sex in the past five years, but this demand drives the supply of vulnerable women into brothels in Britain. It is these men who commit the thousands upon thousands of rapes and sexual assaults perpetrated against victims of trafficking every year in this country.
Here is what one sex buyer wrote on a website dedicated to men’s reviews of women they have paid for sex:
“Very pretty and young girl…If you want to try a fresh, young (says she is 18) and pretty girl is ok, but maybe as she just started to work, is quite passive, scarcely kiss without tongue, doesn’t want to be kissed on the neck or ears, can’t do a decent blowjob and really rides badly on you…she really can’t speak a word of English (is Romanian) so even [girlfriend experience] is a zero.”
He paid £70 to do that.
Here is another reviewer:
“This is a classic case of ‘the pretty ones don’t have to work hard’…She’s Polish, and her English is not good…I was reminded of the Smiths song ‘Girlfriend in a Coma’...All the while she seemed completely disinterested and mechanical...I finally decided to fuck her…All the while, she kept her face turned to one side.”
That man paid £100 to do that to her.
Any would-be trafficker who wants to get their hands on sex buyers’ money receives a very special helping hand in the United Kingdom: from pimping websites, where they can advertise victims to sex buyers completely legally. The advertiser simply fills out an online form and pays to publish the advert. Meanwhile, sex buyers browse the website for free. Adverts show how much she will cost, what sex acts he can select, where she is based and when she is available. The sex buyer, remaining completely anonymous, simply calls the mobile number to place his order.
A few highly lucrative pimping websites dominate this online market, centralising and concentrating the UK customer base for traffickers. It makes the whole business of sex trafficking easier, quicker and more efficient. One police force reported to the APPG that a trafficker it caught had spent £25,000 advertising his victims on a pimping website, but the police were not alerted. Instead, the man was given his own account manager.
To stop women being raped and abused for profit, we must dismantle the business model of this sex trafficking trade. That will require two key measures: first, preventing the demand driving sex trafficking by criminalising paying for sex; and secondly, stopping website companies and other third parties aiding and profiting from this appalling crime by making it a criminal offence to enable or profit from the prostitution of another person. We must also stop the appalling practice of victims of sexual exploitation being prosecuted for soliciting. That offence should be removed from the statute books. Instead, we should establish a well-resourced, comprehensive network of support and exiting services for people who have been or are sexually exploited. Those measures would shift the burden of criminality from women and place it where it belongs: on those who perpetrate and profit from this abuse.
This demand reduction approach is already in place in countries including France, Sweden, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Israel, Iceland and Norway, and it works. An official evaluation of Sweden’s Sex Purchase Act reported:
“it is clear that the ban on the purchase of sexual services acts as a barrier to human traffickers and procurers who are considering establishing themselves in Sweden.”
As Dr Monica O’Connor of the Sexual Exploitation Research Programme states,
“simply allowing the prostitution industry to grow, increases the flow of trafficked people to that jurisdiction; conversely, addressing demand and reducing the size of the market for prostitution-related activities is an effective anti-trafficking measure.”
That is why the United Nations Palermo protocol stipulates:
“States Parties shall adopt or strengthen legislative or other measures…to discourage the demand that fosters all forms of exploitation of persons, especially women and children, that leads to trafficking.”
There are some who do not want to reduce demand for sexual exploitation, and myths and misinformation are spread about efforts to achieve it, so let me be absolutely clear: sexual exploitation is not a solution to poverty. Our continued tolerance of this harmful trade puts vulnerable women and girls at an ongoing risk from traffickers and pimps who seek to profit from it. Suggestions that criminalising paying for sex will only serve to drive sexual exploitation underground fundamentally misunderstand the nature of this trade. Sex buyers need to locate women to sexually exploit, and if sex buyers can find the women, so can the police and support services. As an analysis published by the European Commission points out,
“Sex markets are reliant, by definition, on buyers finding spaces and places where it is possible to pay for sex.”
The absolute necessity of deterring demand is why, at a recent international summit organised by UK Feminista to confront the rampant sexual exploitation of Romanian women by men in the UK, the president of the Romanian Women’s Lobby, Laura Albu, said:
“The solution is simple: end demand in the UK. The UK can end demand and prosecute buyers of sex and close this so-called market.”
We must heed her call. We have the power to bust the business model of sex trafficking. That is what my Bill would do, and the Government would do well to adopt it.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) because, as Members will know, she is indeed a close friend. I respect her and value her enormously, and it is only because our friendship is so strong that I feel able to stand here and speak against some aspects of her proposed Bill. I hope that, by doing so, we will begin a debate that informs rather than confuses and in which there are no binary sides, but just an honest and desperate attempt to talk about and try to resolve something that is still difficult in our society today.
I hope I do not need to spell out that we all oppose trafficking and exploitation. It is real, it is utterly horrifying, and it is rightly illegal. We absolutely need laws that target exploitation and abuse, and we need them to be better enforced. The part of my hon. Friend’s Bill that I cannot support involves putting into the law of England and Wales what is called the Nordic model. The Nordic model is not about tackling trafficking or exploitation directly. It criminalises the buying of sex, and it can also criminalise many of the means by which sex workers market their work. That is counterproductive and it will put women at greater risk.
In France, after the model was introduced in 2016, 42% of sex workers said that they had become more exposed to violence. Tragically, there is some evidence that murders of sex workers increased significantly. Between September 2019 and February 2020, at least nine sex workers were murdered, according to the French newspaper, Libération. When all clients are frightened of being arrested, and therefore insist that meetings happen in darker corners where the dangers for women are greater, sex workers cannot refuse those risks. They can no longer distinguish between clients who are a threat and those who are not.
I will give voice to some women who are involved in sex work. Jenny from Manchester said, “The harms to me come from the laws that they have. Having a record is a harm. There’s a major difficulty for women who want to exit prostitution. The services don’t address it. They can come up with the courses for you to go on, but they cannot take away the charges. You can’t get housing and there are jobs that aren’t available because of what you’ve done. Women who have sex work convictions often find it almost impossible to leave.” We must address that, because it limits life chances and makes women more vulnerable to the coercion of pimps and traffickers.
Reports on the implementation of the Nordic model have found that it has caused sex workers to be less likely to refuse risky clients as income has fallen. They are also less likely to report violence to the police. In France, 70% of sex workers said that relationships with the police had become worse or were unchanged, despite the Nordic model reforms decriminalising some aspects of their work. The Nordic model even made 38% of sex workers less likely to use condoms, because their power to refuse clients was reduced, which made it harder to insist on safe sex only. That is why criminalisation is opposed by the World Health Organisation, STOPAIDS and the Royal College of Nursing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and others want to give women who are trapped in the sex trade a way out, and I share that goal. The Nordic model in France included an exit programme. Two years on, researchers found that only 39% of sex workers were even aware of it, and of those, only a quarter had any intention of applying. I do not believe that any individual programme will give most women a genuine alternative, because their circumstances are complex. Ultimately, as we know, it is poverty, inequality and the legacy of unjust laws that trap women in the situations we have been raising today, force them to do work that they do not want to do, and expose them to the risks of abuse, violence and exploitation.
The truth is, I believe, that sex work will be around for as long as there is poverty and inequality—and frankly, poverty and inequality are rife in our communities. Last year, before covid hit our communities, 2.4 million people were destitute in the UK, including more than half a million children. That is a rise of 54% in just two years since 2017. Those numbers will include many sex workers and their children.
There will also be sex workers who stay out of destitution only because of the income that their work brings in. Louise, who works in the sex trade in Doncaster, said, “The police don’t protect us, and the biggest problem I face is the laws. Some women have been dragged under the control of pimps, but criminalising everyone doesn’t help that. We are boxed in by poverty. Criminalising clients would take away our income when people around the country are living on the edge and women are expected to fill the gap.”
If the law prevents sex workers from finding clients online, what happens then? My hon. Friend has quoted despicable misogynistic comments about women posted online. None of us likes that. The comments create a society in which women are objectified, but shutting down the websites will push them underground, moving them to encrypted message apps or sites on the dark web instead, making it harder for sex workers to have a discussion with clients at a safe distance before agreeing to meet, and harder for sex worker groups such as National Ugly Mugs to monitor what clients are doing. These changes could unintentionally make it harder for women to identify the men who are a threat to them and to report clients who are violent and abusive.
I think we have to create policies so that women have the power to create the lives they want. In New Zealand, an emphasis has been put on reducing harm and ensuring that sex workers have access to their rights and to justice. These reforms enable sex workers to work together without fear of prosecution and thereby in greater safety. Coercion of people into sex work or to provide a share of the money received is, of course, illegal in New Zealand, and because sex work is treated as a normal form of work and taxed, all normal laws apply. In my view, the evidence from New Zealand is positive, with trust in the police improved, increased reporting of offences, better safety and health for sex workers, and, most importantly, an increased ability for sex workers to refuse clients.
I am not here today to recommend any particular changes to the law, although I am open to considering them. Whatever happens, I think we can agree that we need much stronger enforcement against trafficking, coercion, grooming, violence and harassment. We agree that women deserve protection, and we need to eliminate the barriers that prevent women from leaving sex work. That includes convictions for sex work offences, which can be an anvil around necks. I do not think that the Nordic model is the right one, but I do think that a debate about how we deal with sex work and workers needs to begin now in this place, in good faith and between friends.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Dame Diana Johnson, Ms Harriet Harman, Sarah Champion, Fiona Bruce, Carolyn Harris, Dame Margaret Hodge, Mrs Maria Miller, Rosie Duffield, Stella Creasy, Mr Virendra Sharma, Gavin Robinson and Derek Thomas present the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 228).
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have heard from the Secretary of State for International Trade, who I believe is in Singapore at the moment, about whether she intends to come to the House and make a statement on the UK’s decision to opt out of tariffs imposed by the World Trade Organisation on the US. The article appeared in the Financial Times this morning rather than there being a statement to this House. This sends a terrible message to Airbus and the steel industry in north Wales, which have already been very hard hit by the covid crisis, and it undermines our relationship with our European partners. This Prime Minister promised to stand up for British jobs. He clearly did not mean it. This decision shows terrible weakness and the Government need to come to this House and explain themselves.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Of course, what Ministers say, wherever they say it, is not a matter for the Chair. But what is a matter for the Chair, as Mr Speaker has said many times, and I repeat now, is that if any Government Minister has an announcement to make that is of any importance whatsoever, it should not be made in the pages of newspapers; it should be made and must be made first here, in this Chamber, to this House. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am quite sure that if the Secretary of State whom he mentioned does have an announcement to make, she will come here and make it in the appropriate manner.
Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill: Business of the House
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I want to make a few comments about this business of the House motion, because I think it is indicative of where we have got to.
After four years, we have a Bill on the taxation arrangements after Brexit that is to be debated in less than four hours. Not only that, but it is a Bill of over 100 pages in length that was published less than 24 hours ago. The Minister may claim that the House has passed emergency legislation in a single day in the past, and of course that is true: the House can do that in emergency circumstances. But this deadline that we face at the end of the year is not new. It is not a surprise. It has been known ever since the withdrawal agreement was reached. The Government have said repeatedly over the past year that this was an immovable deadline. So why is it, just three weeks before that deadline, that the Government are only publishing these arrangements and this timetable now?
Businesses in Northern Ireland, and those that do a lot of trade with Northern Ireland, could have been given some idea of what was coming long before now, but as it stands, not even the Bill before us gives them certainty, as so much of it has to be followed up with further regulations. The truth is that there was no need for this last-minute legislative scramble. The real reason we are in this position—the reason why this business motion is before us and gives the House so little time—is that the Government thought that it was a good negotiating tactic to breach the agreement, or to threaten to breach the agreement, that they reached with the EU last year. They threatened to do that in this Bill as well as in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. As so often, it was a threat posing as strength that ended up doing more harm to us than to anyone else. That is why this Bill was so late, and that is why the time to debate it is so short.
The Government, immediately before they embark on a new future based on trade deals, chose to advertise around the world that they were willing to break the last one that they signed. Boasting about your willingness to go back on your word is not an illustration of strength; rather, it is a graphic portrayal of what Brexit has done to the Conservative party.
Mr McFadden
I am going to continue, because I do not have long to go.
As the House has been reminded, it was Mrs Thatcher who said:
“Britain does not break treaties. It would be bad for Britain, bad for our relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade”.
The threat to do so has left us with the timetable for this Bill. That inevitably means that scrutiny of today’s measures will be severely truncated and parts of it will go through without being properly examined. What we have before us is the appearance of scrutiny, not the reality—Potemkin scrutiny. That is what a timetable like this gives us.
This is not just about us here in this House—it also leaves businesses affected, with little or no time to absorb and understand what is being planned. There have been many comments on the state of things in recent days, but perhaps the most pithy has come from the chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, who said this week, commenting on the border arrangements:
“Frankly, it’s just a mess.”
The bigger point here is that the reason why we are in this position is that the Government’s approach to all of this has relegated concerns about business, prosperity and people’s livelihoods to a distant second place. This motion and the approach behind it are not only bad for the legislative process, but bad for the country too.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I would simply say this in response to the right hon. Gentleman: the Government have been moving at great speed, and much of the regulation is already in the public domain, together with an enormous amount of further communications and support systems. The Government are putting in front of the House today a Bill that encodes the Northern Ireland protocol and a Command Paper that has been in the public domain for many months, and if the right hon. Gentleman wished to have more scrutiny, he perhaps might have considered not having a debate on this motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am aware that some Members would like to make points on this, but I am afraid that it is not in order for them to do so, because under current rules I have to stick to the speaking list. Just as a matter of fact, interventions would have been fine, but not speeches.
Question put and agreed to.
Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill
Wednesday 9th December 2020
(3 years, 4 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 Amendment Paper: Committee of the Whole House Amendments as at 9 December 2020 - (9 Dec 2020)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a delight to speak under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In three weeks’ time, the transition period will end and this country will take its place as a fully sovereign trading nation once more. It is a very important moment in our nation’s history, one that will undoubtedly provide us with great opportunity in the years ahead, but the Government are acutely aware that at this time they also have a great responsibility to provide certainty to people and businesses and to preserve this nation’s unity, and the fundamental purpose of this Bill is to achieve those goals. It seeks to ensure that businesses in every part of the UK can continue to trade smoothly after the end of the transition period, but its particular focus is on businesses based in Northern Ireland or those that work with Northern Ireland companies.
The Government have always been clear that we must deliver on our pledge to provide unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the rest of the UK internal market, and we have been equally unstinting in our determination to uphold our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland protocol and to protect the progress made under the Belfast Good Friday agreement. This Bill will help us support those commitments by providing legal certainty for the customs, VAT and excise systems in Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period.
If I may, I will start with the customs elements of the Bill. The House will know that the UK is a single customs territory, with article 4 of the Northern Ireland protocol giving a clear legal commitment to this. However, the protocol also requires a new and unique set of arrangements to be put in place for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Under these arrangements, the only circumstance in which there should be charges on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is if those goods are destined for the EU single market or there is a clear and substantial risk that they may be.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way in this Second Reading debate before we get to Committee. Will he confirm that under the proposals in this last legislation the European Court of Justice will be the ultimate arbiter of excise and VAT arrangements within Northern Ireland, and that the European Union will be placing staff in our country to supervise this?
Jesse Norman
VAT in Northern Ireland will be subject to the EU principal VAT directive, and for that purpose the ECJ will be the judicial body. I cannot comment as to whether or not there will be anything more than staff, except to say that excise processes in Northern Ireland will be carried out by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister was asked by his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) whether the ECJ would be the ultimate arbiter, and the Minister replied that it would be the judicial authority. Is that the same thing?
Jesse Norman
Yes, I was simply paraphrasing the point that my right hon. Friend made.
Under the terms of the protocol, we need to treat goods at risk of such onward movement into the EU differently from those groups that are not at risk. On the specific details of what will be defined as at risk or not at risk, the House will be aware of the EU-UK joint agreement made this week setting out that an agreement has been reached in principle regarding the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. In accordance with that statement, the draft texts will now be subject to further consideration in both the EU and the UK. Once that is complete, a joint committee will be convened to adopt them formally. Further details will be set out in due course, and before the end of the year.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the question of jurisdiction was raised, and perhaps it is best to use the right expression, rather than paraphrasing. The fact remains that EU officials will be there for the purposes of enforcing the jurisdiction of the European legal arrangements, which will be enforced subject to the European Court. In those circumstances, will the Minister now accept that actually there is an infringement of sovereignty in that respect? As the “notwithstanding” clauses are being taken out, there is therefore a further complication, and if I may say so respectfully, that is slightly in contradiction of his allegation that we would now take over as a sovereign, fully independent power.
Jesse Norman
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. He is right that it is expected that there will be EU officials. The checks will be levied and done by HMRC inspectors, and the system that we are putting in place gives effect to the Northern Ireland protocol, which, as he will recognise, already recognises the balance that is being struck in Northern Ireland between its status under the Union customs code and its status within the UK customs system.
If I may proceed, the Bill will allow the Government to put in place decisions made by the Joint Committee on goods that are not at risk of entering the EU, ensuring that they do not have to pay the EU tariff. However, if I may underline the point, this Bill does not itself seek to specify the classes or categories of goods or movements that are at risk or not at risk. Instead, that will be set out by regulations that the Bill permits us to make once legal texts have been formally adopted. The “at risk” or “not at risk” definitions will also determine whether the UK or EU tariff applies when goods arrive in Northern Ireland from rest-of-the-world countries, again in line with the Northern Ireland protocol.
In relation to the so-called “notwithstanding” clauses, as part of yesterday’s EU-UK joint statement, the Government have agreed not to introduce these provisions into this Bill, and we have also committed to remove the three “notwithstanding” clauses from the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.
Jesse Norman
I suspect we are going to go around this many times, but I am happy to give way again.
Sir William Cash
Could I simply say to my right hon. Friend that this does raise a question? I am not going to go into it in an intervention on him, but I will in my speech. I believe that those provisions may well be needed, because we do not know the outcome of the negotiations yet. I will leave it at that for the moment. We do not know, but we have been told that the clauses are going to come out. The question of whether they should have been put in is a separate question, which I dealt with yesterday.
Jesse Norman
I am not quite sure where that was heading, but we have the Bill in front of us and the Government have made it clear that the so-called “notwithstanding” clauses will not be introduced.
The legislation follows from commitments made in the Government’s Command Paper on the implementation of the protocol, which was published in May. The Bill will ensure that EU goods moving into Northern Ireland remain free from customs duties or processes. Although we recognise and are addressing the challenges relating to the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, we should not lose sight of the benefits to Northern Ireland of having continuing access to the EU market.
In addition, this legislation will ensure that the UK customs regime applies to goods moved from Northern Ireland to Great Britain if they do not qualify for unfettered access. The Bill will also introduce anti-avoidance rules to prevent goods from being rerouted through Northern Ireland to avoid UK customs duties or associated obligations, and its measures will ensure that customs enforcement and penalties, along with review and appeal processes, are in place in relation to duty and that they continue to work alongside EU legislation in Northern Ireland and can be applied, where required, to movements of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I welcome the thrust of the Bill. We have heard a lot about the anti-avoidance approach in recent months, but we have never seen any detail as to how it will work. This is a critical issue, particularly for the agrifood sector, to make sure that inferior product is not coming into Northern Ireland and taking advantage of the protocol, and there is the risk of organised crime in Ireland as well. When will we see detail on exactly how it will look?
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Gentleman will know, goods that are, as it were, normally circulating in Northern Ireland will be open to go into Great Britain from the beginning. There will be some goods that, over time, will be designated as non-qualifying goods for these purposes, and HMRC has well established practices for identifying, discussing and targeting those, as may be necessary, and will be applying them to prevent avoidance and to keep the market honest.
As I have said, the Bill will ensure that the UK customs regime applies to goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain if they do not qualify for unfettered access. These anti-avoidance rules will prevent goods from being rerouted through Northern Ireland to avoid UK customs duties or associated obligations, and its measures will ensure that customs enforcement and penalties, along with review and appeal processes, continue to work alongside EU legislation in Northern Ireland and can be applied, where required, to movements of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
The Bill also amends and modifies certain provisions in relation to VAT and excise for Northern Ireland.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
In many of these debates over the past four years, the Government have referred to “frictionless trade” between the mainland and Northern Ireland. The Government now say that they want VAT accounting treatment for goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland to remain “as close as possible” to the current approach. Will the Minister confirm whether we have now accepted that frictionless trade is not possible? Can he tell us a little more about what “as close as possible” actually means for businesses in Northern Ireland that are looking forward to 1 January with some trepidation?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and, yes, the legal basis on which VAT is charged will change. I will spare him the details of the difference between import VAT and acquisition VAT, but it will change. The experience of those who pay VAT will be very similar, if not identical, to the system we have in place at the moment. HMRC and the Government have identified flexibilities, which allow that to be put in place. Of course, there will continue to be the normal processes of enforcement that one would expect to see from HMRC in order to make sure that VAT is properly paid in the usual way.
John Redwood
These are urgent and important issues. We heard earlier from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that there are various delays to the full implementation of trade arrangements into and out of Northern Ireland as a result of his negotiations. Will they be incorporated into this legislation, and do they provide a brake on the immediate introduction of these complex double-taxation arrangements?
Jesse Norman
I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be updating the House over time as the different provisions he has negotiated come into force but, from our point of view, the position remains as stated, that is to say that VAT will become chargeable by a slightly different legal means, but in substantially the same way in Northern Ireland as it is at the moment. The mechanisms we have put in place are designed to ensure that, as far as possible, VAT will be accounted for in the same way as it is today.
Existing rules in relation to movements of goods between Northern Ireland in the EU, including the rules relating to acquisitions and distance selling, will continue to apply. Goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland will be subject to VAT as though they were imports under the relevant UK legislation. Similarly, goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain will also be subject to VAT as though they were imports and relevant EU or UK legislation will apply, but let me add that the Government are adopting an approach that minimises any changes for goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, can you clarify whether Members in the Chamber should be socially distancing by staying on the seats that have ticks on them?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Yes, that is what the ticks are there for. I hope that all Members will abide by them so that we can have safe social distancing. Thank you very much.
Jesse Norman
In addition, the Bill amends current legislation for excise duty to be charged when certain goods, such as alcohol and tobacco, are moved from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The changes are necessary to ensure that there is a fully functioning VAT and excise regime in place in relation to Northern Ireland at the end of the transition period.
In line with the protocol, Northern Ireland will maintain alignment with existing EU excise rules. That means a change to excise duty is required when goods are moved to Northern Ireland from Great Britain, but the Government are adopting an approach using flexibilities and EU rules that minimises changes for excise goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
A small number of other taxation measures also need to be in place before the end of the transition period. The Bill introduces a new system for collecting VAT on cross-border goods. That includes moving VAT collection on certain imported goods away from the border and involving operators of online marketplaces in the collection of VAT at the point of sale.
In addition, measures in the Bill will remove the VAT relief on imported low-value items so that VAT will be due on all consignments, irrespective of their value. The relief has been the subject of long-standing abuse and removing it will build on Government efforts to level the playing field for UK businesses still further by protecting high streets from VAT-free imports. Together, the changes will improve the effectiveness of VAT collection on imported goods, tackle non-compliance and protect the flow of goods at the border.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I very much support the measures that the Minister is talking about. Why is the measure just for low-value goods? There will be other goods where a similar loophole applies, such as watches or jewellery that have a value above £135. Is this not an opportunity to close that loophole as well?
Jesse Norman
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I will take that under review. We have put in place a set of measures designed to tidy up the position that particularly arises in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol, as he will be aware, and the end of the transition period, and that has meant a change to low-value consignment relief and the changes I have described. I am grateful to him for his contribution and suggestion.
The Bill also includes 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 leisure flying. The change made by clause 6 of the Bill will increase the avgas rate by half of a penny to 38.2p a litre from 1 January next year. By way of explanation, the Northern Ireland protocol requires that Northern Ireland continues to comply with the EU’s energy taxation directive following the end of the transition period. It sets a minimum level of duty in euros on unleaded petrol used for propulsion. After some careful consideration, the Government have chosen to apply the change to the whole of the UK to ensure consistency between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, avoid burdens on business and reduce compliance risks for HMRC.
The Bill also includes a clause to ensure HMRC has access to the same or similar tools to prevent insurance premium tax evasion as it does at present, regardless of whether an insurer is based in an EU member state. Overseas insurers are liable to pay insurance premium tax when they supply general insurance for UK-located risks. Occasionally, overseas insurers do not pay the insurance premium tax they owe, so it is important that HMRC has access to tools that deter and tackle that form of evasion. Up to now, it has been using EU provisions to prevent evasion by insurers based in EU member states.
Separately, HMRC can issue liability notices in cases involving insurers based in any country outside the EU with which the UK does not have a mutual assistance agreement. Given that the EU provisions expire at the end of the transition period, this clause will enable HMRC to issue liability notices in evasion cases involving insurers based in any country with which the UK does not have a mutual assistance agreement, including EU member states.
Finally, the Bill introduces new powers that will enable HMRC to raise tax charges under the controlled foreign companies legislation for the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2018. This is a technical provision that will deal efficiently with the legacy state aid decision relating to the period before the UK left the European Union.
This Bill will give people and businesses throughout the UK certainty about the arrangements that will apply from 1 January next year. It will play a part in further safeguarding the unity and integrity of this country, both in the months ahead and long into the future. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Anneliese Dodds, let me say that the wind-ups will begin at 5 o’clock at the latest, and that 13 Members wish to speak and are all here. We therefore know that there will definitely be 13 Members speaking, so colleagues should really be thinking about speeches lasting for six minutes. Even if I do not put the clock on, it would be really useful if everybody shows at least some discipline on that, so that everybody can get a fair crack of the whip.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a year to the day since the Chancellor boasted that there was no need to plan for no deal because
“we will have a deal.”
Yet today, as we debate this Bill, we stand on the brink of a no-deal Brexit that would destroy jobs and livelihoods right across the United Kingdom. We have only 22 days to go until the end of the transition period, with still no deal in sight.
When we debated yesterday the Ways and Means resolutions associated with this Bill, a number of Government Members claimed that agreements between nations are often only finalised at the last minute—that there is nothing out of the ordinary about this Government’s approach. That is because for run-of-the-mill agreements there is a fall-back option, a status quo. But failing to reach a deal now does not mean a return to the status quo—that we stay as we are. It means extensive economic damage to the tune of an additional 2% loss of GDP, on top of the 4% loss of GDP that the Office for Budget Responsibility has calculated would be the impact of a very thin deal: the type of thin-as-gruel deal that the Conservatives look set to deliver.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but even the statistics that she refers to regarding the overall impact on the economy mask the absolutely catastrophic impact that no deal would have on individual businesses and individual industries. I had the pleasure of visiting the Toyota factory in Derby. No deal means that the entire purpose of that factory being based in Derby is under serious threat. Alongside those statistics about the overall impact, it is really important that we recognise that the situation is much worse than that for individual businesses and industries.
Anneliese Dodds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is potentially a very, very severe impact from no deal, but, as I will go on to explain, there is already a concrete and very acute impact on our economy. I am particularly concerned about the situation for many businesses based in Northern Ireland.
This damage will be long lasting, likely to outlive even the impact of the current covid crisis. Our country cannot afford this. We have already experienced the steepest economic downturn in the G7 due to the covid crisis, and are predicted by the OECD to experience the slowest recovery in the G7. Just the prospect of a potential no-deal outcome is already leading to chaos in the midst of a pandemic. Stockpiling by companies, caused by the threat of no deal, is exacerbating supply blockages at our ports.
Kevin Hollinrake
The economic damage that the hon. Member is talking about should a deal not be agreed would also be inflicted on the European Union, particularly certain parts of the European Union, such as the Republic of Ireland. She criticised the UK Government for the way that they have negotiated. Does she have no words of criticism for the EU negotiators in this two-way negotiation?
Anneliese Dodds
Of course we need application and a determination to conclude a deal on both sides; that surely is obvious. But the fact remains, as I will go on to describe, that it was the UK Government that, rather than tabling this Bill many weeks ago, which they could have done, decided to effectively retain provisions that threaten to break international law. That is on the Government’s head, and it is something that the Government must surely be responsible for.
The irresponsible approach that we have seen recently speaks to a wider pattern over the last 12 months of recklessness with public finances, broken promises to the British people and short-term thinking that is doing long-term damage to our country. The Prime Minister promised the British people that he would get Brexit done. He said he had an “oven-ready” agreement. Whatever he has got cooking ahead of his dinner with von der Leyen tonight, my message to him is to get on and deliver what was promised.
Sir William Cash
I would just like to point out to the hon. Lady that Labour Governments, not to mention Conservative Governments or the coalition Government after 2010—there is a host of examples by a number of Governments—have passed treaty overrides, on exactly the same principles relating to Finance Bills, in the past. If she wants to construe that as breaking international law, she can, but the reality is that it is consistent with article 46 of the Vienna convention.
Anneliese Dodds
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentions that situation, because it has been referred to by those who favoured the Government’s approach previously. However, I gently state to him that if he is referring in particular to provisions against tax avoidance—the example of a general anti-avoidance rule—then, sadly, I believe he is mistaken. In that case, that commitment and the ability to apply such rules was actually a fundamental principle agreed to by this country as part of a multilateral agreement that it concluded with the OECD, so I fear that that example is not as telling as he may wish it to be.
With just three weeks to go until the end of the transition period, the Government published late yesterday afternoon the 116-page Bill that we are discussing now, setting out detailed new rules for tax and customs duties. Members of this House have been given less than 24 hours to scrutinise a major piece of post-Brexit legislation that will impact businesses and individuals across the country, especially in Northern Ireland. Many of the clauses in the Bill, particularly those covering customs and excise duties, require the Treasury to make regulations that will set out the actual detail of its proposals at a later date, so even with the publication of the Bill, businesses and individuals still do not have the information they need to prepare for the end of the transition period.
Earlier today, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said there would be “further clarity” forthcoming on these matters, but again without saying when. In fact, the Minister talked a few moments ago about those details coming in due course. His letter to Members spoke about the fact that there would be information on this later; “in the coming days” was the formulation at that time. How can he really expect businesses to plan on that basis—on the never-never up to 1 January?
This last-minute approach was not necessary. It is no use pointing to the complexity of the ongoing negotiations. We know that this Bill could have been published a long time ago because the Government have been floating a Finance Bill for months, so why yet another last- minute scramble? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) set it out very clearly: because the Conservatives had a not-so-cunning plan to use this Bill as negotiations reached a critical point by threatening to override the withdrawal agreement. At a time when we are seeking to negotiate new trading relationships across the international community, and when the Government are trying to project an image of global Britain to the world, this tactic certainly sent a clear message, albeit not the message the Government intended.
It is welcome that the Government finally saw sense yesterday, although we have already seen damage being done. Both in relation to the provisions in the Bill and more generally, the time is running out to ready our country for the challenges ahead. The Public Accounts Committee was clear last week that:
“Government is not doing enough to ensure businesses and citizens will be ready for the end of the transition period”.
It expressed concern at reports from industry bodies that the Government had not provided the key information needed for businesses to prepare. Indeed, the Committee indicated that more than a third of small and medium-sized enterprises still believed that the transition period would be extended.
The Cabinet Office has admitted that it is well behind in recruiting the customs agents desperately needed for 1 January, despite more than £80 million having been spent so far. Yet again, earlier today, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster refused to specify exactly how many additional customs agents had been recruited. Overall, £4.4 billion has been spent by the Government on preparations for Brexit and the end of the transition period, yet we are still not ready.
Jesse Norman
I am terribly grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She has criticised the Government for spending £80 million in support of traders and a facilitated approach to the border. Could she tell us whether she thinks that number is too large or too small?
Anneliese Dodds
With enormous respect to the Minister, the problem with his Government’s approach is the fact that they do not indicate what they have got with that spending. As I said, £4.4 billion has been spent on preparedness for Brexit and for the end of the transition period, and the £80 million that he refers to, but there is no indication from the Government of how many additional customs officers we have received as a result of that spending. I hoped that he was intervening on me to provide an indication of the additional workforce that has been recruited. It is a matter of regret that he was unable to do so.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is quite rightly querying how money has been spent. I do not know whether she has had letters from the Government asking MPs, as small businesses, to get ready for Brexit. I got two of them, including one that referred to me as an MSP, so perhaps the Government are not spending their money particularly wisely or accurately.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that very relevant point. I am sure that it is not only Opposition Members but Government Members who have had many businesses contacting them, often in despair, about the communications and advertisements asking them to get ready when there is so little indication of what they have to get ready for.
Yesterday morning, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee heard from the Food and Drink Federation, which said that the guidance being published now was already too late. Some 43% of its members who supply Northern Ireland have said that they will not do so in the first three months of next year. That is desperately worrying. TheCityUK said that in the worst-case scenario, 40% of the UK’s EU-related financial activity could be lost. Every day between now and the end of the year counts to get a deal, and failing that, to plan for the no-deal outcome that the Prime Minister himself conceded would represent a failure of statecraft.
With that in mind, Labour supports this Bill passing. Labour is a responsible Opposition, and we are determined to see the minimum disruption possible, but we cannot support such continued lack of clarity on critical issues. When businesses need clarity as a matter of urgency, it is not good enough to state that further guidance will be forthcoming. At the very least, they need a timetable for the provision of that greater certainty. They need to know what rules of origin will apply from 1 January. The continued lack of clarity could create unprecedented new costs. They need to know when appropriate tariff codes will be published. They need to know whether the Government will be providing easements, and they need to know these things in concrete terms, not through the winks and nudges that have substituted for clarity so far.
Businesses need to know whether there will be a pause in penalties arising out of this legislation and, if so, what would be done to counterbalance that and prevent wilful avoidance. They need to know whether the measures in the Bill countermand the existing guidance provided to Northern Irish businesses, some of which was updated just on 7 December. They need to know, as revealed in The Irish Times, whether and when the information on the trusted trader scheme for Northern Irish business—details of which have allegedly been coming out of internal communications —is going to be fully published, so that businesses can follow that scheme.
I want to end my contribution by asking the Minister to place himself in the shoes of a small manufacturing company. We have many excellent such companies across the United Kingdom—in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. Companies will already have faced enormous challenges during this period because of covid. Potentially, they have staff off because they have to self-isolate. Potentially, there is continuing uncertainty about the future of furlough because of this Government’s unwillingness to provide that certainty. Potentially, they were counting on the job retention bonus, but they are not going to receive it. They are now trying to plan which members of staff they will need to have in the company at work to get ready for 1 January. The stress and strain are immense.
The Minister and his Government must do all they can to overcome those uncertainties and help businesses to plan. That is the least they can do for businesses and the people who work for them, who have had such a hard year.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I simply would like to put on record it on Second Reading the fact that, as I made clear in a point of order earlier, consideration on Report will take place next week and a lot will happen between now and then. The UKIM Bill at the moment has the “notwithstanding” provisions in it; they have not yet been taken out. We do not yet know what will transpire this evening or at any point between now and the Report stage of this Bill next week. Therefore, I have given instructions for the tabling of amendments to reinsert the “notwithstanding” provisions for the purposes of this Bill, which would have appeared but for the fact that the decision had already been made yesterday, before a statement was made to the House of Commons. That was dealt with today in principle, although not the question of what actually is going to be done. Therefore, for practical purposes, all I need say on Second Reading is that there are relevant provisions within the scope of this Bill, in clause 9, which is entitled “Recovery of unlawful state aid”.
Earlier this afternoon, I chaired, as I always do on Wednesdays, the European Scrutiny Committee. We have a 10 or 15-page paper on this question. The report, which will be signed off today and then published, covers reform of state aid rules and potential implications for the UK and includes a full description of what the state aid rules would mean; what the evaluation is at the moment by the European Commission; what it intends to do with respect to state aid in relation to enforcement proceedings; matters of sovereignty regarding the United Kingdom; the timetable for amendments to the EU state aid rule book; and the continued relevance of EU state aid law to the UK.
I am reading out some headline points, which also include infringement proceedings for state aid granted before 31 December; state aid law under the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland; state aid commitments—this is of course highly relevant to what the Minister said at the beginning, and I strongly advise him to read the report carefully—and state aid commitments in the EU-UK trade agreement, which the Prime Minister is going to be discussing today, and we do not know the outcome of that; the impact of EU subsidy controls on the competitors to UK businesses; and article 10 of the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) referred to. Indeed, I did too this afternoon, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made his statement and I pointed out that not only do I agree 100% with what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions on all those relevant matters, wishing him well for this evening, but that what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced yesterday, in principle, and then reaffirmed today must not be allowed to undermine the unfettered sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. That sovereignty is based on the referendum, the votes, the Acts of Parliament that everybody in this House on the Government Benches and the House of Lords agreed to, and, for that matter, section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was passed by a majority of 120 in this House—not a word of dissent from the House of Lords and not a word of dissent from any Member of this House.
In conclusion, I intend to table these amendments to examine the question when we get to the Report stage next week.
Sir William Cash
It is always a pleasure to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have been jousting on these questions for the best part of 20 years.
Mr Carmichael
I hate to think it is the best part, but certainly it has been almost 20 years. The hon. Gentleman gives an interesting list of topics that his Committee has considered. The actual, practical application of these matters will be very different if the ratio decidendi in the Factortame case continues to have application in Northern Ireland post 31 December. Is that a matter he has considered, and what impact does he think it has on these things?
Sir William Cash
As somebody who has taken a great interest in Irish matters since I came into this House, I can only say the answer to that is yes. However, I also know that there is an enormous amount of malicious rubbish talked about the implications for the hard border. We are not going to impose a hard border. If anybody does, it will be the EU. If the EU gets its way on these matters, believe me, we are going to end up with difficulties that will have been created by the EU, not by us. I remember Martin Selmayr saying that the price the United Kingdom would have to pay would be the loss of Northern Ireland. I mean, it is as bad as that. I therefore say that I do take a great interest in it, because I want the Union to survive and to prosper. I believe it can, but it will not be able to if we end up with provisions that undermine the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.
On the specific question of state aid, that is a matter within the scope of the Bill. I therefore expect our amendment to be able to be called. Precisely what I do about it at that time will depend on the outcome of the negotiations, but I am not going to buy a pig in a poke and accept the idea that it is all over and done with because somebody who happens to be a Government Minister made a statement yesterday from Brussels and then came to the House to put forward his case today. We have not seen the details, so I want to reserve my position until I know exactly what the outcome of the negotiations is. I would warrant that the 70% of the British people would agree with me.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The way this Bill has been brought to the House today, less than 24 hours since it was published yesterday, really shows the disrespect the Government have for Parliament and for all of us here today. It is unacceptable that the UK Government are coming so late in the day with these proposals and are blatantly using them as a form of leverage in their negotiations.
The proposals before us today will impact on the daily lives of residents in Northern Ireland and of businesses more widely. I have concerns, not least from what the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has just said, that the clauses being taken out could easily be put back in again—if not by him, then by the Government themselves. We have no certainty over that because of the way they have conducted these negotiations.
As MPs, we do not have adequate time to scrutinise what is in front of us this afternoon. Businesses and stakeholders have also been excluded from the process and they are, of course, those who will feel the impact the most. It is typical of the slapdash, chaotic way the UK Government do things, but I would like very much to put on record my dismay and regret at this shambles. I would also like to say that, while I have huge sympathy for those who have worked on the drafting on the Bill, it would not be the first Bill that has come back with errors and drafting issues because it has been prepared in haste. We have also seen that with some of the financial services statutory instruments that have gone through. I am very concerned that this has been done so hastily that we will not find out what the errors are until the UK Government come back to fix them later.
The Northern Ireland provisions have huge complexity and give significant powers to the Treasury to define in regulations the goods that are “at risk” of being moved into the EU. The Minister confirmed yesterday that we do not know exactly what those at-risk goods are, which causes huge uncertainty for those moving goods in and out of Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said, that has a chilling effect on businesses that want to transact their business as normal, but just do not know what it is that they are being expected to prepare for.
The letter that we received earlier from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury confirms that changes to the regulations will be made under the negative procedure, so this House will have no ability to further scrutinise them. The same is true of Stormont and it is crucial that we hear Stormont’s views on these regulations and the effect of them.
“Take back control,” this Government said. Well, it seems that most of the control is either going to the Treasury or to officers in HMRC. All these regulations are being put forward in such a way as to remove scrutiny and to remove control. Throughout the letter that we received earlier from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, references were made to the use of the negative procedure and, curiously, to powers that there are no plans for the Government to use. It may not be the plan now to use them, but even the best laid plans gang aft agley, as happens so often and so wildly with this Government. How will the scrutiny work should the Government decide to make these changes? Lots of powers are being hived off, as we can well see. The amendment tabled in my name and the names of my colleagues attempts to redress some of the democratic deficit in the way that the Government are conducting themselves.
The affirmative procedure, as with many procedures in this place, is not perfect by any means, but at the very least this would make the UK Government come to this House to explain the reasons for their actions and to be scrutinised on their thinking, rather than just making changes that will make a real difference to the lives and livelihoods of people across these islands and more widely. Changes should not just go through on the nod.
The withdrawal agreement has the consent mechanism for Stormont, which will kick in only at the end of 2024. The UK Government must explain how their engagement will operate on all the mechanisms between then and now. This matter is horribly complicated and my sympathies are with all those who have to operate under these very difficult circumstances. So much of the uncertainty is also swathed in huge amounts of red tape. The red tape that the Brexiteers claimed they were going to remove will now be wrapped around Northern Ireland.
I received very little by way of reassurance from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his statement and his responses to Members earlier today. Too much is uncertain, and a lot of it is mince. The derogation in chilled meat, sausages, mince and unfrozen prepared meals is one such aspect. [Laughter.] Keep up, keep up! RTÉ’s Tony Connelly notes that when the as-yet-to-be-determined derogation period expires, supermarkets in Northern Ireland will need to source products locally or from the Republic of Ireland. That may well be good for those producers and good luck to them, but a clear competitive disadvantage is being placed on food exporters in Scotland, Wales and England and that cannot be justified by the Government.
The trusted trader scheme itself is subject to review three and a half years after the Northern Ireland protocol begins, but what mechanisms exist to hold it to account in the meantime to ensure that it is effective and that it does not have a distorting effect, which we suspect that it may do? What is in place now to ensure that there is not a further panic in a couple of months’ time due to a lack of qualified staff to carry out checks for export health certificates? Given the propensity of this Government to hand in their homework late if the dog has not already eaten it, what concrete assurances can they give?
I turn now to enforcement. The Prime Minister could not answer the question earlier from the Leader of the Opposition on the existence, or otherwise, of 50,000 customs agents, and the Minister today could not answer the same question from the hon. Member for Oxford East. I want to know a bit more about these customs agents. Where are they? How many of them are there? Will they be prioritised for the big ports in the UK, or will the Government run the risk of leaving the door open to smuggling and tax-dodging via the short straits? As the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) mentioned earlier, there is a risk of criminality as well as just of error.
What assessment have the Government made of the competitiveness of our export businesses with reference to schedule 3 of the Bill? If customs charges now apply, surely it will make it more difficult for people to export as well as to import? This is a general concern that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) on multiple occasions. It presents an extra hassle for small businesses as well as an extra unanticipated expense for consumers. I give the House a small example. I ordered a necklace some time ago from the United States and when it arrived a huge customs charge was slapped on it. Had I known about it before I had ordered it, I might not have ordered it, given the scale of the charge. Consumers do not know what they will end up with if they order something online. When we see something online, we see what the price of it is and what the postage is, but we do not see that customs charge, which is really not transparent. The earrings that I am wearing today are from a small business based in Slovenia, which was able to send them with no additional charges because we were a member of the European Union. Some 70% of Irish online purchases come from the UK. I want to know from the Minister what the impact of the changes will be on our own businesses that wish to export to the Irish Republic.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes an almost persuasive case about the difficulty of fragmenting a customs union that has been in place for only 40 years or so. How much more difficult would it be to fragment the United Kingdom, a customs union that has been in place for centuries?
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman makes a good attempt there, but the issue is really the UK Government and their incompetence in dealing with all these issues, which could well have been anticipated, as well as in taking us out of the large trading bloc on our doorstep from which we have benefited for 40 years and from which our businesses have been able to export their goods. We in Scotland have been able to export our food and drink very easily, very simply and without any barriers. These are barriers that the UK Government wish to put in place—and if they wish to put them in place with an independent Scotland, that is their choice, not ours.
Alison Thewliss
I have almost finished, so I want to make a little progress, but I will try to bring the hon. Lady in later.
I am curious about what assessment the Government have made of the chilling effect of these changes. It is also very interesting that the customs duties will benefit the Irish Exchequer and be to the detriment of our people who wish to export. I note that paragraph 12 of schedule 1 will amend the Isle of Man Act 1979, and that part 6 of new schedule 9ZB to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, which is inserted by schedule 2, also relates to the Isle of Man, so I would be grateful if the Government told us what communication they have had with the Manx authorities on the proposals. Obviously those proposals have come out overnight, so I do not know what discussions have been had, but it would be very interesting to find out.
Scotland has not been offered the deal that Northern Ireland has been offered. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke about the benefits of the EU single market that people in Northern Ireland will enjoy. Lucky them. Scotland is the only part of this supposed Union of equals not to get any of what we asked for, and we will see our own industries disadvantaged. To add insult to our very evident injury, Baroness Davidson and the then Scottish Secretary, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), threatened to resign if Northern Ireland was given different treatment. Just a couple of years ago, they said:
“Having fought just four years ago to keep our country together, the integrity of our United Kingdom remains the single most important issue for us in these negotiations.
Any deal that delivers a differentiated settlement for Northern Ireland beyond the differences that already exist on an all Ireland basis (eg agriculture), or can be brought under the provisions of the Belfast Agreement, would undermine the integrity of our UK internal market and this United Kingdom…We could not support any deal that…leads to Northern Ireland having a different relationship with the EU than the rest of the UK, beyond what currently exists.”
Well, that is exactly what we have. It is exactly what the Bill is and what it does, yet those two Members are still about. The Scottish Conservatives really do have more faces than the town clock.
To move on to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he has an absolute brass neck to describe the situation in Northern Ireland as the “best of both worlds”. He said on ITV that Northern Ireland would have
“access to the European single market, because there is no infrastructure on the island of Ireland, and at the same time unfettered access to the rest of the UK market.”
“The best of both worlds”—in Scotland, we have heard that before. The Better Together campaign told us that the only risk of losing our place in the EU was if Scotland voted for independence. Where are we now?
The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill farce undermines yet further the integrity of this crumbling Union, and today’s Bill takes another sledgehammer to the support structures that this Government believe are stronger than they are. The people of Scotland—those who voted no as well as those who voted yes, and those who were unable to vote six years ago—have been watching what has been going on. They do not want a UK Government who drag Scotland out of the EU—they voted very clearly, by 62%, to remain—they do not want a UK Government who threaten to break international law and spoil our standing in the world, and they do not want a UK Government to force Scotland into an insular and poorer future. People want their chance to have their say. The 15 polls in a row that now back independence show clearly to me and everybody else that the people of Scotland believe that things have changed. As Winnie Ewing said:
“Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Members should be aiming to speak for not much longer than four minutes, if we are to get everybody in. I call Sir John Redwood.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The origins of this legislation lie in the negotiations under the previous Prime Minister that introduced the whole idea of a Northern Ireland protocol. I regretted those negotiations very much. I opposed them at the time and did not vote for the deals that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) came forward with, because I thought they were designed by the EU as a lever to try to delay, dilute or damage Brexit.
When the current Government asked me to support their version of the withdrawal agreement, I still had considerable reservations about the Northern Ireland protocol. I put those to Ministers, who reassured me and said, “This is only an outline operation in the withdrawal agreement as currently drafted. None of the detail has been done. We will negotiate very strongly. We will get rid of the offensive features that you don’t like.” They said that they shared some of my concerns and that they would come back with something much better. I am always trusting of colleagues, so I said that that was very good to know but that I did not have the same confidence in the EU.
I thought it was unlikely that the EU would want to facilitate that in the way that I and the Government would like. so with some friends, I backed my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in saying that the way through this was to put clause 38 into the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. Under that clause, were the EU to act in bad faith and not come up with a workable solution for Northern Ireland and the other problems, we would have asserted UK sovereignty in our version of the treaty, and so in good law we could use clause 38 to legislate in Britain for what we intend to do, overriding the agreement.
It was quite clear from the drafting of that Bill that we wanted that override, and I would not have dreamt of voting for the thing without the override. The Government were saying that they did not think we would need to use it, but we could use if we had to, which is why I was pleased to support them earlier this week in a very modest override. It is entirely legal; it is the assertion of British sovereignty. We need to keep that in reserve, because without seeing all the detail from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I am not satisfied yet that we have a working operation for the Northern Ireland border and the matters that we are discussing today—more precisely, who controls the taxation.
What I do not like about these proposals is that it is extremely difficult for individuals and businesses to have to respond to two legal jurisdictions on tax in the same place, yet we seem to have both an EU VAT system and a UK VAT system. I hope that the UK VAT system will deviate rather more from the EU one and be friendlier, lower and apply to different things, but the more that that happens, the more difficult it will be if we are trying to enforce two different VAT systems in one part of the United Kingdom.
I am also concerned about the enforcement mechanisms. We are led to believe that it will be handled by HMRC, but we are also told that the ultimate authority on the EU part of VAT and excise will be the European Court, and therefore there are likely to be inspectors and invigilators—electronic or in person—interfering in the process within what should be sovereign United Kingdom territory. I hope the Government will think again and push back again.
We need more of the detail that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has so far withheld from the House. It may be that he does not yet know it all or that his agreement is high level, in principle, but there are details that we need to know—indeed, details that it would be better to know before we legislate today. For example, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says that delay periods for adjustment will be necessary for supermarkets and some meat products and so forth. Does that not require some kind of recognition in this legislation? Does it not mean that these jurisdictions do not kick in during the period of grace that we are told will be available?
We need to have more detail from the Government on what exactly happens at the border. I have always explained to the House and others who are not very interested that VAT and excise take place electronically across the borders at the moment, so we are talking largely about an electronic border. We need to know how this electronic border will be programmed to deal with the competing jurisdictions and competing incidences of taxation, and how the product codes and shipment codes will correctly identify the products by category that will be suborned by the EU jurisdiction as well as, properly, by the UK jurisdiction, which ideally would be handling the whole thing.
We do not have nearly enough time to discuss the fundamentally big issues of principle that the Bill brings before us and we have had precious little time to go into the detail. It is all very sad that this rush job is being done like this, but I hope before the Government finish the debate today they will have done a better job of explaining to someone like me why we need to have this dual jurisdiction; how the EU control is going to be limited; how it is going to operate; how, in the early days, the “transitional arrangements”, which we are told about, are going to apply; and why they are not reflected in the current text of this rather unfortunate piece of legislation.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). Unusually, I found myself agreeing with much of what he said about the time we have to debate this Bill. The points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) in the previous debate were absolutely on the mark.
As someone who voted in the referendum to remain but who represents a seat that voted leave, I have to say that when I hear speeches such as the right hon. Gentleman’s, and many others that we are going to hear, I fear that much of what I have long feared about the whole Brexit process is coming to pass, which is that Brexit will be an orphan child and when we have left the EU and come to our final arrangement, it will be impossible to find anyone, perhaps with the exception of the Prime Minister, who says, “This is the Brexit I was campaigning for.”
Brexit operated in so many different people’s minds as a different entity. Even now, with a Brexit-backing Prime Minister, an overwhelming Tory majority, any Tories who showed a whiff of regard for our future relationship with Europe banished from the party and all rebellion quashed, the fundamental contradictions of Brexit remain unresolved. I have no way of knowing whether there will be a deal, but I can be certain that when that deal is signed many who argued earnestly that we should leave the EU will claim, “This was not the Brexit I was campaigning for.”
Let me turn to the measures in the Bill. I confess that during the referendum our campaign to back remain in Chesterfield hardly touched on the position of Northern Ireland. We did speak a bit about the Union in the context of Scotland, but Northern Ireland was barely mentioned, yet much of the Bill relates to the provisions relating to Northern Ireland that have become central to the issues that remain. The Labour party is, as I am, resolutely behind the Union and entirely committed to the Belfast agreement, and we recognise the many contradictions that persist.
I have to say to colleagues from the Democratic Unionist party and others that they should not think that these Northern Ireland issues concern very many of my constituents in Chesterfield. I know from many conversations that took place during the general elections on doorsteps in Chesterfield in 2019, when I was trying to raise the issues associated with Northern Ireland, that if the cost of getting a Brexit deal that enables our country to trade freely and regain control of immigration happened to be a united Ireland, many of my Brexit-voting constituents would accept that in a heartbeat. The people of Northern Ireland, whom, we should remember, in totality voted to remain, have been badly let down by many of the people they elected to represent them, either by those who sold their support to prop up the disastrous May Government and were then shocked to be sold down the river by the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), or by those who, through their absence from this place, allowed the Brexit view to be heard as the dominant opinion of Northern Ireland.
The businesses of Northern Ireland are now starting to understand what that failure means for them. Right now it means that just weeks away from a change that will impact them more than any other on these islands, the promise that they will be able to enjoy frictionless trade has been exposed as wrong. It is irresponsible that when the Government themselves acknowledge that the administrative impacts on businesses affected by these changes will be significant, those businesses have so little time to plan, and no serious economic or fiscal impact assessments are contained within.
The last-minute nature of the Bill once again exposes the fact that the businesses of Great Britain, and particularly Northern Ireland, are left vulnerable by this incompetent Government’s pursuit of a promise that they cannot keep and should never have made. Although I wish the Prime Minister well tonight, the whole country needs him to remove the spectre of no deal from the nightmares we face as we look towards 2021. Once again, the Government are leaving businesses in the dark, jobs at risk and industries on the brink.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The next two speeches will be timed at four minutes, and then everyone else will have three minutes.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I am going to break with tradition in this debate and actually talk about the Bill. A Bill that is described, in large sections, as primarily technical, administrative and procedural will not always excite the juices in Parliament, among the public or in the press but, although dry in sections, this Bill contains important measures, and I rise to support them.
Let me ground my comments in the experience of many people in the UK today. As someone who ran her own business prior to the election, I know that it is often the technical, administrative and procedural that can really shift the dial—for example, on the number of sales an individual can make or on market price points for a certain type of product—never mind the administrative and procedural processes that take too much valuable time from often hard-pressed smaller traders. Clarity is essential, welcome and timely. Once passed, the Bill will ensure that whatever happens in the ongoing trade negotiations with the EU, in an important subset of regulations there is clarity and fairness for businesses in the UK.
Measures in the Bill will change and improve our tax system and have been brought forward in separate legislation in advance of the proposed Finance Bill. They will ensure that the UK is prepared, whatever the outcome of the Prime Minister’s trip to Brussels later today. We are, and will continue to be, a proud sovereign trading nation. We are ensuring, and will continue to ensure, a smooth transition and continuity for trading businesses.
What do I mean? Let me be specific and turn to schedule 3, on amendments to the Value Added Tax Act 1994—essential bedtime reading for all, I am certain. In my previous business, I sold volumes of lower-value goods in online marketplaces and online channels to customers in the UK, the EU and many other locations overseas. For too long prior to the election I saw lower-value goods advertised by overseas sellers—my competitors— that were imported from abroad and undercut UK manufacturers and suppliers.
Currently, overseas sellers can avoid VAT, not charging it at the point of sale and not handing the revenue back to our Exchequer. That means that our country is losing twice: our fabulous businesses are losing sales to cheaper products from overseas sellers who do not have to charge VAT, which is unacceptable, while our Exchequer is also losing the revenue that such measures raise, which I remind the House funds the provision of the public services, such as the NHS and schools, that we rightly value so highly on the Government Benches. The Bill will remove that overseas-seller anomaly.
Specifically, the measures will mean that low-value consignment relief—LVCR—is removed from all non-UK sellers. All imported goods worth under £135, including under those worth under £15, will be subject to VAT at UK rates. Although currently legal, the existing situation amounts to tax avoidance by overseas sellers and has created distortions in UK marketplaces. It is this Conservative Government who are clamping down on it. To level the playing field, online marketplaces must now account for their VAT. This Government support our fabulous businessmen and women who trade from shops or—like me—online and will continue to do so.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) mentioned extra exporting barriers. As someone who has sat and put the labels on to goods going to EU, Ireland and international destinations, I know that for lower-value goods, any individual consignment worth under £270 gets a CN23 sticker with all the declarations on it, and then off it pops and there are no additional barriers between the EU and the US. No change that we will make today will put in place extra paperwork: what was done for the EU was always what happened anyway—it automatically comes off the printer. I am sure there are great British jewellers who can sell us wonderful earrings—
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Yesterday in the debate on the Ways and Means resolutions, I said that I would be supporting the Bill because our country needs it. It needs it for the core purposes of the Bill, which are the smooth continuity of business after the transition period, being ready, and creating a more level playing field for UK businesses.
I recognise that leaving the EU is a field full of tough issues, but the most problematic element is the nature of our land border with it. Seeking to deliver Brexit while protecting the Good Friday agreement was the major stumbling block in our endless debates and struggles last year, so I am pleased to see progress made on that issue. We had a statement on it earlier; I will not go over trodden ground.
There are businesses in Harrogate and Knaresborough that do significant trade selling to and buying from Northern Ireland. The Bill will be welcome news for them. More people in Harrogate and Knaresborough are affected by internet shopping, either buying from or selling via online platforms. Even if people do not buy online, they are affected by the struggles on the high street. It is a tough time for retailers and, of course, high streets provide countless thousands of jobs. They are economic hubs. Our high streets and town centres also have a social function beyond an economic one. They provide a community focal point.
Before coming here, I worked in retail and for brands that sell through retail. When I talk to retailers, they say that they just want a level playing field. They are talking widely when they use that phrase, but they are talking about taxation, particularly business rates and VAT. The Bill helps to create more of a level playing field with a new model for the treatment of VAT on goods arriving in the UK from overseas. The collection moves to the overseas seller or the online marketplace where that transaction occurs. As a result, it will be easier to collect VAT and harder to avoid it. The last thing that a business having a tough time needs is for competitors to have a 20% price advantage. High street businesses and online players based here pay VAT, so if overseas businesses are allowed to make VAT-free sales, they are unfairly undercut.
I do not think the measure is controversial; it is entirely reasonable. Indeed, as I mentioned yesterday, there are moves across the world in this policy direction. I commented on the other measures in the Bill yesterday, so I will not detain the House with repetition.
The past year has obviously been one of the toughest on record in peacetime. The economic impact will be felt for many years. We also have the consequences of Brexit. The need for the continuity of business operation is profound. Our whole United Kingdom must focus on growth as we seek to protect livelihoods as we have sought to protect lives. The Bill is part of the measures being taken to secure our business future, and that is why I will support it.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
The existence and contents of the Bill encapsulate the opportunities and complexities that we, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, face as we reach the end of the transition period. As we regain control of our money, borders and laws, we have the opportunity to innovate and, in relation to taxation, to remould our regulations around the values and requirements of our modern UK economy.
For example, the Bill introduces some administrative and procedural VAT changes that not only are legally necessary, but allow us to tackle non-compliance and to support our high streets to compete with online sales. That is important in the current economic climate where, for nearly nine months, our high streets have faced unprecedented restrictions and sales have plummeted, while online retailers have traded unhindered and made record profits. I therefore support the measures in the Bill that stipulate that VAT is due from online sales by companies that import goods into the UK. That will ensure a more level playing field for our bricks-and-mortar retailers.
Another opportunity presented by our departure from the EU and the end of the transition period is our potential ability to crack down on tax evasion. The Bill also makes technical provisions on that issue. As well as realising the administrative opportunities that we can embrace as we leave the EU, the Bill reflects some of the complexities that have inevitably arisen as we, an historic Union of four distinct nations, seek to disentangle ourselves from 40 years of economic and increasingly political union with our European neighbours.
During the referendum campaign in 2016, I was not actively involved in politics and I was not a member of a political party, but I agonised over my vote. I was torn between the moral conviction that our UK Parliament should be sovereign and the practical acknowledgement that any divorce after 40 years of union will be complicated and messy—of course, both are true. Following 17 million votes to leave the EU, it is right and democratic to leave, but is also a complex and challenging process that has tested our determination and resolve for three and a half years. That is why the Bill must also make provision for all the circumstances that we may face following the outcome of ongoing trade negotiations. We cannot gloss over or underestimate these complexities or pretend that they should not exist. The history of the relationship between each of our four nations is unique, and it is based on cultural and relational settlements as much as law and statute. Whatever the outcome of the trade negotiations, we must ensure that we have a VAT and customs framework in place to allow trade across the UK to continue as seamlessly as possible. That is what this Bill will achieve, and it is why I support it as a sensible, responsible and necessary piece of legislation.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Somehow or other, I always thought that taking back control would look rather different for this place than this: to have just 24 hours to consider 112 pages of highly technical and detailed taxation legislation is an affront and insult to this House, and an abuse of the process by which we are supposed to govern ourselves. Those on the Treasury Bench who have brought forward this legislation in this way should hang their heads in shame. But, as the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) indicated in her contribution, it is, unfortunately, necessary. It is remarkable that amongst these 112 pages there are so many enabling provisions; so we know that in fact the detail is still to come and there will require to be secondary legislation to implement the detail of what our businesses will actually need.
The kindest comment I can make about the Bill at this stage, given the time available to me, is that it is just a foretaste of things to come. Essentially, most of what we have here pertains to the relationship with Northern Ireland, and even at this stage the Government are still tying themselves in knots because they promised three things of which they could only ever at best deliver two. They said we could come out of the customs union or we would have no border north and south or have no border east or west. In fact, if we were going to come out of the customs union, eventually we had to have a border north or south, or east or west; we could not have all three. I listened to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) talking about electronic borders, but the clue is in the title: it is a border. Once sovereignty trumps economics, that inevitably leads to having borders—something that should be heard in all parts of this House.
I was struck by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) quoting Robert Burns, saying:
“The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,”
I was disappointed and a little surprised that she did not then deliver the next line of that stanza:
“The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!”
If ever I heard the perfect way of describing Brexit, that has got to be it:
“An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!”
The House will remember, of course, that Robert Burns was an exciseman, so he would know quite a lot about customs and the matters in this Bill; Lord alone knows what he would make of it if he were alive today.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
This time yesterday we, frankly, would all have celebrated seeing what is in this Bill; today, I want to celebrate what is not in it. It is great that we do not have to consider the inclusion of additional measures to take account of the failure of the Joint Committee to come to an agreement on the proper interpretation of the Northern Irish protocol; I am delighted to learn that we have now come to the pragmatic and proportionate way found by the Joint Committee for the interpretation and enforcement of its provisions. Just a few days ago the European Union asserted that all goods travelling from GB to Northern Ireland were to be considered as being “at risk” of onward transport to the EU, a patently absurd and obstructionist position, so I heartily welcome this last-minute change of heart.
TD Simon Coveney, the Fine Gael Minister for Foreign Affairs, has said that
“Practical cooperation and flexibility has been agreed to make it as manageable as possible for people and businesses.”
Amen to that, and may the same spirit suffuse the continuing negotiations elsewhere in Europe.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 put in place the practical requirements to allow for the charging of customs duties and VAT away from the geographical border with the Republic of Ireland while continuing to protect the ability of Northern Irish products to travel without restrictions to the rest of the United Kingdom. This respects the Government’s commitment that goods from Northern Ireland will continue to have unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Clause 7 proposes that VAT collection for goods sold in the UK by overseas sellers will move away from the border either directly to the overseas seller or, importantly, where the sale has been facilitated by an online marketplace, to that marketplace. This is a very important step that marks, I hope, the beginning of a much wider reassessment of the role of online marketplaces and the responsibility that they should properly have for the goods of international origin that they sell. All goods sold on our high streets pay the appropriate level of VAT, yet high street shops are being unfairly undercut by online international competitors that have avoided VAT. This clause allows the first step to be taken in recognising that the online marketplace has come of age, and with that coming of age it needs to accept the responsibilities of its powerful market-making position.
I hope that the link between the facilitation of sale and wider responsibilities will be a theme that the Government expand on in the coming months. As I mentioned in the debate yesterday, the same argument can be applied to areas of environmental legislation, such as the extended producer responsibility, as well as the collection of electronic waste for recycling.
I welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s approach. It is no longer credible for the hugely powerful and commercially dominant online marketplaces to wash their hands of what actually passes through their platforms.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), particularly given the fact that he highlighted that just yesterday, we were all wondering what was going to be in this Bill.
What a complete and utter boorach the last 24 hours have been. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) rightly highlighted the shambolic scenes that we have all seen. I heard yesterday from those on the Government Benches that the reason for this is that we are currently in a fast-paced environment. This has been going on for four and a half years, with three Prime Ministers and two general elections. How many resignations? How many U-turns? And the Government leave it until three weeks before the end of the transition before they bring forward something, and they do so with less than 24 hours’ notice of what it will actually entail. What a complete and utter embarrassment. Government Members are the ones who tell us that this is the place where power should lie, yet they are the ones who treat it with more contempt than anyone else. If I was not so disappointed, I would laugh at their sheer hypocrisy.
To turn to the Bill—I am very mindful of time—the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) was right to highlight one of the good elements of the Bill, in relation to online VAT. We should all support that, particularly at this moment in time, given the challenges that we are all seeing on our high street. We need to see a level playing field, and if we can bring that level playing field about, we should be willing to do it. I hope, however, that the Government will continue to go further and revisit the issue of the digital services tax, where they have the powers to make further inroads into levelling that playing field.
You will be unsurprised to learn, Mr Deputy Speaker, with just 60 seconds to go, that my agreement with the Government ends there, for four simple reasons that I will cover quickly. The first one is this: England voted to leave and England will leave. Wales voted to leave and Wales will leave. Northern Ireland voted to remain and Northern Ireland is going to get the best of both worlds; it is going to get access to the EU market while simultaneously remaining in the United Kingdom. And what of Scotland? What do we get? Scotland was told that we should stay in the United Kingdom in order to lead the United Kingdom—lead, don’t leave. We wanted the same access as Northern Ireland. We put forward numerous proposals, yet time after time, this UK Government completely ignored our views and desires in that respect. That all adds up, and it adds up in the minds of the very people this UK Government are going to have to rely upon the next time we go to the polls on our independence.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
At least I and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) agree on a level playing field for business, and I want to concentrate my comments on that area. There is no question, for the best deal for consumers on prices and service, but that we need a fair and level playing field for businesses. That makes the market more competitive, which drives down prices and drives up service. It is absolutely where this Government should focus, and I am pleased to see that they are doing so in this legislation.
I am a big fan of VAT’s part in the collection of taxation. It is much more difficult to avoid than other taxes and much easier to collect. It is not a regressive tax, and I think we should try to focus on indirect taxes as we reform taxes in the future and simplify the tax system. As this closes a loophole, there is actually another area where we lose such a fair and level playing field, and that is the threshold for VAT registration. Some businesses are slightly below that and gain an advantage over others that are slightly above it. That is perhaps a conversation we should have another day.
On part 1 of schedule 3 to the Bill, I very much welcome the changed emphasis on online marketplaces in the collection of VAT duty. I understand from reports that when the changes were made in 2016, we collected about £500 million, although I am not sure what period that accounted for. I would be interested to hear from the Exchequer Secretary how much she thinks these changes will actually bring in for the Exchequer. I am pleased to see that we are closing another loophole in this way, after things like the digital services tax and the diverted profits tax. I do not think any Government in history have done more to clamp down on tax avoidance than this Government, quite rightly.
I would like to ask a couple of questions about these provisions. As I asked in my intervention, why is the figure £135? I realise this is to do with the changes in Northern Ireland to do with our leaving the European Union and the provisions in EU law for this, but why is it £135? Many products sold on the internet are also sold by UK domestic sellers who have to charge VAT, but above £135 overseas sellers may not have to, so this is another loophole that needs closing. I am not sure why, for example, someone could buy a watch from abroad that might be £500 or £1,000 and the same loophole would apply.
Similarly, this applies only to goods, not services. Many services are now sold online from abroad, such as legal services, accountancy services, IT developer services—for example, people can recruit developers from abroad through platforms such as Elance—and UK providers would have to charge VAT, but overseas providers potentially would not, so I wonder whether we can look at that. However, in the round, I am very supportive of these changes. I welcome them, and I certainly will be voting for them, if it comes to that, later today.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I am pleased to be a Northern Ireland voice in this very important debate. Obviously, this is a different type of speech from the one I was envisaging making earlier this week, and I do welcome that progress—not least that we are, I hope, moving beyond part 5 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the potential notwithstanding clause in this legislation, although of course we do remain vigilant in that regard.
I would welcome confirmation from the Minister, not least given that we have had very little time to scrutinise the detail, that the current version of this Bill is entirely consistent with the Northern Ireland protocol. It is worth recalling why we have to do that and why there is such a protocol. It arises from the decision of the UK not to have a fresh customs union with the EU post Brexit. That prompts the question of where the line is going to be drawn on the map between the UK’s customs union and the EU. The protocol essentially sees a situation whereby Northern Ireland remains part of the single market for goods, but remains part of the UK’s customs territory. Crucially, however, the EU customs code is to be applied down the Irish sea; hence the nature of this Bill.
Just to correct something that was said earlier, the withdrawal agreement and the protocol, which were signed up to by this Prime Minister, had the starting point that all goods moving into Northern Ireland were potentially at risk. That was what was said in the protocol, and I do welcome the progress that has been made in trying to find a way through this and that that is not going to be the case in practice.
Some people may say that it was only the EU that was threatening a border in Ireland. Of course, the EU does have the right to protect the integrity of its single market and customs union, but I think we are being too complacent about the UK’s own obligations in that regard. If, in the event of no deal, the back gate was left open, so to speak, there would be a requirement under WTO rules for the UK to adopt the exact same posture that it has on the island of Ireland with the rest of the world. I am not sure that is a line that it would want to go down, particularly given the whole range of threats that are out there.
There are a range of issues still to be addressed regarding the wider context of the Bill—in particular, the achievement of a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal. Even with that, rules of origin will still be an issue. But if there is no free trade agreement, we are back to the issue of goods at risk. Although we have the prospect of the authorised economic operator model—we await more details of that—it is not going to cover everyone. For example, it is not going to cover small retailers and it may not cover the online issue. There is also the question of what happens if that measure is not renewed in a few years’ time, as well as the issue around necessary resources.
Looking the other way, I have already raised in my intervention on the Minister the issue of qualifying goods and how we can tackle avoidance.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Shaun Bailey; please resume your seat no later than 5 pm.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. It has certainly been a wide-ranging and interesting one, on both sides of the House.
Trade is among the most efficient ways to ensure that peace can be maintained between the communities in Northern Ireland as a whole, and to maintain the prosperity of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that this Bill secures that. In creating the legal framework for customs, VAT and excise charges, the Bill will make a real and positive impact on trade in both Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, including in my communities in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton. It will have a sizeable effect, given that 10% of England’s exports are to other parts of the United Kingdom, and particularly to Northern Ireland, with Northern Ireland external purchases from Great Britain coming in at around £14 billion. In specifying that customs charges will apply to certain goods only if they are at risk of moving into the EU, the Bill provides greater certainty and will ensure that our businesses can have the brighter future that they are looking for. Equally, the Bill will ensure that businesses across the United Kingdom can benefit from a continual flow of goods between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and that Northern Ireland exports and imports do not have to suffer from barriers to trade.
It is quite right that our red line in this Bill has been the ability to set our own customs laws and excise duties. We are going to see the benefit of that in January, with the streamlining of some 6,000 tariff lines and the removal of tariffs on some £30 billion of imports entering supply chains, particularly within manufacturing, which is a key industry for areas like mine in the Black Country. We are going to do that while ensuring that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland, that we maintain the peace that has been built there over generations, and that we maintain the integrity of the communities within Northern Ireland.
Let me turn to the technicalities of the Bill. My hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) touched on the tax element, particularly VAT. As we have heard, schedule 3 finally ensures that our high street retailers can have the level playing field that they desperately need. As I touched on in my contribution yesterday, this has been a horrendous year for our high street retailers, with all the uncertainty and difficulties that they have come through, so ensuring that they are on a level playing field with online retailers and are able to obtain those benefits—and, equally, ensuring that the tax revenue that we have lost out on so far can be put into our vital public services, which have stepped up to protect us and our constituents during this time—is absolutely crucial. I welcome that part of the Bill.
I am extremely conscious of time, so I will round off my comments. Ministers have been given quite a degree of discretion under the words in the Bill, both in some of the definitions, and in some of the abilities that they will have. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) touched yesterday on the point that Ministers have to realise the potential of what they can do through this Bill. I implore my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to realise the potential in some of the abilities and powers that they have in this Bill, and to ensure that they get this right as we move forward—because we will move forward into 2021, and we have to ensure that, as we implement these measures, we do the best by all traders and all businesses operating within our United Kingdom.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I thank everybody who has contributed to this short debate. To pick out a few, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) told us that he was reserving his judgment on some of these measures, particularly the Government’s decision not to proceed with the “notwithstanding” clauses. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) talked about hidden customs charges and described parts of the Government’s approach as “absolute mince”. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) spoke about the dual taxation regime, which we will return to in the Committee stage shortly to follow. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) spoke about the phenomenon of people saying that it is never a proper Brexit, no matter what kind of Brexit it is. The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) gave us a very welcome Northern Ireland voice on these issues.
What this Bill does, first and foremost, is to put in place a framework for the monitoring, taxation and movement of goods that was not there in the past. However much the Government try to duck that issue—to pretend that everything is going to carry on as normal—the new regime is there for everybody to see in the clauses of the Bill and the regulations to follow. Business to and from Northern Ireland will be conducted on a more monitored, differently taxed and significantly more bureaucratic basis than before. There is simply no escaping that and no hiding from it, and it would be better if the Government acknowledged this as what they have agreed. My first question to the Minister is: do the Government really expect to implement everything in this Bill and to secure compliance from businesses both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK on all these measures by 1 January? Is that the Government’s realistic goal?
The Bill, of course, could have been very different. It could have contained clauses setting aside parts of the Northern Ireland protocol. The Government did look ready to double down on the course of action that they had embarked on in the UK Internal Market Bill, but thanks to yesterday’s statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his counterpart, Mr Šefčovič, the Government have announced that they will not proceed with such clauses. We can now look forward to the Government moving amendments in the other place to delete that which they insisted was necessary in this House on Monday evening. It is one thing to play ping-pong with the House of Lords, but quite another to play ping-pong with yourself. Once again, the Government’s MPs who valiantly defended the line on Monday now have a very different line to advance before Thursday. This is not the first time this has happened, and I should guess it will not be the last. If I was a Government Back Bencher, I would be becoming a little bit more wary of following the line from No. 10 on a number of issues.
In all the twists and turns that got us here, Ministers might think that they have acted tough, but threatening to legislate to set aside parts of an international agreement that the Government signed only a year ago has only done damage to the country’s reputation. The Government have not communicated toughness; all they have communicated is that they cannot be trusted. As we embark on a process of trying to negotiate new free trade deals around the world, what a signal to send and what a starting point: do a deal with the Government who threatened to ditch parts of the last one that we signed. That was not clever negotiating tactics and it was not toughness—it was reckless, and, I am afraid, it was revealing about the character of the Government.
The Bill sets out the new customs regime for so-called at-risk goods moving to and from Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Although it empowers Ministers to levy the necessary duties, there is still much that, as clause 1 says, will have to be clarified in new regulations from the Treasury. We only have 22 days to go. When will we see these new regulations? When will businesses in Northern Ireland, or those anywhere else in the country that send goods to Northern Ireland, know exactly what the new regime will be? Does the Minister really think that this is a proper way to do this, more than four years after the referendum and just three weeks before the end of the transition period?
Similar phrasing is used in clause 2 in relation to goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK, and the same point applies: when will businesses know what is happening? On the VAT regime in clause 3, will the Minister set out how the EU’s VAT regime, as it applies to Northern Ireland, will interplay with the UK’s VAT regime—the question raised by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)? Similarly, on excise duties, how will the measures in clause 4, which apply to everything from spirits and beer to tobacco products, differ from current arrangements? Are the insurance premium tax changes thought necessary in the event of no mutual assistance provisions between the UK and the EU? If they are, are such provisions likely to be part of any deal which, if agreed, would then mean that the clause was not needed?
These measures are likely to pass the House quite quickly tonight, but the real action at the moment is of course not here, but elsewhere. As we debate this Bill, we still do not know whether there will be a free trade agreement reached. After four years, the public, companies and their staff do not know what they will be facing in January, and the root of that decision remains what it has always been: this choice between sovereignty and market access.
The story of the past four years has been the Government moving more and more towards the sovereignty side of that choice. They may say that is the remorseless logic of Brexit, but no one should doubt the significance, because what it means is that, for the first time in history, we have a Government and a process where questions of investment, of people’s prosperity and of their living standards have been progressively relegated to a more and more distant second place. We will see the results of that choice over the coming months. Perhaps after tonight’s dinner in Brussels, we might even be a bit clearer about the results in the days to come, but in the end what has been described as a negotiation is, in fact, a choice. The Government have made their choice, and we will see the effect in the months to come.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
It is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of the Government, and I thank Members from all parts of the House for their thoughtful and varied contributions.
At the end of this month, the transition period will end. As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary pointed out at the beginning of today’s debate, we have a great responsibility to be ready for this event. The measures contained in the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill will play an important part in the preparations.
Let me take this opportunity to thank Opposition Members for their constructive and collegiate approach throughout the passage of this Bill, despite their evident reservations, and in that same spirit I will address some of the points raised in today’s debate.
The Bill is an essential part of our preparations for the end of the transition period. It takes forward important changes to our tax system to support the smooth continuation of business across the UK. It contains six measures. Three relate to the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol and three implement wider changes to the tax system, which are needed before 1 January. Most importantly, it will ensure that we meet our commitments to Northern Ireland, including on unfettered access and those commitments as set out in the Northern Ireland protocol. Taken together, the measures form an important part of our preparations as we resume our place as a fully sovereign trading nation.
Now that we have further clarity on the outcome of the Joint Committee negotiations, it is vital that the provisions are in place before the end of the transition period to provide that certainty. The Bill’s passage is necessarily rapid, but it will allow for these important changes to be implemented on time. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) asked if we believed it can be done, and my answer is yes, of course. The UK Government will take forward a pragmatic approach that draws upon available flexibilities to implement the protocol without causing undue disruption to lives and livelihoods.
The Government are committed to supporting business. At the centre of the package is the free-to-use trader support service, which will support business when moving goods into Northern Ireland, educating traders on what the protocol means for them and completing customs safety and security declarations on their behalf. That is working. Since the launch of the registration portal in September, more than 18,000 businesses have signed up for support from the trader support service.
Turning to Members’ comments, the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) requested confirmation that the UK meets its obligations. The powers in the Bill allow us to implement the Northern Ireland protocol in a way that is consistent with our obligations, and I appreciate his broader supportive statements. My hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), among others, rightly referred to our closing of the VAT loophole in clause 7 and schedule 3. Low-value consignment relief is subject to widespread abuse and contributes to trade distortion. It disadvantages UK high street businesses that are required to charge VAT where overseas businesses are not, either for legitimate reasons or through abuse, and removing the relief will bring overseas sellers on to an equal footing with UK businesses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) asked why the clause applied just to low-value goods and whether there was an opportunity for it to apply to high-value goods as well. The reason is that the £135 threshold aligns with the threshold for customs duty liability. Imports of goods greater than £135 in value are subject to enhanced customs requirements, which would negate the benefit of moving VAT away from the border. Therefore, imports of goods greater than that amount will remain subject to the current model for goods arriving from non-EU countries, where VAT is collected at the point of importation.
My hon. Friend also asked what revenue we expected from this change. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that these changes will raise over £300 million a year over the next five years, and £1.6 billion over the scorecard period. Approximately two thirds of that will come from improving collection and tackling non-compliance through the new VAT treatment of cross-border goods, and the final third of the revenue will come from the removal of low-value consignment relief, which will end widespread abuse of this relief.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) asked whether the ECJ would be the ultimate arbiter for VAT and excise. The ECJ will continue to have a role where EU directives apply in Northern Ireland—for example, where there are disputes on how the EU rules should be interpreted. However, the rules will continue to be policed by HMRC, which will continue to be the tax authority for the whole of the UK. He also mentioned Northern Ireland being subject to two regulatory systems. Northern Ireland is and will remain part of the UK and its VAT system. It is correct that the Northern Ireland protocol means that NI will continue to align with the EU VAT rules in respect of goods, but not services. That is to ensure that trade is not disrupted on the island of Ireland, and to allow us to meet our commitments under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. But, as I said, HMRC will continue to be the tax authority for the whole of the UK. Businesses will continue to have a single UK VAT number, issued by HMRC, and they will submit only one UK VAT return to account for VAT on all supplies of goods and services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) asked about the current negotiations. Just to remind him and reiterate to the House, the UK Government set out on 17 September that Parliament would be asked to support the use of provisions such as clause 45 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and any similar subsequent provisions in a Finance Bill. These clauses were introduced as reasonable steps to create a safety net, so that the Government would always be able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland in the event that a negotiated outcome could not be reached in the Joint Committee. However, as we all now know, following intensive and constructive work over the past weeks by the UK and EU, we now have an agreement in principle on all issues in relation to the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland. As we have mutually agreed solutions, the UK can now withdraw clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the UKIM Bill and not introduce any similar provisions in this taxation Bill.
Mr McFadden
On that point about the “notwithstanding” clauses, can the Minister guarantee, given that neither the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill nor this Bill has finished its passage in the House, that the Government will not reintroduce them at any further stage?
Kemi Badenoch
As I have just said, I am not in a position to be talking about what is happening in the future. We have been negotiating in good faith and we have an agreement in principle. I do not believe that those clauses will be coming back, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, the negotiations are still ongoing and we need to wait and see what the outcomes of those negotiations are. It would be quite wrong for me or him to pre-empt anything else that will be taking place, and we must not bind the hands of our negotiators. It is absolutely right that we all speak with one voice in this House.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) mentioned GB and NI parcels and asked how consumers would know whether there was a customs charge. The movement of parcels into Northern Ireland is another important part of how the protocol will work in practice for people in Northern Ireland. That is why the UK Government will take forward a pragmatic approach, just as we have elsewhere, that draws on available flexibilities to implement the protocol without causing undue disruption. In terms of schedule 3, she gave the example of the earrings from Slovenia that she had ordered. It is worth stressing that schedule 3 deals with imports to the UK and not exports. It will ensure that UK customers see the amount of VAT that needs to be paid at the point of sale on goods below £135. For goods between Northern Ireland and GB, VAT is already charged on supplies sold by a GB business to an NI customer. When the Northern Ireland protocol comes into effect, Northern Ireland businesses or consumers purchasing goods from VAT-registered businesses will see no significant difference in costs from a VAT perspective.
Let me conclude by saying that tonight, this House has the opportunity to give businesses in Northern Ireland and throughout the rest of the UK certainty about the arrangements that will apply from 1 January next year, to strengthen the precious bonds of union that tie this country together, and to prepare this country for an even brighter future as an independent sovereign trading nation. For all those reasons, I urge all Members to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will now suspend the sitting for a brief period in order for both Dispatch Boxes to be sanitised.
Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill
Wednesday 9th December 2020
(3 years, 4 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 Amendment Paper: Committee of the Whole House Amendments as at 9 December 2020 - (9 Dec 2020)
17:41 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 257 / Noes: 350 - Question accordingly negatived.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair in order to comply with social distancing requirements, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. Chairs of the Committee should be addressed as such, rather than as Deputy Speakers.
I must also modify the call list slightly in the light of the selection and grouping of amendments by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I will call the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) to open the debate by moving amendment 2; we will then follow the rest of the call list as published, starting with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I will call the Minister at the end to respond to the debate.
Clause 1
Duty on goods removed to Northern Ireland
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 2, page 2, line 43, at end insert—
“(4A) The Treasury must publish guidance setting out its proposed approach to the reliefs, repayments and remissions referred to in subsection (3)(b) within four working days of this section coming into force.”
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 4, line 24, at end insert—
“(5) The Treasury must publish guidance setting out its proposed approach to the reliefs, repayments and remissions referred to in subsection (4)(a) within four working days of this section coming into force.”
Clause 2 stand part.
Clauses 3 to 4 stand part.
Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 7, line 44, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment is connected with NC1, which would make all substantive regulations under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause 5 stand part.
Clauses 6 to 12 stand part.
New clause 1—Regulations—
“Notwithstanding any other enactment, a statutory instrument containing regulations made under this Act, other than regulations made under section 11, may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This new clause would make regulations made under the Bill (other than the commencement regulations in clause 11) subject to House of Commons affirmative procedure.
New clause 2—Treasury use of powers—
“(1) The Treasury must, within four working days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a report setting out the timeframe within which it will use the powers to make regulations conferred by—
(a) section 40A(2) of TCTA 2018;
(b) section 40B(1) and (2) of TCTA 2018;
(c) section 30A(4) of TCTA 2018;
(d) section 30B(1) and (3) of TCTA 2018;
(e) section 30C(5) of TCTA 2018, and
(f) section 5(2) of this Act.
(2) The Treasury must publish an annual report setting out how it has made use of the powers referred to in subsection (1).
(3) Each report under subsection (2) must include an assessment of—
(a) what considerations the Treasury made when deciding to use its powers, and
(b) the impact of the regulations on individuals and businesses throughout the UK, and specifically in Northern Ireland.”
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Mr McFadden
As well as speaking to amendment 2, I will speak to amendment 3, which makes the same points, and say a word about new clause 2. All three have been tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Clause 1 sets out the new customs regime that will apply to goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—specifically those that are deemed to be at risk of entering the EU single market. The Northern Ireland protocol that the Government have signed up to requires such a regime as a result of their decision to leave the single market and the customs union. It will mean a system of paying customs duties for those who move such goods.
As yet, none of us knows whether a deal will be agreed, although we know that an important dinner is taking place in Brussels tonight. However, we welcome the announcement of a trusted trader scheme today, although it comes very late in the day. That scheme will remove some of the possible tariffs on goods that move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit, but for other goods we are clear that we do not want to see additional costs for businesses and communities in Northern Ireland.
The House should note that Northern Ireland consumers have, on average, about half the discretionary income of consumers in the rest of the United Kingdom; the long and the short of it is that they simply cannot afford such additional trade tariffs on goods. There therefore needs to be a system for at-risk goods that do not leave Northern Ireland, in line with the agreement that Northern Ireland remains part of the UK’s customs territory and that customs duties should not apply to goods that travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland if Northern Ireland is their end destination.
The protocol and the arrangements agreed yesterday by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his counterpart create new requirements for businesses to be set out in regulations. Clause 1 is specific about that, for example in new section 40B of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, which states that the Treasury
“may by regulations provide”
for which goods the new duties will apply to, and make
“provision about reliefs, repayment and remission…checks, controls or administrative processes”
and other matters.
My broad point is that that is obviously a description of new arrangements that are not in place right now; that is why they are being introduced in the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, it would be better for the Government to acknowledge that this is a new regime with new requirements, instead of the pretence that everything will carry on exactly as it is.
As I also said on Second Reading, we only have three weeks to go. Businesses in Northern Ireland and those that do a lot of trade with Northern Ireland will be asking, “What does this mean for me? What processes do I have to go through? What do I have to pay? If the goods remain in Northern Ireland, will I be entitled to a rebate if I have paid? How will I claim that rebate? How will this system work?” Those are all legitimate questions about the new regime being introduced by the Bill and the regulations enabled by it. Amendment 2 asks the Treasury to reach conclusions and to publish answers on these matters in the coming days. Frankly, it is already too late to expect businesses to absorb more than 100 pages of legislation within a few weeks. But even if it is too late, we cannot afford more delay, which is why our amendment calls for the publication of guidance on this within a few days of the Bill coming into force.
I should stress that nothing in this amendment alters the regime that the Government are trying to bring in. Everything in the amendment is fully in line with the Northern Ireland protocol and with the commitments that the Government have made as part of that. We want to provide clarity for businesses as soon as possible, rather than leaving open-ended the time for these regulations to be published.
In response to my question at the end of the Second Reading debate, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said with confidence that she was sure this could all be done by 1 January. I hope she is right and that any scepticism that all these arrangements will be completed in the three weeks between now and 1 January is unfounded. Let us hope that she is right. The amendment asks for the Government to outline precisely how these duties and tariffs, if they are necessary, will be rebated. Businesses will be asking that question and, quite reasonably, they will want an answer.
Will businesses be required to pay up front and then be reimbursed by HMRC, as envisaged in the Northern Ireland protocol? Is that what the Government have in mind? If so, the Minister should know that there are fears that such a rebate system could be hugely complex. Indeed, some fear that it is not fully built, but we are told that it will all be ready for 1 January. These are vital questions. As it stands, the Bill does not fully answer them, nor does it set out a timeframe in which they will be answered, which is why we have tabled amendments 2 and 3 to the Bill.
Finally, new clause 2 is an attempt to give both Parliament and the public some timetable—some road map—for the blizzard of regulations that are enabled by the Bill and to secure a report on their impact in the future. As I said, this is a new regime. The Bill legislates for something that we have not had to do before in the United Kingdom, and we should at least have the courtesy of reporting on how it is operating in the future. New clause 2 asks for both a timetable of the regulations and a report on how the new regime has operated. These are completely reasonable amendments. I hope that, in a spirit of generosity, the Government will find it within themselves to accept them, and I look forward to hearing the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wind up the debate.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Sir William Cash is not here, so we go to Alison Thewliss.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am very sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is not here, because I am sure that there is so much more that he could have added to this debate that he has not already said.
The First Deputy Chairman
He may have withdrawn but I have not been told, so that may explain it.
Alison Thewliss
That is absolutely fine. I wish to speak to the amendments in my name and the names of my hon. Friends.
As I outlined on Second Reading, I have real concerns about the scrutiny aspects of the Bill. It is a thick and substantial Bill that gives substantial powers to the UK Government to move things through this House under the negative procedure, which gives very little opportunity for us or anybody else to scrutinise their proposals. We wish to see the proposals come under the affirmative procedure wherever possible, to allow extra scrutiny of the Government.
As I said, I am very concerned about the letter that the Minister sent to Members. It talks about a huge range of duties that the Government are creating but that, at this moment, they do not intend to use. I question why they are creating such duties if they do not intend to use them. At some stage perhaps they will use them, so we need a mechanism to scrutinise them. It is unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising, that the Government see taking back control as bringing it back from bureaucrats in Brussels to give it to bureaucrats in Whitehall, bypassing this place altogether. It should have been an opportunity for this place to get more powers to scrutinise such duties, but no; it all goes to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or to the Treasury, and very little comes here or indeed to the Committees of this House. There should have been an opportunity to look at the new taxation structures that we are bringing in here and that we have responsibility for in this House, but the Committees of this House will not get the opportunity to scrutinise these measures either. I know that some have suggested that an additional Committee would allow that scrutiny to be made.
I very much support what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said and the questions he asked. We are dealing with complex supply chains when we talk about the movement of food, chemicals and manufactured goods. In my constituency and in the constituencies of some of my colleagues, for example, we have manufacturers of leather, who move raw hides from Ireland to the west of Scotland. They need to know how they will be able to move these goods through different territories, as they really should not be left hanging about for any length of time; they need to be moved quickly to where they are processed. We do not know whether they would fall under what the Government have termed “at risk goods”. It is not surprising that businesses are tearing their hair out with this shambles of a Government, because they do not know whether they will be able to continue with their business come the turn of the year.
There is also the cost and the red tape, whether it is the 265 million customs forms that will need to be filled out compared with the 54 million now, or whether it is the issue of rebates and the processing of fees and money. This is the end of the transition period, but we do not know what we are transitioning to. We certainly know what we had and what we will not have any more: free and unfettered access to a huge market in Europe. We do know that we are losing that, but we do not yet know what the Government’s plans are.
Despite the Government’s attempts to reassure us, concerns remain. Aodhán Connolly of the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium, while acknowledging the progress that has been made, said of the delays:
“We are just 22 days out and retailers are still unsure about the exact processes needed to move food to Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Government needs to assure them how this will be done without additional bureaucracy.”
There are real concerns about the cost and the choice of food that people of Northern Ireland will have if we do not get this right.
The point that I made earlier about customs charges and duties was reflected in an item on RTÉ at about 2.30 this afternoon. It said that customers in Ireland will be faced with VAT and customs duty from 1 January if buying goods from the UK worth over €22. That is significantly lower than the levels that were spoken about earlier. It was said that the Irish Revenue has no way of knowing whether consumers will continue to buy from the UK when additional charges apply. I ask the Minister to consider this and to do some studies on whether these additional charges will have an impact on people in this country who make good-quality goods and export them to Ireland. A total of 70% goes to Ireland, and we need to have some certainty from the Government about the long-term impact.
The scrutiny mechanisms that we suggest give us ample opportunity to do that at every stage of this process, not just today while we are considering this Bill, and then putting it in a box and leaving it, but on an ongoing basis. This Government definitely need to be held to account.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton): I believe that the Members who were numbers five to 11 on the call list spoke in the earlier debate and have withdrawn from this one, which means that we go straight to Andrew Griffith.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie.
I welcome this set of pragmatic measures. The Bill is a building block on the way to regaining our national self-determination in this very important area. I will oppose the amendment, although not on the principle— greater scrutiny and giving business greater certainty are things that I hope that those on both sides of the House can support. However, we should recognise that we are in a fast-moving environment. The Treasury team have been working incredibly intensively in the context of the pandemic and I think it is unfair to impose on them a specific timeframe when I know they will—perhaps the Minister will address this point—use their very best endeavours to give the very greatest amount of certainty as quickly as possible.
I follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who I have to say takes something of an 18th-century approach to customs, borders, forms and tariffs. The reality is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said earlier, we are in an age of online forms and digital electronic surveillance. Any good that passes across any internal or external border is tracked through a multiplicity of different technologies. I made the observation to the hon. Lady that of course when one introduces any customs border—this is one reason why Government Members are so keen to keep our United Kingdom together—there is an added level of complexity, but we should not overstate the complexity or understate the ability of business to innovate and deal with that.
Alison Thewliss
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing an intervention. Is he aware that we were told in the Treasury Committee that the UK could have adopted the French customs system, which was up and running before ours? Ours is not ready, as the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee heard yesterday. Technological solutions exist, but they do not exist in the UK, and we do not have them up and running to get this moving by the turn of the year.
Andrew Griffith
I beg to differ with the hon. Lady. There will be different systems for different territories, but on the business side of things there is already sophisticated tracking of stock, sales and data, which can be used to feed into accounting systems.
What I really want to do is to celebrate—I hope that those on both sides of the House can do that—the absolute game-changer that is contained within clause 7 to crack down on the leakage of the important tax revenues that fund our valued public services, and, most importantly, to create a level playing field for the nation’s small and online retailers. That has needed to be addressed for far too long. I welcome the Minister to his place and what clause 7 will do for the enterprising small businesses of our nation.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
Dame Rosie, what a delight it is to see you in the Chair, metaphorically if not actually.
It is a measure of the wide gulf between the House’s professed intentions and its actual activities that we are about to wind up within a very few minutes, and nothing like to time, the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee. I thank those who have spoken. Let me do service on my part by keeping my remarks brief, although I will say that nothing could have surprised me more than that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) will not be taking the opportunity to make a trivial two-hour speech.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said that somehow the Government were pretending there was no change. Of course, he then went on to say that nothing has changed. We are not pretending anything. We acknowledge that there is change and that is specifically why we have used the language we have of making the changes as easy and as frictionless as possible for all parties concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman raises concerns and questions about Northern Ireland. I remind him that the Trader Support Service, which was launched on 28 September, has 18,000 subscribers already. He asks us to publish guidance. I can tell him that guidance has been published already, on 26 October.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) saw Brexit—rather helpfully—as an opportunity to return powers to Parliament. How right she was. That is why I am a supporter of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the Parliament that stands at its centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) rightly said that it should be for the Bill to make matters as easy as possible. I agree with that. He pointed to the absolute game-changer in clause 7. I agree with that too.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I believe the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East may wish to withdraw his amendment.
Mr McFadden
I point out to the Minister that he said guidance was published in October; he cannot be referring to the guidance referred to in clauses 1 and 2, which talks about the regulations under the Bill. However, on the basis of the whole debate, we will not press the amendment to a vote tonight, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 1, in clause 5, page 7, line 44, leave out subsection (3).—(Alison Thewliss.)
This amendment is connected with NC1, which would make all substantive regulations under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
17:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 355 / Noes: 258 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 9 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Environmental Protection)
That the draft Control of Mercury (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 19 October, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)
That the draft REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 19 October, be approved.
That the draft Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 19 October, be approved.
Transport
That the draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Customs)
That the draft Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.
Exiting the European Union
That the draft Conflict Minerals (Compliance) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.—(Jesse Norman.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Immigration and Asylum)
That the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1309), dated 17 November 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18 November, be approved.—(Mike Freer.)
Proposed housing development in Lidsing
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I rise to present a petition to the House of Commons from the residents of Gillingham and Rainham.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Gillingham and Rainham,
Declares that the proposal in Maidstone Borough Council’s Local Plan Review for up to 2,000 homes at Lidsing, which borders Hempstead in the constituency of Gillingham and Rainham, would negatively impact local infrastructure and green spaces; and further that the building of this proposal would be detrimental to road capacity, school place availability and local GP services for the local residents of Hempstead and the surrounding areas.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take action to ensure that the 2,000 home Lidsing proposal in Maidstone Borough Council’s Plan does not go ahead.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002638]
Local Government Finance: Croydon
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The section 114 legal notice that halted all non-statutory expenditure in the London borough of Croydon was the first in the capital in 20 years. The previous two were in Hillingdon, where I serve, to this day, as a councillor—I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—and in Hackney. The circumstances today could not be more different, although they may have the eventual similarity of the need for a new Conservative administration to take office in Croydon to sort out the mess—a challenge that I know Councillor Jason Cummings and his opposition colleagues will rise to, and a challenge that was very familiar to us in Hillingdon.
A section 114 notice starts off as a sign of cash flow distress in a council. Income is insufficient for planned expenditure, so services have to be cut and expenditure halted until the budget is balanced again. We know that it has no direct private sector equivalent, but it has the effect of requiring the organisation’s management to demonstrate that it is a going concern. Today, with councillors and residents across the city seeing what is happening in Croydon with worry, it is important that we address here in Parliament the issues that have led to the situation. Given the unfortunate silence of some of the Labour Members representing them, this debate has the purpose of airing the financial challenges facing our London boroughs and providing some assurance to my constituents and others across our capital that the situation in Croydon will not be replicated elsewhere.
Local government financial management is a complex, some would say dull and, in many respects, unique process. It is unique in the public sector, in that councils have to balance their budgets every year. Clearly, constituents across the capital will want to know that there is effective governance and effective oversight of decision making. The consequences can be very serious. In Hillingdon, we faced a 14.8% council tax rise, tens of millions of pounds of unspecified cuts and a budget that had only been legal for the duration of the meeting at which it was agreed, as the legacy of a previous administration. Residents in Croydon and across the capital will want assurance that that is not the fate that awaits them.
Context, of course, is all-important here. Our councillors and constituents want to see evidence that what has happened in Croydon is unique. Further work is under way in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the wider local government sector to establish the detail of what has happened. Certain things are strikingly different about the situation facing Croydon, which should give some assurance to residents in my constituency and elsewhere.
First, looking at the picture across London, the House may wish to note that the finance report to the London Councils leaders committee of 8 December referenced an overall rise of 4.5% in local authority resources available to London as a result of the spending review. The House may also wish to note that the report highlights the additional resources from the Government to ameliorate the financial impact that covid has had on London’s councils. While that leaves an estimated funding gap in the next financial year, the broad picture from across London and the feedback from my local authorities is that the measures provided by the Ministry have met the costs of covid in terms of service delivery. We all recognise that councils in the capital have done an amazing job of rising to that challenge.
This adds up to a picture in which the serious impact of covid on the capital’s finances has been substantially mitigated, to the extent that councils’ financial resilience should not be compromised. Given that background, it is clear that the situation in Croydon is not a consequence of covid, so is it a consequence of austerity? Council budgets consist of a number of elements, some of which are ring-fenced, such as the dedicated schools grant, housing revenue account, parking revenue account and public health grant. The main part of the budget that is visible to residents—the general fund—is largely spent on the authority’s day-to-day statutory services, with the bulk of that on social care, but also on resident-visible services such as parks, libraries, waste collection and clearing up litter. The general fund also services any debt finance costs relating to general fund capital expenditure. Good practice and the expectation of auditors is that councils will retain a reserve—known in local authority accounting terms as “balances”—sufficient to cover likely risks in that budget. This is where we begin to see a divergence from the practices of other London councils.
Financial risk is a part of life for councils, and planning for it is a characteristic of all soundly financially managed authorities. Hillingdon, for example, faced the covid crisis with around £54 million in balances and reserves, sufficient to cover pretty much any financial challenge that the authority might face and ensuring the stable delivery of services to residents—ensuring that libraries, litter clearing, waste collection and potholes being filled would all carry on come what may. Harrow Council, which also serves my constituents, is more financially challenged, but from my regular briefings by its chief executive and finance team, it is clear that it remains on course for a stable and balanced budget. So we need to ask where we see a variance.
Councils’ involvement in housing development is an essential part of housing delivery in the capital, and it is welcome that council tax payers, rather than developers, will see the upside of the gain where developments take place. However, it is noteworthy in the case of Croydon that, unusually, the local authority has loaned a housing subsidiary of around £220 million of capital—borrowed money—of which a total of zero has been returned against a reported business plan to return £110 million by today.
Clearly, that knocks a very significant hole in its budgetary position. As it went into the covid crisis with a capital debt of £1.5 billion, by far the highest in London, it is clear that, although capital borrowing to invest in assets and services is no bad thing, it does impose borrowing costs on council tax payers—in this case, about £43 million each year. That is compounded if those business plans go wrong. Using those resources to fund what it appears since 2007 has essentially been a burst of speculative property investments, it is clear that diversion of resources into servicing debts that are not generating their planned returns on such a scale was a significant part of the problem and created a very weak financial position going into the covid outbreak.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The financial situation in Croydon is worrying to residents in Carshalton and Wallington, as the London Borough of Sutton sits directly next to the London Borough of Croydon. My hon. Friend mentioned the council’s housing development arm. Does he share my concern that the huge amount of money that has been wasted does not seem to be accepted by the council administration itself, and that the first step to recovery for Croydon will have to be the administration acknowledging the mistakes that were made in getting it to this point?
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that. Part of the reason for this debate is the frustration expressed by many that everyone—from the auditors, to local residents, to councillors in the opposition group, to Members of Parliament—was raising these concerns, but they seem to have fallen on deaf ears. There is an absolutely critical need for the assurance in other local authorities—not just Hillingdon and Harrow but Sutton and elsewhere—that a closer degree of attention is being paid to the finances.
The point that my hon. Friend draws attention to was compounded in the case of Croydon, where—as Grant Thornton, the auditor, has highlighted—there was a growing and unaddressed funding gap in the delivery of day-to-day services. These are the basics for a local authority, as opposed to extraordinary speculative business activity that is out of the norm. That prompted Grant Thornton to issue—an extraordinary step—a report in the public interest, given the scale of its concerns, highlighting a shortfall of about £60 million between the resources available and the budgeted expenditure. That is a cash-flow problem on a massive scale, distinctly out of proportion with anything that we have seen in any other London borough.
I should declare that I enjoyed a positive working relationship with the former Croydon leader, Councillor Tony Newman, in my local government days, and always found him a very passionate advocate for Croydon—somewhere that was clearly his place that he felt determined to improve. There is no suggestion that he or his colleagues have acted in anything other than good faith. However, with such a perilous financial position facing residents, and others across London asking what it means for them, it is important that the Department, the Government, the wider local government family and Croydon itself are clear about what has gone wrong and about the fact that this combination of failed commercial property speculation and, more importantly, the failure to address the fundamental management issues is out of step with what we see in other London boroughs. I want all residents in the capital to enjoy the stability, the residents-first attitude and sound financial management that is consistently highlighted by my constituents, because it is critical to the delivery of services on which our community depends.
It is clear that Hillingdon and Harrow, Barking and Bexley and Havering and Redbridge have all faced the financial challenges of austerity and of covid, and they have emerged with budgets that are robust. It is what some have described as disastrous failed commercial property speculation and a fundamental lack of grip on the finances that have unusually brought Croydon to this position. The local government sector is stepping in to help. I know that Ministers will be aware of the particular value of the Local Government Association-led and sector-led improvement teams, who are already beginning to help out. After all, why pay expensive consultancy firms when peers who have been through it are able to rally round and use their experience to help sort the situation out?
Although Labour representatives have sadly remained silent on these concerns—and, in the case of Mayor Khan, heaped praise on the administration for “perfect examples” of projects that even then were millions of pounds over budget—I am determined, and we should be determined, to provide other residents across London with an assurance that such failings are not common across London’s councils. I know that Ministers are equally determined that the success of our councils is not undermined by the reputational damage and what has happened in Croydon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing this debate on such an important topic. I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government. I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting his experience as a serving councillor in London, and agree that the mismanagement by the Labour-run Croydon Council, leading to the section 114 notices, damages the reputation of the excellent work that is carried out by local authorities up and down the country. He may know that I also served as a councillor and as a cabinet member on the Conservative-run Medway Council prior to being elected as an MP. It was well known then that Labour spent all the money when it was in control, and it was only when the Conservatives took control that fiscal prudence and oversight returned.
I will begin by talking about local government in general, and the steps that central Government have taken to support local councils nationwide, before looking at the issues in Croydon in isolation. The very first thing that I should say is how grateful the Government are to those who work for local councils up and down the country who have been tireless in helping our residents to meet the challenges of the pandemic. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House agree that the crucial role that local government plays in delivering the vital services on which we all depend will never be more evident than during this pandemic, and I thank everyone involved for their work.
As hon. Members will know, supporting councils to maintain critical services is a key priority for the Government. That is why, at last month’s spending review, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the key measures of income for local authorities’ core spending power to rise by 4.5% in cash terms next year. That equates to an additional £2.2 billion of funding for local government services. The Chancellor also announced estimated funding of around £3 billion in additional support for covid-19 pressures next year. This comes on top of the unprecedented support that the Government have committed this financial year, with over £7.2 billion for local authorities even before the extension of the contain outbreak management fund for local authorities under the highest level of restrictions that was announced as part of the covid-19 winter plan. This takes the total support committed to councils in England to tackling the impact of covid-19 to over £10 billion.
Councils also have access to the co-payment scheme, which has been extended to June 2021. Under this scheme, the Government will cover local councils for 75% of losses beyond the first 5% of previously planned income from sales, fees and charges. We recognise that, even with the considerable support already provided to local government, there may be individual authorities with unique circumstances. That is why we are encouraging them to approach my Department to discuss any concerns that they have about their future financial position. We remain committed to working closely with local authorities as they support their communities through the pandemic.
Let me turn to Croydon specifically. Since the start of the pandemic, the council has been allocated over £49.2 million in funding, including £33 million in un-ringfenced grants, £8.1 million through the infection control fund and £5.1 million through the contain outbreak management fund. That is on top of the £20.8 million increase in Croydon Council’s core spending power for 2021 that was announced on 6 February this year.
I turn to the current financial challenges in the London Borough of Croydon. As hon. Members are aware, the council’s financial director has now issued two section 114 notices: the first on Wednesday 11 November, and the second on Wednesday 2 December. Local authorities have a legal duty to balance their budgets, and section 114 notices are an important part of an accountability framework that guards against irresponsible or ineffective financial management. If a council judges that it is unable to set or maintain a balanced budget, the finance officer has a statutory responsibility to issue a notice. The council then has 21 days to consider what action it intends to take in response to that notice. Local government is independent of central Government, and the decision to issue a section 114 notice rests with the council at the local level. The Government have no role in the decision to issue a notice.
That said, the Government are well aware of the wider concerns around Croydon’s overall finances and governance. During the pandemic, my Department met with the council on multiple occasions to discuss its budgetary pressures. Croydon had publicly reported that there has been significant uncertainty around the council’s estimation of its budget gap throughout this period. On 23 October, the council’s auditors published a public interest report, which my hon. Friend alluded to, under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. That report detailed serious concerns relating to governance, financial management and commercial investments. The report highlighted that the council had failed to recognise both the seriousness of the financial position and the urgency with which action needed to be taken.
Grant Thornton’s report suggested that there was little evidence of councillors holding officers to account or taking action to address the overspend reported in 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. The Labour-run council failed to address significant overspending, despite warnings before the covid pandemic. Sadly, the report lays bare the fact that Labour recklessly gambled hundreds of thousands, even millions, of pounds of taxpayers’ moneys on disastrous commercial property ventures. For example, it bought a hotel for £30 million—20% more than the asking price; this hotel has gone bankrupt—and a £50 million shopping centre, the value of which has crashed. Most damningly, it provided a loan of over £200 million to a developer, brick by brick, which is yet to make any payments, as my hon. Friend outlined. That has resulted in a staggering pre-covid £1.5 billion debt—larger than that of any other London borough.
Local authorities are independent of national Government and directly accountable through their elected councillors to local residents. Where powers in the Local Government Act 1999 are used, that involves the passing of functions in those democratically elected members to people appointed by the Secretary of State. Intervention in a local authority by central Government is therefore not to be undertaken lightly. We have been clearing the path such that the powers will be used only when there is evidence of systematic and significant failure at a local authority. Our firm preference when a local authority runs into difficulties is that it will tackle those challenges itself, possibly with sector-led support, as my hon. Friend mentioned. That continues to be the case.
However, it is worrying that the interim chief executive officer said in November, when she wrote to councillors:
“Colleagues across the council are still putting forward requests to spend money and for growth next year that we simply cannot afford.”
That is why, on 29 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced a rapid, non-statutory review of the council to be conducted by an independent review team. Announcing the review, my right hon. Friend was clear that the situation described in the public interest report is
“deeply concerning and unacceptable”
and that residents of Croydon
“deserve… better… from their local council.”
I am pleased to confirm that the independent review team has reported its findings to the Secretary of State. He is considering the report and will respond in due course. I can reassure Members that the Secretary of State will take a keen interest in the steps the council will need to take to address the governance and financial management issues that have been identified through the independent review, ensuring that the residents of Croydon receive the services they have every right to expect.
I can, of course, understand that the current situation and the ongoing existence of a section 114 notice might be a matter of concern for Croydon residents. Once a notice has been issued, the council is required to operate controls on spending for 21 days. During this period the council may not enter into any new agreement that involves expenditure unless a finance director has specifically authorised the spend. However, we would expect existing expenditure to continue, such as salaries, pension costs and expenditure required to honour existing contracts and legal requirements. Officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have been in discussion with the council, which has confirmed that services linked to safeguarding vulnerable people and statutory responsibilities will continue to be delivered. We have also been clear that the council should notify us if it anticipates that spending controls during the 21-day section 114 period will prevent it from delivering any services that are required to safeguard the residents of Croydon during the pandemic, and we will continue to monitor.
At the end of the 21-day period, the council must meet to discuss a plan to bring the budget back into balance. The council held a meeting in response to the first section 114 notice on 1 December, where it was agreed that it was not possible to deliver a balanced budget, leading to the issue of a second notice the following day. It is for the council to decide what steps it needs to take to balance its budget. The council made it clear in its section 114 notices and accompanying reports that it will submit a request later in December to the Government for financial support to help it bring the budget back into balance. That request will be considered as and when it is received.
I thank my hon. Friend for calling this debate on a very important matter, and it is a shame that Labour Members who represent the area are not here. As I have outlined, the Secretary of State will be responding in due course to the independent report of the non-statutory review team, alongside any request that Croydon Council may submit to Government for financial support. The Government will continue to take a keen interest in the steps that Croydon Council is proposing to resolve the matters that have been outlined so eloquently by my hon. Friend. It is imperative that the council moves forward towards a financially sustainable footing to ensure that it continues to deliver for the communities it serves.
Finally, I repeat that, although these are exceptional circumstances and many councils up and down the country face challenges due to the pandemic and demands on their purse, they are still able to provide that robust oversight challenge and deliver balanced budgets. I assure residents that many local authorities up and down the country operate in a very good way, which we happily support going forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 4 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 |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (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 |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Liz Saville Roberts |
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 |
Anthony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
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 |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (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 |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (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 |
Dean Russell (Watford) (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 |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair: Stewart Hosie
† Afolami, Bim (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
† Afriyie, Adam (Windsor) (Con)
† Ansell, Caroline (Eastbourne) (Con)
† Antoniazzi, Tonia (Gower) (Lab)
† Bowie, Andrew (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
† Clarke-Smith, Brendan (Bassetlaw) (Con)
† Davies, Mims (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)
† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)
† Eshalomi, Florence (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
† Everitt, Ben (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
† Malhotra, Seema (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
† Mangnall, Anthony (Totnes) (Con)
† Russell-Moyle, Lloyd (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Seely, Bob (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Sheerman, Mr Barry (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Sultana, Zarah (Coventry South) (Lab)
Thompson, Owen (Midlothian) (SNP)
Seb Newman, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Eleventh Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 9 December 2020
[Stewart Hosie in the Chair]
Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and sit only in the places that are clearly marked. Our Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.
This draft statutory instrument was laid before Parliament on 15 October. Through this instrument, we are making the necessary arrangements to implement the terms of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol in law for chemicals regulations. It will ensure that those regulations function effectively from the end of the transition period, and that the existing high standard of protection for human health and the environment will be maintained.
In preparation for our exit from the European Union, a statutory instrument was made last year to ensure that the regulatory framework for chemicals remains functional after exit and to provide certainty for businesses and the public. It achieved that by making technical amendments to the retained EU law, such as changing EU-specific references and transferring functions and powers currently held by the European Commission to the appropriate authorities in each of the UK’s constituent nations. Since the 2019 regulations were made, the withdrawal agreement, including the Northern Ireland protocol, has been agreed. The protocol requires that EU legislation will continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period. The existing EU exit legislation therefore needs to be amended to reflect the fact that retained EU law will be substantively applicable in Great Britain only. If approved, the draft regulations will make the necessary arrangements to three retained EU regulations, as well as EU-derived domestic legislation.
I appreciate that the technical and composite nature of the regulations makes this particularly complex, and therefore the decision to present the proposals as a single instrument was for the benefit of the House, to reduce pressure on parliamentary time and to ensure we are able to deliver an orderly transition. As this is such a technical instrument, I shall provide a concise summary of the regulations and the changes we are making for the members of the Committee.
On the three retained EU regulations to be amended, the first is the biocidal products regulation that governs the placing on the market and use of products that contain chemicals which protect humans, animals and materials or articles from harmful organisms such as pests or bacteria. This market covers a wide range of products such as wood preservatives, insecticides such as wasp spray or anti-fouling paints to remove barnacles from boats. Secondly, the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures regulation ensures that hazardous intrinsic properties of chemicals are properly identified and effectively communicated to those throughout the supply chain, including to the point of use. The current classification laws are sophisticated and incorporate a detailed technical system of classification criteria. The classification is partly done through standardised hazard pictograms and symbols and warning phrases associated with specific hazards such as explosivity, acute toxicity or carcinogenicity. Lastly, the export and import of hazardous chemicals regulations require the export of listed chemicals to be notified to the importing country. For some chemicals, the consent of the importing country must be obtained before export can proceed.
The instrument is making three main changes, which I shall summarise. First, we are updating some transitional provisions in the 2019 regulations so that they apply from the end of the transition period, when the retained law comes into force, rather than from exit day. It should be noted that although the instrument’s title references genetically modified organisms, the only amendments to the relevant legislation are to update two references to “exit day”.
Secondly, the instrument removes Northern Ireland from the scope of the 2019 regulations by omitting references to Northern Ireland and changing UK-specific references to “Great Britain”. The instrument also revokes changes made to domestic legislation in Northern Ireland in the 2019 regulations, which are no longer required due to the protocol.
Finally, the instrument legislates for the Government’s commitment on unfettered access for these chemical regulations as well as the need to ensure that the UK authorities have the appropriate information and regulatory safeguards in respect of chemicals placed on the market in Great Britain.
The Health and Safety Executive currently acts as a UK competent authority within the EU regimes for chemicals regulations. Under this instrument, it will become the GB regulatory authority. The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland will be the regulatory authority with responsibility for Northern Ireland. We are working closely with Northern Irish colleagues to prepare for the end of the transition period and support them afterwards. Both organisations have demonstrated their resilience throughout the pandemic, and I am confident that they have the capacity to undertake any new responsibilities brought by EU exit.
This instrument was not subject to consultation as it does not alter existing policy. Published guidance has been followed, and in line with it a full impact assessment has not been concluded for the instrument as it does not meet the de minimis threshold. However, I assure Committee members that the changes brought by the instrument have been communicated through a series of stakeholder events throughout the autumn and guidance published on the HSE website in October.
Devolved Administrations have also been fully engaged in the development of the instrument and have provided consent for the elements that relate to them. We are also in the process of agreeing a provisional common framework for chemicals that aims to maintain existing standards and promote common approaches to chemicals policy in the future.
In conclusion, this instrument will provide important continuity and clarity to the chemical industry, ensuring that the legal requirements that apply in relation to chemicals regulations are clear, following the end of the transition period. I hope that colleagues of all parties will join me in supporting the draft regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie.
I thank the Minister for her opening remarks. The regulations are needed to address deficiencies in retained EU law on chemicals and GMOs legislation arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The Minister has outlined the regulations, but I will cover them briefly in my remarks.
EU law has played a vital role in ensuring that the framework that regulates chemicals and GMOs operates coherently and effectively. That framework includes regulations such as the biocidal products regulation that the Minister mentioned; the classification, including of hazards, labelling and packaging, or CLP, regulations; the regulations concerning the export and import of hazardous chemicals; and the GMO regulations, which lay down measures for the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms with a view to protecting human health and the environment. We support this instrument, which ensures that retained EU law relating to chemicals and GMOs continues to operate coherently at the end of transition.
The Minister also outlined, as does the explanatory memorandum, why, if the changes were not made, several chemicals regimes in the scope of the instrument would not be consistent with the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol when the transition period ends. The reasons for the instrument are clear, but I want to focus on several concerns about its effective implementation and the transfer of functions to the HSE.
The first concern relates to HSE duties as it becomes the GB regulatory authority. Leaving the EU and the European Chemicals Agency means that the HSE will take on new responsibilities. From 1 January, businesses that wish to apply for an active substance to be approved, or for a biocidal product to be authorised in Great Britain, will need to apply to the HSE instead of the European Chemicals Agency. As the Minister said, the territorial extent of this instrument is Great Britain except for certain provisions. The HSE will take on the functions that the ECHA performs where these are still relevant in Great Britain. For example, it will co-ordinate the active substance evaluation process for Great Britain. It will also introduce its own processes and systems for receiving and processing applications.
The Minister said that she has confidence in the HSE’s capacity, but she will appreciate why I am asking questions about it. The new demands pose concerning questions about whether the HSE is adequately funded, staffed and resourced to deliver its new responsibilities, particularly on top of the additional work it has undertaken due to covid. Since 2009-10, funding for the HSE has been cut by £144 million in real terms: by more than half since Labour was last in Government. Although in May the Government announced £14 million more funding for it, that still leaves a substantial cut.
We know from a response to a parliamentary question that the Government have recruited only 37 full-time equivalent inspectors since March. What review has the Department for Work and Pensions undertaken with the HSE about its resources, systems and processes, and how it will effectively carry out its extra duties, such as confirming the hazard classification and labelling of chemical substances after the end of the transition period?
Is the Minister confident that the HSE will be able to cope with that increase in responsibilities? What assessment has she made of any new specialist skills that may be required? Could there be an economic impact on the chemicals, pharmaceuticals or plastics industries if there are any delays in required work being carried out by the HSE? Has that risk assessment been done as part of any review that the Department has undertaken? There may be a need for further recruitment, and difficulties have been experienced in the past year in finding necessary specialists. Can the Minister therefore guarantee that any extra staff will be in place by the first week of January, ready for EU exit?
With the HSE potentially having to navigate and regulate stand-alone GB schemes and parts of the EU chemicals schemes simultaneously, there will be additional pressure on it. At the same time, staff will be making new regulatory decisions for UK’s entire food and chemicals markets, with limited access to EU data. Not having adequate resources and systems will also put the incredibly hard-working HSE staff under enormous pressure, which is why we and the Government must not ignore this.
None of us wants questions about the HSE’s capacity to deliver an effective chemicals regulation regime into 2021 and beyond. Indeed, this issue has been raised before, and in February this year the Government said that they
“are making sure that the HSE…have the resources and evidence they need to ensure the safe management of chemicals and to protect public health and the environment.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2020; Vol. 672, c. 159WH.]
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a good point about the HSE. In the European context, both the HSE and the Environment Agency fed into chemicals regulations. Is there a danger that not also increasing funding for the Environment Agency to be able to be feed into the new HSE regulator will leave an area of regulation or expertise lacking?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, which I am sure the Minister noted. It relates very much to the next point that I was about to make.
In February 2019, Mary Creagh, the then Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, also raised concerns about how the new functions would be taken on within the UK and the budget in relation European Chemicals Agency funding. That is not to say there should be direct comparison of EU-wide budgets and what the UK needs, but the HSE and other agencies involved need to be sufficiently equipped in order for our scientists to deliver safe and effective products on to the UK market. For the new work now required of the HSE, other agencies within Northern Ireland and others across industry that will be involved in a proportion of the new work that will be now taken on, what assessment has been made of the level and type of additional resources required?
My second question before I conclude relates to the Northern Ireland protocol. I thank my colleagues in the other shadow departmental teams for their input on this. The Northern Ireland protocol will mean that a number of areas of law in Northern Ireland will remain aligned with the EU after the end of the transition period, as the Minister commented. Changes to the standard policy approach for unfettered access are needed for highly regulated goods, such as chemicals. This will require a strong focus on transparency requirements to ensure that UK regulators are provided with the requisite information, in parallel to that provided to the EU. With regards to unfettered access and the forms required for highly regulated goods, what estimate has the Minister made of costs to business of the additional transparency requirements, and how many exports does she expect will be covered by them?
In conclusion, the amendments to the 2019 regulations relating to the withdrawal agreement, including the Northern Ireland protocol, are necessary to ensure that retained EU law relating to chemicals and GMOs continues effectively from January. However, I would welcome reassurance about the planning and resourcing for the new functions that the HSE, particularly, and other agencies will take on.
This is one of around 20 statutory instruments that will need to be tabled before the House rises for recess. Will the Minister update us on the timetabling for the remaining SIs relating to the Northern Ireland protocol? With only two weeks until Christmas, she will understand concerns that there may not be enough time for all these to pass through the House before the end of the year with the necessary scrutiny. If she is unable to update us today, perhaps she will be able to forward that information to me after.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston for her comments and the questions she raised. On the final point, I believe that we are at the end of the road of what we need to do in regard to the HSE, but I am happy to take away her query. I thank all Members who have been part of this debate, and I am happy to address some of the hon. Lady’s comments.
The HSE works very closely with the Environment Agency, under the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am happy to take away the point of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown and ask the HSE to respond to him.
As to whether the HSE has the administrative capacity and resource to deal with the additional burdens, it currently acts, as I said in my opening remarks, as the competent authority for the EU chemicals regulations and therefore already has capability and capacity, which can be built on, to take on full GB regulatory authority responsibility.
Since the announcement of the referendum and our leaving the EU, the HSE has been preparing for all different scenarios for future UK-EU relationships and has always had a focus on readiness for a stand-alone regulatory system. It will be ready on day one: roles, processes, skills and recruitment and training have all been scoped out and mapped, as part of the wider HSE transition programme, which covers chemicals regulation as a whole. We have looked at what workload there might be on day one, in terms of the operating model and how we develop the scope of chemicals regulation as a whole, carrying out discovery work with stakeholders on the work that will be needed with regard to future operating capacity.
As for HSE finances for the 2020-21 financial year, an additional £6.1 million was made available by the DWP, and £4.5 million was made available from DEFRA, to prepare for the new chemicals framework. That represented a 60% increase on the 2019-20 financial year, and appropriate bids have also been made under the spending review for 2021-22. We wait to understand the details on that.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for her responses, but I would be grateful if she will clarify one point. She talked about how the HSE’s existing capabilities could be built on, and said there had been some scoping and mapping. As we are so close to the end of transition, can she say whether any risks and concerns have been raised either by DWP or the HSE to her directly about readiness for 1 January, and whether any resources might still be required?
Mims Davies
I am happy to respond to the hon. Lady. In fact, I must point out that owing to more demand in relation to covid the HSE budget in 2019-20 was £129 million, and there will be an extra £1.6 million for the functions in question.
On recruitment and readiness, the HSE has identified a total of 147 posts to be filled by the end of the financial year. It reports good progress on filling those posts, with 108, or 73%, filled. It is confident that that means it will be ready in relation to the transition period. Of the 73% of posts filled to date, the vast majority will start in January, with the remainder commencing in post before April.
Several campaigns are ongoing and due for completion in 2021. We are concluding the recruitment of the outstanding posts and recruiting 117 brand new posts in the chemicals regulation division, relating specifically to EU exit. That represents a 45% increase from the baseline staffing, since January 2020, and I hope that the hon. Lady will see that it demonstrates a significant commitment to taking on the new functions that are required. I believe, in fact, that we had about 900 applications when the recruitment opened.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those at the HSE who have done a remarkable job through the pandemic and covid this year. The HSE has called in or visited 78,000 businesses as part of its work on spot checks. It has a significant compliance rate and staged spot checks in more than 41,000 businesses in relation to covid issues.
As to taking on the new functions and being ready to work with industry, there has been significant engagement with industry on the next stage, including 22 comms events just this month with the chemicals industry. Since January we have engaged with more than 6,000 attendees from across the chemicals section. There is significant information on the HSE website, the chemicals section of which gets over 50,000 views a month, and over 226,000 e-bulletins go out to subscribers. There have been extensive conversations and communications with the sector, and I have joined with Ministers from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and from DEFRA to engage with that sector and with stakeholders.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am really pleased to hear that the Government and HSE have been engaging with businesses. However, I am still hearing concerns from businesses that are worried about re-registering pre-existing chemicals that have already been registered, and any potential need to prove that new levels of testing have been met, particularly animal testing. Can the Minister give an assurance that no new tests will be required for pre-existing chemicals by the HSE, and particularly no new animal tests?
Mims Davies
On animal testing, the relevant legislation affected by the instrument is the biocidal products regulation. That regulation contains mandatory data sharing provisions that are maintained in retained EU law and will apply in Great Britain, with amendments to make clear that the HSE will operate this process, rather than the European Chemicals Agency. The UK has been at the forefront of opposing animal tests where alternative approaches could be used, and we will retain the last resort principle. I hope that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
Turning to divergence, GB will be free to make decisions on key issues. However, that does not mean we will disregard evidence, discussions and decisions made at EU level, nor any impacts on Northern Ireland. Horizon scanning and monitoring will be part of the UK chemicals framework as a whole.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I appreciate what the Minister just said. What would be useful, maybe in writing, is an absolute confirmation for the industry and for animal rights organisations that any pre-existing chemical that is currently registered under the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation, and will need to be re-registered with the HSE, will not require any new levels of testing due to moving their registration over. Of course, it will be difficult for new chemicals that come on board later, but just so that we can be absolutely sure, will the Minister say that no existing registered chemical will require any new levels of testing? That would give me and the industry reassurance.
Mims Davies
I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the REACH regulation is not included in this SI. DEFRA has the policy responsibility for REACH regulation and is bringing separate legislation forward on this. I hope that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for her responses to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, and I understand that some of the REACH regulations are covered by other SIs. However, these are very important points, so could I just probe her on one thing, which relates to the reduction in animal testing that the BPR has promoted? She has given some assurance that this will remain part of UK policy, but could she also give an assurance that if there is any change to that policy at any time, that change will come before the House? I do think people across the country will want to see us keep that commitment into the future.
Mims Davies
On divergence, I reiterate that GB will be free to make decisions on key issues. However, that does not mean that we will disregard evidence, discussions and decisions made at an EU level or elsewhere, and we will absolutely be engaging with stakeholders.
Regarding scrutiny—I think that was where the hon. Lady was going—decisions taken by the Secretary of State on chemicals regulations will be subject to the same processes of informal and formal consultation, enabling Ministers to be held to account as they are for any of their other decisions. In addition, for several decisions, the consent of devolved Administrations will be required as well. I maintain that the HSE has an excellent reputation for engaging with stakeholders and ensuring that we develop the appropriate health and safety regulations. I hope that I am reassuring hon. Members this morning.
In regard to unfettered access, the Government’s approach to the Northern Ireland protocol was set out in the May Command Paper and subsequent business guidance. This outlines that there will be some specific requirements for movements between NI and GB in respect of items categorised as highly regulated goods, and chemicals are highly regulated goods because they can pose a significant risk to human health and the environment. Northern Irish businesses will have the right to place a product on the market in Great Britain where they already have an authorisation to place that product on the market in Northern Ireland, provided that they notify the HSE with the information that they would submit previously to the EU. If the HSE has any serious concerns that any product poses a risk to public health or the environment, it has the ability to take safeguarding measures. The HSE has the ability to act and it will continue to. Costs, of course, are recoverable from industry. The return of costs is agreed, and they come back to the HSE—I must point that out to Members.
As many Members will attest, our chemicals sector is world leading, and, as we have heard today, it is vital for other key industries, such as the pharmaceuticals, automotive and aerospace industries. We want to ensure that that continues and that those sectors continue to succeed. We also need to provide certainty, as we have heard, for businesses in Northern Ireland and across GB that the statute book will be fully functioning for the end of the year and that NI businesses will have unfettered access to the market in Great Britain. This statutory instrument seeks to ensure that and to meet our obligations under the protocol.
I am sure that Members are all with me on the need to provide continuity and clarity to our chemicals industry following the end of the transition period. I want to ensure that the legal requirements that apply in relation to chemical regulations are clear and provide certainty to all. We must maintain our high standard of protection in the workplace and otherwise, and this instrument will uphold that. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Committee rose.
Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. The draft regulations, laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, cover all four nations of the UK. We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations, who have given their consent. The idea is to ensure an approach consistent with both the devolution settlements and the existing systems of fisheries management.
The draft regulations will make technical changes to UK law to reflect the EU common fisheries policy legislation that is directly applicable in Northern Ireland by virtue of the Northern Ireland protocol. That is required to enable the enforcement of EU law, where that is directly applicable, to enable the UK to play its part in ensuring sustainable and traceable fishing practices and to meet obligations under the withdrawal agreement and several other international agreements to which we are—or will become—independent contacting parties. The draft regulations do not make amendments that will change our fisheries management policy.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Is the Minister confirming that the Factortame case will continue to enforced in respect of fisheries in Northern Ireland?
Victoria Prentis
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Factortame case was the bane of my life as a young lawyer. We are not quite clear yet of the precise implications of yesterday’s announcement from the Joint Committee. I will go to a briefing immediately after the Committee, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will make a statement to the House at, I believe, 12.30 today. Following that, I am sure we will have much greater clarity. I know I am to meet the right hon. Gentleman next week to discuss another fisheries matter and I would be delighted if he wanted to go into the details of what we will hear this afternoon at any point between now and our meeting next week or at that meeting.
Mr Carmichael
For the avoidance of doubt, if I never have to talk about Factortame again in my life, that will still be too soon for me.
Mr Carmichael
But the Minister will know as well as I do that there is that wonderful bit in the Factortame judgment where it speaks about the indirect effect of non-directly affected directors. It seems to me that, in respect of fisheries in Northern Ireland, that is exactly what the Minister has just described.
Victoria Prentis
I absolutely refuse to confirm or deny that because I know no more than the right hon. Gentleman at this point. It is important that we listen to what the CDL has to say at, I think, 12.30—the Whip will confirm—and then, I hope, we will have much greater clarity. I am really pleased that the Joint Committee came to the agreement that it did and I am really looking forward to learning the details.
I turn to the changes on enforcement. First, the draft regulations will amend the 2019 fisheries regulations, updating the wording in relation to the amendment to section 30 of the Fisheries Act 1981 to ensure that, after the end of the transition period, criminal prosecutions can continue to be brought in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for breaches of EU fisheries rules that are directly applicable in Northern Ireland by virtue of the protocol. That does not represent a change in practice since prosecutions can currently be brought relying on section 30 of the 1981 Act for breaches of directly applicable EU fisheries rules.
Secondly, the draft regulations will amend regulations concerning sustainable and traceable fishing, correcting deficiencies and reflecting the direct application of EU law in Northern Ireland under the protocol. That will allow the UK to fulfil its obligations under ICAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, and CCAMLR—that may be less familiar to hon. Members, and is the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources—to which the UK is an independent contracting party. The UK, rather than the European Commission, will be responsible for the submission of information to the relevant secretariat as required by the obligations of each regional fisheries management organisation. To clarify, the UK will continue to submit the same level of information to ICCAT and CCAMLR, which is required by these international agreements, to which we will be an independent contracting party.
Thirdly, the draft regulations apply certain aspects of retained EU law relating to illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing to Northern Ireland. This is necessary to ensure that the UK is able to comply with its obligations under the port states measures agreement—the PSMA—once it accedes to that agreement at the end of the transition period. The PSMA requires the UK to apply controls to all non-UK vessels, including requiring them to land into designated ports. The draft regulations serve to implement that requirement in relation to EU vessels landing in Northern Ireland by applying the retained version of the illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing regulation to Northern Ireland, supplementing the direct application of the EU’s IUU regulation under the protocol.
The port state measures agreement does not require the UK to apply controls to vessels that are registered in the UK. Once the draft regulations are in force, all non-UK fishing vessels will be subject to PSMA-related controls when landing anywhere in the United Kingdom, thus meeting the UK’s obligations under the agreement.
The draft regulations do not impose significant changes to what the public sector or businesses will have to do. They will ensure UK vessels are subject to largely the same rules as they are subject to at the moment. Accordingly, a full impact assessment has not been prepared. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott, and it is also good to see the Minister in her place. We have spent many hours debating fisheries policies over the last few months.
The draft regulations make further changes to retained EU law relating to the common fisheries policy to ensure that it continues to operate effectively once the transition period has come to an end. I have a few questions for the Minister that I hope she will be able to answer regarding the proposed changes to retained EU law, which could potentially limit the UK’s role in international collaboration on important marine issues post Brexit.
As noted by ClientEarth in its submission to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee,
“certain delegated powers currently held by the EU have not been transferred to the UK.”
These powers relate to the implementation of the UK’s international obligations on the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. The draft regulations remove the Council regulation article that required EU members to provide the Commission with a summary of the list of catch documentations issued or received into territory regarding landings, import or export. Catch documentation schemes for Antarctic and Patagonian toothfish are an important tool to support the conservation and management of Antarctic marine living resources.
The Minister referred to this point, but will she confirm that post Brexit the UK will continue to implement its international obligations, including those relating to the regulation that I have just mentioned? Will she also provide assurances that the UK will continue to co-operate and collaborate with other countries on marine and fisheries after the end of the transition period? As the Minister knows, many marine issues are trans-boundary and it is vital that the UK maintains a close relationship with our overseas partners to protect the marine environment and end the over-exploitation of certain fish stocks. It is important that the Government provide more detail and more clarity on what our post-Brexit fisheries regime will look like.
Labour will not divide the Committee on the draft regulations today, but I would be grateful if the Minister could answer those few questions.
Mr Carmichael
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. The draft regulations are probably a fairly sensible and necessary step. It is in nobody’s interests that somehow or another we should move into unregulated waters on 1 January. However, it is worth reflecting that the draft regulations are the consequence of a political management strategy that has been somewhat less than what was promised to the fishing industry right at the start.
It is worth remembering that when article 50 was triggered in March 2017, that anticipated that the UK would leave the European Union on 29 March 2019. The industry was told that that was the point at which we would come out of the common fisheries policy—that was to be the big bang day. Of course, the arrangement, the agreement, made by the former Prime Minister put fisheries management into the political declaration. Had it been part of the withdrawal agreement, we would not be here today; this would all have happened by now. It has carried on in that way ever since. The withdrawal agreement that was apparently part of the oven-ready deal was one that, as far as fisheries were concerned, went along exactly the same course. The fact that we are in this position and the big bang that was promised has still to come—and will not now come even on 1 January—is a consequence of the decision, and the lack of political will, to put fisheries into the withdrawal agreement, leaving it in the political declaration. That is where we are now with the negotiations that are going on as we speak.
I have no interest in seeing fisheries left unregulated— that is in nobody’s interests and certainly not in the interests of the fishing industry—but I think it is important that we place it on the record that we understand that this falls very far short of what the industry was promised.
The Chair
Does no other Member wish to speak? I call Minister Prentis to respond. [Interruption.] Oh, did you indicate, Mr Doogan? I do apologise. I call Dave Doogan.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Nevertheless, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that there are no salvos of discord to come from the Scottish National party this morning. As she has already pointed out, the Ministers in the Scottish Government have provided their legislative consent for this measure and, just as importantly, the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee is content to provide its consent to Scottish Ministers, once removed. Nevertheless, it noted to the Scottish Government their ongoing dialogue with the UK Government around the Northern Ireland protocol and requested that the Committee of the Scottish Parliament be kept up to date on progress with those negotiations.
I think I understand the concerns that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee has on the Northern Ireland protocol. Much of the change in language that we are discussing this morning is a result of the separation, in administrative and operational terms, of Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK and therefore GB, for fisheries purposes, in line with the protocol. This will see fishermen in Northern Ireland continuing to fish UK waters, but free to export both harvested and processed fish to the EU internal market without the burden of tariffs.
Does the Minister agree—I am happy to accept that she may not—that, subject to the outcome of the negotiations with the EU, the separation of Northern Ireland in this way poses a profound commercial and operational threat to Scottish fishing, should a deal not be done, owing to the tariffs that will inevitably be placed on harvested and processed fish from Scotland in a no-deal scenario? I wonder—continuing that theme—whether Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers have given due consideration to the issue of skippers under GB Administrations, although most likely from Scotland, registering their vessels in Northern Ireland to take advantage of those favourable terms and avoid any post-Brexit barriers to the EU. Does the Minister agree that that is a material risk and, if so, what are DEFRA’s views on how to mitigate it?
We are just a few days away from a deadline without any details of a deal, meaning that the risk of calamity for the fishing industry is high. Should there not be a deal, tariffs will pose a huge threat to Scottish fishermen and Scottish fishing communities and processors, unlike their fellow seafarers a mere 12.5 miles across the North channel. The reality of the Government still amending vital legislation just weeks away from the end of the transition period highlights keenly how sub-optimal this process has become.
If I am mistaken in any of what I have said, I look forward to the Minister correcting me.
The Chair
Does any other Member wish to speak? I am looking very carefully this time. No. I call Minister Prentis.
Victoria Prentis
I thank everyone who has contributed to this morning’s debate. I am glad that there is broad agreement on the new fisheries regulations, and I am genuinely grateful to the DAs for their co-operation in getting this secondary legislation through.
I will set the mind of the hon. Member for Barnsley East at rest on the issues that she raised. We will of course continue to abide by international regulations, which is the purpose, really, of what we are doing today. ClientEarth raised some concerns that DEFRA answered in full in a letter to the Committee in the other place. In brief, the UK will continue to submit the same level of data to CCAMLR. The EU Commission currently does that, but we will now do it directly. The obligation in question, which simply requires member states to communicate the data to the Commission, has been omitted because we will no longer need to use it as a middleman and will go directly to the CCAMLR secretariat, which I understand is in Tasmania. The delegated powers that concern the hon. Lady, which were previously held by the EU, have not been transferred because they were never used by the EU. We plan to use other powers that we already have to implement the international obligations regarding Antarctic and Patagonian toothfish. I think that deals with the hon. Lady’s points.
Turning to the hon. Member for Angus, this statutory instrument will not affect Northern Ireland vessels landing into Northern Ireland. However, referring to what I said earlier, we will have to see what happens when the CDL speaks to the House this afternoon, and I am very much looking forward to listening to him. Under the agreement on port state measures, to which this instrument refers, the UK is required to impose controls and landing requirements on foreign vessels only, including vessels from EU member states. Imposing controls on UK vessels landing into UK ports is not required. We have been clear that there should be no unacceptable new requirements for vessels registered in Northern Ireland.
I say to both the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Angus that I very much hope that there will be a deal. That will be in the interests of all British fishermen, and there is not a great deal of purpose in going into further detail at the moment, because we are about to hear much more detail.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the Minister, because she has been generous in giving way. However, the point made by the hon. Member for Angus is a good one. If, for example, the Minister were the skipper of inshore boat on Islay, where I was born and brought up— just 12 miles to the north-east of Northern Ireland—she could register that boat in Northern Ireland while continuing to fish the same waters around Islay. However, she could land in Northern Ireland, rather than in mainland Scotland, because doing so in Northern Ireland would avoid any tariffs. Would the Minister not do that? If she did, what would be the consequences for processors on mainland Scotland?
Victoria Prentis
I know that I have a very good note, which I temporarily cannot lay my hands on, about the concerns that were rightly raised about the registration of vessels. We have good, robust rules on where vessels should be registered, and reasons must be given for that registration. We do not anticipate that there will be either multiple breaches of the rules or attempts to try to get around them following the end of the transition period. However, we need to look at what the rules are, and we will know much more at lunchtime. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to welcome the good news that came from the Joint Committee yesterday and then wait to find out what it means in some detail. Can we park the rest of this discussion till after we know where we are?
The amendments in this SI, which is what we should be discussing, are essential to ensure that retained fisheries law is effective and enforceable. I think the Committee is broadly in agreement that that is a good thing. The SI enables compliance with our obligations under international agreements. It is a key part of our preparation for the end of the transition period, and it will help us to meet our commitment to deliver a prosperous and sustainable fishing industry for future generations. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Unmanned Aircraft (amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. The draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The regulations amend EU delegated regulation 2019/945, which sets out new product standards for unmanned aircraft, and EU implementing regulation 2019/947, which sets out new requirements for the operation of unmanned aircraft.
EU delegated regulation 2019/945 requires unmanned aircraft and associated accessories to be designed and manufactured in accordance with certain standards. It creates classes of unmanned aircraft and defines the characteristics of those classes. It imposes certain obligations on manufacturers, importers and distributors, such as ensuring that unmanned aircraft are accompanied by a manufacturer’s instructions. It also defines those unmanned aircraft whose design, production and maintenance shall be subject to certification.
That regulation entered into force and became applicable on 1 July 2019. However, transitional provisions mean that while most existing unmanned aircraft can continue to be sold for now, products placed on the market after 1 January 2023 must comply with the requirements of the delegated regulation.
EU implementing regulation 2019/947 requires unmanned aircraft to be operated in accordance with certain rules and procedures. It creates operational categories that unmanned aircraft can be flown in, proportionate to the level of risk proposed by an operation. The open category is for the lowest risk operations and requires operators and remote pilots to abide by certain requirements. If those requirements cannot be met, an authorisation must be obtained to fly in the specific category.
The highest risk operations, including use of unmanned aircraft designed for carrying dangerous goods or for transporting people, must occur in the certified category.
That requires the certification of the unmanned aircraft and the operator and, where applicable, the licensing of the remote pilot.
The regulation also imposes requirements on operators and remote pilots to ensure that operations are carried out safely and securely. For example, remote pilots must meet any applicable competency requirements for the flights that they undertake. This regulation entered into force on 1 July 2019 but is not applicable until 31 December this year. Therefore, it will still be retained in UK law.
As civil aviation is a reserved policy area, both regulations apply to the whole United Kingdom. The withdrawal Act will retain both the delegated and implementing regulations in UK law after the end of the transition period. The draft regulations we are considering make the necessary changes so that the regulations continue to function correctly. This is essential to ensure the continuation of an effective regulatory regime for unmanned aircraft.
The draft regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure because they create or amend a power to legislate. For example, they provide the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations designating geographical zones for safety, security and privacy or environmental reasons.
The most significant amendment made to the delegated regulation is to provide a new power for the Secretary of State to designate standards after the end of the transition period. Until that power is exercised, unmanned aircraft and associated accessories that conform to EU harmonised standards will continue to be considered compliant with EU requirements, and those requirements will be recognised by the UK. It is not possible for those harmonised standards to be recognised in UK law yet, as they are still under development in the European Union.
Another significant amendment replaces the term “notified body” with “approved body”, thereby enabling the Secretary of State to approve bodies to carry out conformity assessments without notifying the EU Commission. Other changes to the regulation are mostly minor and technical, including replacing the phrase
“a language which can be easily understood”,
with the word “English”.
The amendments to the implementing regulation are minor but equally important. As well as providing the Secretary of State with the regulation-making power to designate geographical zones, this instrument amends various references to EU institutions and appoints the Civil Aviation Authority as the competent authority for the purposes of the implementing regulation.
Finally, this instrument amends articles 94A and 94B of the Air Navigation Order 2016 by removing references to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency. That ensures that the flight restriction zones that currently apply around EASA-certified aerodromes will still apply after the end of the transition period.
This instrument demonstrates that the Government are committed to ensuring a fully functioning regulatory framework for unmanned aircraft after the transition period. While we are focused on securing the best arrangements for our future relationship with the EU, including in the aviation sector, this instrument will ensure that legitimate, safe unmanned aircraft operations can continue, while ensuring effective oversight if we get to the end of the transition period without a deal. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I would like to place on the record my thanks for your chairmanship of the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party parliamentary group. As you know, I have a significant community in my aviation constituency who work at Manchester airport, and it has been a great pleasure to work with you on that issue over the years.
I can see that Members across the room are absolutely riveted by this delegated legislation. Thank God we are doing the Prime Minister’s work for him today and this is not part of the subject of the negotiation tonight in Brussels with Ursula von der Leyen. We can praise the Lord for that, I am sure.
As the Minister says, these regulations keep the effect of the policy framework established by the EU implementing and delegated regulations. They ensure that certain provisions relating to unmanned aircraft will be retained in UK law and will continue to apply after the end of the transition period, in just three weeks’ time.
The regulations enable the Secretary of State to designate standards after the end of the transition period. In the meantime, unmanned aircraft that conform to current standards will be considered compliant with the EU requirements recognised by the UK. The main immediate consequence of these regulations is that, as we will no longer be part of the EU or the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, the European Union standards CE marking will be replaced by an official UKCA marking, recognised in the UK. The same product standards as currently apply will be maintained. As a result, unmanned aircraft that lawfully bear the CE marking can continue to be put on the UK market. The regulations set out a transitional period to 1 January 2023, during which unmarked CE or UK unmanned aircraft will continue to be placed on the market.
I genuinely believe that the long-term prospects for drones in the UK are particularly exciting and hope to work with the Minister in this post over the years to come. Future drones could be deployed in search and rescue—I had the great pleasure of talking to Airbus about this just the other week—as part of the next phase of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s search and rescue provision. I am sure the Minister shares my enthusiasm about implementing this technological boon in the UK’s search and rescue capabilities in our remote mountain regions and the seas around our great islands.
Do the Government have any view on whether the designated standards from the end of the transitional period will vary to a significant degree, and if so, in what way will they vary from the current standards under the implementing regulation? Has the Minister considered what effect this divergent system may have on the development of drone technology in the UK as compared with the EU?
I welcome these regulations. The opportunities for unmanned aircraft are enormous. I was pleased to see Baroness Vere confirm that the purpose of the Government’s framework is to provide certainty so that the UK can capture these future opportunities. I hope it will also provide flexibility and allow future innovation while maintaining our exemplary safety standards.
Robert Courts
I thank the Committee for its consideration of these draft regulations. I will respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, whom I thank both for his questions and for his enthusiasm about the future benefits of this technology, which I entirely share. He is absolutely right: there are many opportunities for unmanned use, in search and rescue and many other things besides. I very much look forward to working with him as we develop plans to realise those benefits.
In answer to his questions, I can confirm that the Government have no immediate plans to diverge from the standards set out in the delegated regulation. Nor are there currently plans to diverge from the requirements of the implementing regulation, apart from the requirement to have a remote pilot minimum age. However, as with all legislation, we will keep the regulations under review to ensure that they are fit for purpose. When we are doing that, our primary concern will of course continue to be the safe and secure use of unmanned aircraft.
These regulations will make the necessary changes to delegated regulation 945, which sets out product standards for unmanned aircraft, and retain implementing regulation 947, which sets out rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft to continue, to ensure proper functioning after 31 December 2020. Without this, we would be unable to continue to effectively regulate unmanned aircraft while also maximising the benefits of such technology. I hope the Committee has found this afternoon’s sitting both interesting and informative and that it will join me in supporting these regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Animal Welfare and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the places clearly marked. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Animal Welfare and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. This statutory instrument amends earlier EU exit regulations in three areas: animal welfare, leghold traps and pelt imports, and invasive non-native species. The amendments ensure that retained EU law continues to remain effective and operable at the end of the transition period and in accordance with the Northern Ireland protocol.
The SI amends the regulations relating to the welfare of animals during transport, at control posts and at slaughter, to ensure that they remain operable in accordance with the Northern Ireland protocol. It will end recognition in Great Britain of transporter authorisations, driver and attendant certificates of competence, vehicle approvals and journey logs that are issued by an EU member state. From the end of the transition period, EU transporters will have to apply to a competent authority for those documents in order to be able to continue to transport animals in and through GB. That will allow for better enforcement, create a level playing field and ensure that GB transporters are not commercially disadvantaged, because the EU is applying similar rules. Transport documents issued in Northern Ireland will continue to be acceptable for use in Great Britain.
Additionally, the SI ensures that we meet obligations under the UK-Ireland common travel area by making provision for training that is carried out in the Republic of Ireland to be recognised as equivalent to that in GB for the purpose of giving a driver or attendant certificate of competence in GB. It makes amendments to regulations protecting animals at slaughter and will ensure that slaughterers’ certificates of competence issued in any part of the UK will continue to be recognised across GB.
Without the SI, EU transporters could continue to move animals into and through the UK, but we would lack the ability to take enforcement action if they breached the rules on the welfare of animals in transport. Following an animal welfare incident, the ability to suspend or revoke a certificate of competence or a transporter authorisation until that transporter has been retrained is an important enforcement mechanism. Live animal movements should be carefully planned, based on predicted journey times. Long journeys must be approved by the competent authority, as any delay could result in significant welfare issues. The SI will ensure that from the start of the year, EU transporters will need to apply to the GB competent authority to gain approval for their planned journeys.
The existing exit instruments amend the retained EU leghold trap regulation. The regulations that prohibit the use of leghold traps and the import of pelts and manufactured goods from certain wild animal species make the retained legislation compatible with the Northern Ireland protocol, and they ensure that the import of pelts and pelt products from the EU will be treated in the same way as imports from any other third country. The regulations will continue to prohibit the use of leghold traps in Great Britain and to ensure that only pelts sourced from captive-bred animals, or pelts from approved countries that abide by humane trapping standards, are imported. They will maintain the high standards and controls that are currently in place for pelt imports.
On invasive non-native species, the SI makes technical amendments to ensure the proper working of retained EU law and the management of the Northern Ireland protocol. The changes make provision for the devolved Administrations to be consulted properly about species listing and decisions on reserved matters. That is particularly important in relation to grey squirrels in Scotland, for example, where they have particularly strong views as they are working hard to promote red squirrels. The changes also allow traders in Northern Ireland to continue to use established rules on the sale of commercial stocks after a species has been listed.
The regulations ensure that specimens seized at the UK border do not have to be transported to England or Wales: border officials in Northern Ireland and Scotland, for example, may send seized animals to local facilities instead of having to ship them to England or Wales. They also make a minor change relating to civil sanctions to bring clarity on the procedure and appeal rights for non-compliance. Furthermore, the changes allow for temporary emergency restrictions on previously unlisted species to be introduced and enforced promptly where that is necessary.
The draft regulations will ensure that the Northern Ireland protocol is upheld and that, in line with Government policy, we can enhance and continue to enforce our high animal welfare standards and protect the UK’s biosecurity at the end of the transition period. I commend them to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. Last week I commented on the eclectic grouping of statutory instruments and today we have an eclectic group of things within a statutory instrument—never let it be said we do not have variety in our lives.
The regulations have already been discussed in the Lords, so let me echo some of the points made by my colleague, Baroness Hayman. It is clear that the SI makes necessary changes in three areas: to secure the continuity of an effective regime for animal welfare in transport, slaughter and other areas; to continue the ban on leghold traps and the import of pelts obtained by that method; and to ensure that the strict protections placed against invasive non-native species are maintained. It also, importantly, provides continuity to business in those areas after the end of the transition period.
Much in the SI is about the reciprocal arrangements being discussed with the Republic of Ireland. Last week, Baroness Hayman inquired about progress and, of course, there was a statement in the Chamber earlier today, but will the Minister say whether those arrangements have any impact on the areas under consideration? This is perhaps a bit mischievous, given that the Prime Minister seemed unwilling or unable to answer a direct question earlier, but can she perhaps tell us how many of the 50,000 promised customs agents are in place? I am sure that Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs follow that closely.
To return to the detail, as the Minister explained the SI will end the recognition in Great Britain of a number of documents that relate to animal welfare maintenance, including transport authorisations, driver and attendant certificates of competence, vehicle approvals and journey logs. EU transporters will need to apply for those documents to be issued by a competent authority in Great Britain if they wish to continue to transport animals in Great Britain after the end of the transition period. According to the explanatory memorandum:
“Doing so will cause these individuals to incur a small cost.”
However, it seems that no impact assessment has been prepared for the provisions relating to the changes in documentation. Why is that? What might the impact be? How many such EU transporters are there? Are they expected to continue to operate? If not, what effect would that have? How have the new procedures been communicated to them?
The regulations are about ensuring that welfare in transport is respected. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at them and the Government responded to its questions by saying:
“Although EU and GB standards will remain aligned at the end of the transition period, we have ambitions to strengthen welfare in transport standards in the near future.”
Of course, that was a prescient observation on the Government’s part, because last week DEFRA announced its welcome consultation on how to improve animal welfare during transport. Of course, that was intended partly to trumpet the great triumph of Brexit that we can now end the live export of animals; for some of us, that is one of the few tangible benefits that has been discernible, which is doubtless why it is cited so frequently. But let us be grateful, because although live exports may have declined considerably over the years to some 35,000 animals a year—although I am told that the figure varies—that is 35,000 too many, and we want to see an end to it.
I will point out a couple of issues on which the Minister might be able to provide clarity. Compassion in World Farming has long campaigned for an end to live exports. CIWF is puzzled and disappointed, as we are, by the proposed length of maximum journey times within the UK, which in our view are far too long. It is proposed that pigs could be transported for 18 hours or sheep and cattle for 21 hours, and for even longer with permission from the Animal and Plant Health Agency. CIWF says that in its view that is ridiculous. There are few journeys within the UK of that length. It argues that the maximum for each species should be eight hours, with a maximum of six hours for unweaned calves. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.
CIWF also says:
“The underlying principle should be that animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the farm of rearing and fattened on or near the farm of birth.”
I suspect that, like me, the Minister would largely agree with that principle, but, as was raised in the Lords, that hinges on the availability of local abattoirs, and I wonder if the Minister could therefore comment on both the journey times, and the Government’s policy on the availability of local abattoirs, for which I think a powerful case has been made by campaigners in recent times.
To return to the detail of the SI and the transport arrangements, it seems likely, as with any new system when it is introduced, that there will be teething problems. Is there any form of discretion that can be exercised if a transporter arrives at a port without the relevant paperwork? If not, have the Government considered what kind of delay this is likely to cause and at what potential cost? What plans are in place to deal with such potential problems?
Turning to leg traps, I think we will all agree that we want to ensure that there are strong provisions against these barbaric traps and that we exclude products associated with them. In paragraph 7.5 of the explanatory memorandum there is a fairly standard claim about our wonderfully high welfare standards. I do not entirely agree with the Government’s view. In some aspects of animal welfare, we frankly are not world leading.
I am told that we are only one of five countries in Europe that do not prohibit the use of snares, which, in the words of the League Against Cruel Sports are “cruel and indiscriminate”. In the league’s view, they are
“used extensively for the extermination of native animals simply to produce as many birds as possible to be short for sport”.
The league has calculated, based on the Government’s own research, that 1.7 million animals a year are killed in these traps. Although the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 states that they should be set only for rabbits and foxes, many other animals are regularly caught in them, and, as Baroness Bennett noted in the Lords debate on this SI, there is particularly horrific film footage of badgers being entrapped, and frequent reports about domestic pets being caught in, injured by and sometimes even killed by snares. Will the Government take the opportunity, when reconsidering animal welfare, to look at the whole issue of snares and to consider joining most of the countries of Europe in banning them?
On the invasive non-native species element of the SI, the Government say that an impact assessment has not been prepared for the provisions on invasive non-native species, because this instrument relates to the maintenance of existing regulatory standards. However, they also say in paragraph 2.24 of the explanatory memorandum that they are making improvements to the domestic enforcement legislation relating to invasive non-native species. In that case, why has no assessment been carried out of the impact of these changes?
We recognise the need to ensure that retained EU legislation in these important areas remains operable, and therefore will not oppose the draft regulations, but we would like clarification on the points raised.
Victoria Prentis
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. I will do my best to answer the many questions he raised. On the impact assessment on live animal exports, we have not done a formal public consultation, but we have engaged directly with industry representatives on the issue. The SI relates to the maintenance of an existing regulation. We would not anticipate an enormous amount of impact as a result. There are, as the hon. Gentleman said, limited impacts on European business, but there is no effect on GB public services, for example. The EU has made it quite clear that the provision is reciprocal. We are quite clear that we have extra staff in APHA to process any new EU business applications, so we feel that we have done what is necessary there.
On the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s statement, I was pleased to be in the Chamber and hear what he had to say. He announced a really useful grace period for supermarkets and those in their supply chains. We have not yet got all the details of what the Joint Committee has agreed, but I look forward to engaging with them fully in the coming days as they become available. It is a welcome statement and I am pleased that we came to that level of agreement.
On live animal exports, I heard what the Member had to say on the consultation. It is an eight-week consultation and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman joining in with it. We will also be consulting on transport for animals more generally, for example on maximum journey times, the amount of space available for animals while they are being transported, stricter temperature controls and the specific rules for sea transport. It is important that we view this as about not just live animal exports, but the whole conglomeration of issues about animals being moved. On that note, on small and local abattoirs, I noticed that the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare has produced a useful report on the role of the small abattoir, which is something that I personally have long been interested in, and indeed the role of the mobile slaughterer.
Daniel Zeichner
I, too, was very impressed by that report. Going back to those journey times, there is genuine puzzlement—it was not simply a criticism—as to why those long times have been proposed. It might help some of the people responding to understand the thinking behind that.
Victoria Prentis
I will not go into the ins and outs of the consultation, but I encourage those responding to be forthright and frank and to make their views clearly felt, and the evidence behind them. Of course, the Government acknowledge the important role of small abattoirs. The decline in their numbers is due to a combination of factors including, for example, consolidation in the retail sector and the drive for greater efficiency, which has led to consolidation in a small number of large abattoirs. Officials in DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency are working with the Sustainable Food Trust to understand why that has happened and to see whether steps can be taken to reduce regulatory burdens, which might help small abattoirs to survive.
I come to the INNS part of this SI, on non-native species. The policy change, which is not related to EU exit, relates to a sensible provision that means that enforcement officers in Scotland and Northern Ireland who seize a cargo of live animals that should not be there will not have to transport them a long distance to England or Wales to be processed. This is not something that will be often used, we very much hope, but it is a completely sensible and practical provision to reduce the stress and burden on those live animals. That is why we feel an impact assessment is not necessary. The whole point is to improve animal welfare and prevent the associated costs and bureaucracy caused by sending the animals on a long journey to where they have to go at the moment to be correctly processed—that is the purpose of that.
I reiterate that these regulations will not amend any current animal welfare standards. They make operability changes to ensure that existing EU law works appropriately at the end of the transition period. With that in mind, I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and sit only in the places that are clearly marked. Our Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.
This draft statutory instrument was laid before Parliament on 15 October. Through this instrument, we are making the necessary arrangements to implement the terms of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol in law for chemicals regulations. It will ensure that those regulations function effectively from the end of the transition period, and that the existing high standard of protection for human health and the environment will be maintained.
In preparation for our exit from the European Union, a statutory instrument was made last year to ensure that the regulatory framework for chemicals remains functional after exit and to provide certainty for businesses and the public. It achieved that by making technical amendments to the retained EU law, such as changing EU-specific references and transferring functions and powers currently held by the European Commission to the appropriate authorities in each of the UK’s constituent nations. Since the 2019 regulations were made, the withdrawal agreement, including the Northern Ireland protocol, has been agreed. The protocol requires that EU legislation will continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period. The existing EU exit legislation therefore needs to be amended to reflect the fact that retained EU law will be substantively applicable in Great Britain only. If approved, the draft regulations will make the necessary arrangements to three retained EU regulations, as well as EU-derived domestic legislation.
I appreciate that the technical and composite nature of the regulations makes this particularly complex, and therefore the decision to present the proposals as a single instrument was for the benefit of the House, to reduce pressure on parliamentary time and to ensure we are able to deliver an orderly transition. As this is such a technical instrument, I shall provide a concise summary of the regulations and the changes we are making for the members of the Committee.
On the three retained EU regulations to be amended, the first is the biocidal products regulation that governs the placing on the market and use of products that contain chemicals which protect humans, animals and materials or articles from harmful organisms such as pests or bacteria. This market covers a wide range of products such as wood preservatives, insecticides such as wasp spray or anti-fouling paints to remove barnacles from boats. Secondly, the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures regulation ensures that hazardous intrinsic properties of chemicals are properly identified and effectively communicated to those throughout the supply chain, including to the point of use. The current classification laws are sophisticated and incorporate a detailed technical system of classification criteria. The classification is partly done through standardised hazard pictograms and symbols and warning phrases associated with specific hazards such as explosivity, acute toxicity or carcinogenicity. Lastly, the export and import of hazardous chemicals regulations require the export of listed chemicals to be notified to the importing country. For some chemicals, the consent of the importing country must be obtained before export can proceed.
The instrument is making three main changes, which I shall summarise. First, we are updating some transitional provisions in the 2019 regulations so that they apply from the end of the transition period, when the retained law comes into force, rather than from exit day. It should be noted that although the instrument’s title references genetically modified organisms, the only amendments to the relevant legislation are to update two references to “exit day”.
Secondly, the instrument removes Northern Ireland from the scope of the 2019 regulations by omitting references to Northern Ireland and changing UK-specific references to “Great Britain”. The instrument also revokes changes made to domestic legislation in Northern Ireland in the 2019 regulations, which are no longer required due to the protocol.
Finally, the instrument legislates for the Government’s commitment on unfettered access for these chemical regulations as well as the need to ensure that the UK authorities have the appropriate information and regulatory safeguards in respect of chemicals placed on the market in Great Britain.
The Health and Safety Executive currently acts as a UK competent authority within the EU regimes for chemicals regulations. Under this instrument, it will become the GB regulatory authority. The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland will be the regulatory authority with responsibility for Northern Ireland. We are working closely with Northern Irish colleagues to prepare for the end of the transition period and support them afterwards. Both organisations have demonstrated their resilience throughout the pandemic, and I am confident that they have the capacity to undertake any new responsibilities brought by EU exit.
This instrument was not subject to consultation as it does not alter existing policy. Published guidance has been followed, and in line with it a full impact assessment has not been concluded for the instrument as it does not meet the de minimis threshold. However, I assure Committee members that the changes brought by the instrument have been communicated through a series of stakeholder events throughout the autumn and guidance published on the HSE website in October.
Devolved Administrations have also been fully engaged in the development of the instrument and have provided consent for the elements that relate to them. We are also in the process of agreeing a provisional common framework for chemicals that aims to maintain existing standards and promote common approaches to chemicals policy in the future.
In conclusion, this instrument will provide important continuity and clarity to the chemical industry, ensuring that the legal requirements that apply in relation to chemicals regulations are clear, following the end of the transition period. I hope that colleagues of all parties will join me in supporting the draft regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie.
I thank the Minister for her opening remarks. The regulations are needed to address deficiencies in retained EU law on chemicals and GMOs legislation arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The Minister has outlined the regulations, but I will cover them briefly in my remarks.
EU law has played a vital role in ensuring that the framework that regulates chemicals and GMOs operates coherently and effectively. That framework includes regulations such as the biocidal products regulation that the Minister mentioned; the classification, including of hazards, labelling and packaging, or CLP, regulations; the regulations concerning the export and import of hazardous chemicals; and the GMO regulations, which lay down measures for the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms with a view to protecting human health and the environment. We support this instrument, which ensures that retained EU law relating to chemicals and GMOs continues to operate coherently at the end of transition.
The Minister also outlined, as does the explanatory memorandum, why, if the changes were not made, several chemicals regimes in the scope of the instrument would not be consistent with the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol when the transition period ends. The reasons for the instrument are clear, but I want to focus on several concerns about its effective implementation and the transfer of functions to the HSE.
The first concern relates to HSE duties as it becomes the GB regulatory authority. Leaving the EU and the European Chemicals Agency means that the HSE will take on new responsibilities. From 1 January, businesses that wish to apply for an active substance to be approved, or for a biocidal product to be authorised in Great Britain, will need to apply to the HSE instead of the European Chemicals Agency. As the Minister said, the territorial extent of this instrument is Great Britain except for certain provisions. The HSE will take on the functions that the ECHA performs where these are still relevant in Great Britain. For example, it will co-ordinate the active substance evaluation process for Great Britain. It will also introduce its own processes and systems for receiving and processing applications.
The Minister said that she has confidence in the HSE’s capacity, but she will appreciate why I am asking questions about it. The new demands pose concerning questions about whether the HSE is adequately funded, staffed and resourced to deliver its new responsibilities, particularly on top of the additional work it has undertaken due to covid. Since 2009-10, funding for the HSE has been cut by £144 million in real terms: by more than half since Labour was last in Government. Although in May the Government announced £14 million more funding for it, that still leaves a substantial cut.
We know from a response to a parliamentary question that the Government have recruited only 37 full-time equivalent inspectors since March. What review has the Department for Work and Pensions undertaken with the HSE about its resources, systems and processes, and how it will effectively carry out its extra duties, such as confirming the hazard classification and labelling of chemical substances after the end of the transition period?
Is the Minister confident that the HSE will be able to cope with that increase in responsibilities? What assessment has she made of any new specialist skills that may be required? Could there be an economic impact on the chemicals, pharmaceuticals or plastics industries if there are any delays in required work being carried out by the HSE? Has that risk assessment been done as part of any review that the Department has undertaken? There may be a need for further recruitment, and difficulties have been experienced in the past year in finding necessary specialists. Can the Minister therefore guarantee that any extra staff will be in place by the first week of January, ready for EU exit?
With the HSE potentially having to navigate and regulate stand-alone GB schemes and parts of the EU chemicals schemes simultaneously, there will be additional pressure on it. At the same time, staff will be making new regulatory decisions for UK’s entire food and chemicals markets, with limited access to EU data. Not having adequate resources and systems will also put the incredibly hard-working HSE staff under enormous pressure, which is why we and the Government must not ignore this.
None of us wants questions about the HSE’s capacity to deliver an effective chemicals regulation regime into 2021 and beyond. Indeed, this issue has been raised before, and in February this year the Government said that they
“are making sure that the HSE…have the resources and evidence they need to ensure the safe management of chemicals and to protect public health and the environment.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2020; Vol. 672, c. 159WH.]
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a good point about the HSE. In the European context, both the HSE and the Environment Agency fed into chemicals regulations. Is there a danger that not also increasing funding for the Environment Agency to be able to be feed into the new HSE regulator will leave an area of regulation or expertise lacking?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, which I am sure the Minister noted. It relates very much to the next point that I was about to make.
In February 2019, Mary Creagh, the then Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, also raised concerns about how the new functions would be taken on within the UK and the budget in relation European Chemicals Agency funding. That is not to say there should be direct comparison of EU-wide budgets and what the UK needs, but the HSE and other agencies involved need to be sufficiently equipped in order for our scientists to deliver safe and effective products on to the UK market. For the new work now required of the HSE, other agencies within Northern Ireland and others across industry that will be involved in a proportion of the new work that will be now taken on, what assessment has been made of the level and type of additional resources required?
My second question before I conclude relates to the Northern Ireland protocol. I thank my colleagues in the other shadow departmental teams for their input on this. The Northern Ireland protocol will mean that a number of areas of law in Northern Ireland will remain aligned with the EU after the end of the transition period, as the Minister commented. Changes to the standard policy approach for unfettered access are needed for highly regulated goods, such as chemicals. This will require a strong focus on transparency requirements to ensure that UK regulators are provided with the requisite information, in parallel to that provided to the EU. With regards to unfettered access and the forms required for highly regulated goods, what estimate has the Minister made of costs to business of the additional transparency requirements, and how many exports does she expect will be covered by them?
In conclusion, the amendments to the 2019 regulations relating to the withdrawal agreement, including the Northern Ireland protocol, are necessary to ensure that retained EU law relating to chemicals and GMOs continues effectively from January. However, I would welcome reassurance about the planning and resourcing for the new functions that the HSE, particularly, and other agencies will take on.
This is one of around 20 statutory instruments that will need to be tabled before the House rises for recess. Will the Minister update us on the timetabling for the remaining SIs relating to the Northern Ireland protocol? With only two weeks until Christmas, she will understand concerns that there may not be enough time for all these to pass through the House before the end of the year with the necessary scrutiny. If she is unable to update us today, perhaps she will be able to forward that information to me after.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston for her comments and the questions she raised. On the final point, I believe that we are at the end of the road of what we need to do in regard to the HSE, but I am happy to take away her query. I thank all Members who have been part of this debate, and I am happy to address some of the hon. Lady’s comments.
The HSE works very closely with the Environment Agency, under the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am happy to take away the point of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown and ask the HSE to respond to him.
As to whether the HSE has the administrative capacity and resource to deal with the additional burdens, it currently acts, as I said in my opening remarks, as the competent authority for the EU chemicals regulations and therefore already has capability and capacity, which can be built on, to take on full GB regulatory authority responsibility.
Since the announcement of the referendum and our leaving the EU, the HSE has been preparing for all different scenarios for future UK-EU relationships and has always had a focus on readiness for a stand-alone regulatory system. It will be ready on day one: roles, processes, skills and recruitment and training have all been scoped out and mapped, as part of the wider HSE transition programme, which covers chemicals regulation as a whole. We have looked at what workload there might be on day one, in terms of the operating model and how we develop the scope of chemicals regulation as a whole, carrying out discovery work with stakeholders on the work that will be needed with regard to future operating capacity.
As for HSE finances for the 2020-21 financial year, an additional £6.1 million was made available by the DWP, and £4.5 million was made available from DEFRA, to prepare for the new chemicals framework.[Official Report, 11 January 2021, Vol. 687, c. 2MC.] That represented a 60% increase on the 2019-20 financial year, and appropriate bids have also been made under the spending review for 2021-22. We wait to understand the details on that.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for her responses, but I would be grateful if she will clarify one point. She talked about how the HSE’s existing capabilities could be built on, and said there had been some scoping and mapping. As we are so close to the end of transition, can she say whether any risks and concerns have been raised either by DWP or the HSE to her directly about readiness for 1 January, and whether any resources might still be required?
Mims Davies
I am happy to respond to the hon. Lady. In fact, I must point out that owing to more demand in relation to covid the HSE budget in 2019-20 was £129 million, and there will be an extra £1.6 million for the functions in question.
On recruitment and readiness, the HSE has identified a total of 147 posts to be filled by the end of the financial year. It reports good progress on filling those posts, with 108, or 73%, filled. It is confident that that means it will be ready in relation to the transition period. Of the 73% of posts filled to date, the vast majority will start in January, with the remainder commencing in post before April.
Several campaigns are ongoing and due for completion in 2021. We are concluding the recruitment of the outstanding posts and recruiting 117 brand new posts in the chemicals regulation division, relating specifically to EU exit. That represents a 45% increase from the baseline staffing, since January 2020, and I hope that the hon. Lady will see that it demonstrates a significant commitment to taking on the new functions that are required. I believe, in fact, that we had about 900 applications when the recruitment opened.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those at the HSE who have done a remarkable job through the pandemic and covid this year. The HSE has called in or visited 78,000 businesses as part of its work on spot checks. It has a significant compliance rate and staged spot checks in more than 41,000 businesses in relation to covid issues.
As to taking on the new functions and being ready to work with industry, there has been significant engagement with industry on the next stage, including 22 comms events just this month with the chemicals industry. Since January we have engaged with more than 6,000 attendees from across the chemicals section. There is significant information on the HSE website, the chemicals section of which gets over 50,000 views a month, and over 226,000 e-bulletins go out to subscribers. There have been extensive conversations and communications with the sector, and I have joined with Ministers from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and from DEFRA to engage with that sector and with stakeholders.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am really pleased to hear that the Government and HSE have been engaging with businesses. However, I am still hearing concerns from businesses that are worried about re-registering pre-existing chemicals that have already been registered, and any potential need to prove that new levels of testing have been met, particularly animal testing. Can the Minister give an assurance that no new tests will be required for pre-existing chemicals by the HSE, and particularly no new animal tests?
Mims Davies
On animal testing, the relevant legislation affected by the instrument is the biocidal products regulation. That regulation contains mandatory data sharing provisions that are maintained in retained EU law and will apply in Great Britain, with amendments to make clear that the HSE will operate this process, rather than the European Chemicals Agency. The UK has been at the forefront of opposing animal tests where alternative approaches could be used, and we will retain the last resort principle. I hope that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
Turning to divergence, GB will be free to make decisions on key issues. However, that does not mean we will disregard evidence, discussions and decisions made at EU level, nor any impacts on Northern Ireland. Horizon scanning and monitoring will be part of the UK chemicals framework as a whole.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I appreciate what the Minister just said. What would be useful, maybe in writing, is an absolute confirmation for the industry and for animal rights organisations that any pre-existing chemical that is currently registered under the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation, and will need to be re-registered with the HSE, will not require any new levels of testing due to moving their registration over. Of course, it will be difficult for new chemicals that come on board later, but just so that we can be absolutely sure, will the Minister say that no existing registered chemical will require any new levels of testing? That would give me and the industry reassurance.
Mims Davies
I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the REACH regulation is not included in this SI. DEFRA has the policy responsibility for REACH regulation and is bringing separate legislation forward on this. I hope that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for her responses to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, and I understand that some of the REACH regulations are covered by other SIs. However, these are very important points, so could I just probe her on one thing, which relates to the reduction in animal testing that the BPR has promoted? She has given some assurance that this will remain part of UK policy, but could she also give an assurance that if there is any change to that policy at any time, that change will come before the House? I do think people across the country will want to see us keep that commitment into the future.
Mims Davies
On divergence, I reiterate that GB will be free to make decisions on key issues. However, that does not mean that we will disregard evidence, discussions and decisions made at an EU level or elsewhere, and we will absolutely be engaging with stakeholders.
Regarding scrutiny—I think that was where the hon. Lady was going—decisions taken by the Secretary of State on chemicals regulations will be subject to the same processes of informal and formal consultation, enabling Ministers to be held to account as they are for any of their other decisions. In addition, for several decisions, the consent of devolved Administrations will be required as well. I maintain that the HSE has an excellent reputation for engaging with stakeholders and ensuring that we develop the appropriate health and safety regulations. I hope that I am reassuring hon. Members this morning.
In regard to unfettered access, the Government’s approach to the Northern Ireland protocol was set out in the May Command Paper and subsequent business guidance. This outlines that there will be some specific requirements for movements between NI and GB in respect of items categorised as highly regulated goods, and chemicals are highly regulated goods because they can pose a significant risk to human health and the environment. Northern Irish businesses will have the right to place a product on the market in Great Britain where they already have an authorisation to place that product on the market in Northern Ireland, provided that they notify the HSE with the information that they would submit previously to the EU. If the HSE has any serious concerns that any product poses a risk to public health or the environment, it has the ability to take safeguarding measures. The HSE has the ability to act and it will continue to. Costs, of course, are recoverable from industry. The return of costs is agreed, and they come back to the HSE—I must point that out to Members.
As many Members will attest, our chemicals sector is world leading, and, as we have heard today, it is vital for other key industries, such as the pharmaceuticals, automotive and aerospace industries. We want to ensure that that continues and that those sectors continue to succeed. We also need to provide certainty, as we have heard, for businesses in Northern Ireland and across GB that the statute book will be fully functioning for the end of the year and that NI businesses will have unfettered access to the market in Great Britain. This statutory instrument seeks to ensure that and to meet our obligations under the protocol.
I am sure that Members are all with me on the need to provide continuity and clarity to our chemicals industry following the end of the transition period. I want to ensure that the legal requirements that apply in relation to chemical regulations are clear and provide certainty to all. We must maintain our high standard of protection in the workplace and otherwise, and this instrument will uphold that. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 4 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
Covid-19: NAO Report on Government Procurement
(3 years, 4 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
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the NAO report on Investigation into government procurement during the covid-19 pandemic.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Eagle. I start by thanking the National Audit Office for its report. I also thank all those who have been working to shine a light on Government procurement during the pandemic: the Good Law Project, which is bringing forward a number of judicial reviews; reporters for Byline Times, openDemocracy, The Guardian and The Sunday Times; and the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition.
By chance, today’s debate takes place on the UN’s International Anti-Corruption Day. A number of businesses and others have contacted me in recent days to share their views and experiences, for which I am grateful. I applied for the debate to highlight the important findings in the NAO report and the serious questions that the Government now have to answer. The report sets out the facts on the tens of billions of pounds of public money spent by Government Departments during the covid-19 pandemic, up to 31 July 2020. It covers the pressure and need to procure goods, services and works quickly; the regulations that applied, or should have applied, to this frenzied procurement; and the management—or mismanagement, in many cases—of procurement risks, often including blatant conflicts of interest.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. PPE Medpro was incorporated on 12 May and was awarded a contract for £122 million for single-use disposable medical robes, which it was going to import. The contract was not advertised, but the company had a link to a Conservative peer. By contrast, my constituents who own Florence Roby spent months trying to get a contract for multi-use medical robes, which can be used up to 100 times. They were given the run-around and, after months, they had to give up and lay off staff. Is that contrast not a perfect example of everything that the National Audit Office highlights as being wrong with procurement in this crisis? This is a missed opportunity to have environmentally sustainable production and value for money, with reusable, not single-use, equipment.
Bill Esterson
This is a missed opportunity to support the local economy and workers. Instead, we have imports, not local jobs, and opportunism, with the use of fast-track access to the Government party.
Ms Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Order. I am not going to allow interventions that long in future. There are many people on the call list, and it is not fair to them.
Dan Carden
Thank you, Ms Eagle. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Story after story has come forward in a similar vein.
Public procurement regulations are designed to safeguard public confidence in the spending of public money. On 18 March 2020, the Cabinet Office implemented emergency procedures for procurement to allow for extreme urgency, including directly awarding contracts to suppliers without competition. That guidance referred to the need to keep proper records of decisions and actions on individual contracts; to have transparency and publication requirements; and to achieve value for money—basic requirements that the report and other information in the public domain now show the Government failed to meet.
The NAO highlights that, remarkably, the Cabinet Office guidance failed to give direction on managing the risks that should be considered as a result of using direct awards. The usual Cabinet Office spending controls on contracts over £10 million were not applied to the procurement of personal protective equipment. A clearance board was later set up, with an eight-stage process to approve PPE contracts over £5 million, but we know that £1.5 billion was awarded in contracts before proper processes were in place and before any financial and company due diligence process was standardised.
By 31 July 2020, over 8,600 contracts, worth £18 billion, had been awarded, of which £10.5 billion-worth were awarded directly without competition. Under the cover of the pandemic, billions of pounds of public money was handed to private companies, including Tory-linked firms, without competition, transparency or accountability.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we were on daily calls at the time discussing the pandemic and how we could help our constituents and companies? People from all parties were there, including Labour Members who were rightly asking for PPE for care homes and other organisations in their constituencies.
Dan Carden
I will move on because I want to go through the ways in which the system was set up. I will move on to some of the case studies highlighted in the report. PestFix, a pest control supplier, was handed a contract worth £350 million for PPE. The Government contracted with PestFix to purchase 25 million FFP2 masks, which we now know did not meet the Government’s published PPE specifications at the time of the order. Only after 600,000 masks were completed and delivered did the Department communicate the problem to PestFix and alter the contract.
Ayanda Capital—a London-based investment firm whose senior adviser was Andrew Mills—was awarded a PPE contract worth £252 million. At the time, Mills was also an adviser to the Board of Trade, part of the Department for International Trade. The 50 million masks purchased from Ayanda Capital failed to meet NHS specifications and were never able to be used. The deal’s documentation failed to identify any conflicts of interest.
Other cases have come to light. P14 Medical, a small firm based in Stroud, Gloucestershire, which recorded significant losses in 2019, was handed a £156 million contract to import PPE from China. Its director is a Conservative councillor. PPE Medpro, which has already been mentioned and is run by Anthony Page, a business associate of Conservative peer Baroness Mone, was handed a £122 million contract weeks after it was set up. In fact, PPE Medpro was set up on the day that Page quit as secretary of the company that deals with Baroness Mone’s brand.
In another case, Spanish businessman Gabriel González Andersson received £21 million of taxpayer’s money for acting as an agent to an American jewellery designer who, despite the absence of relevant experience, received major contracts for the supply of PPE. The Health Secretary’s former neighbour, who runs a pub in his village and has no previous experience in medical supplies, was awarded a £30 million contract to make millions of plastic vials for covid tests. He first contacted the Health Secretary by WhatsApp.
It is not just in the procurement of PPE that the Government have serious questions to answer. Some £840,000 was handed to the communications company, Public First, to run focus groups. The contract for that work was awarded retrospectively. Public First was founded by husband and wife Mr Frayne and Ms Wolf in 2016. Both Frayne and Wolf have worked in senior positions at different times for the former Education Secretary, and now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove).
The NAO stated:
“We found no documentation on the consideration of conflicts of interest, no recorded process for choosing the supplier, and no specific justification for using emergency procurement.”
The Government have tried to claim that the NAO report shows Ministers properly declared their interests and that there is no evidence of Ministers’ involvement in procurement decisions or contract management. The truth is that we just do not know what role Ministers played.
The Government’s only explanation is that this was an emergency and they were sourcing PPE as quickly as possible. Yes, the Government had to source PPE quickly—a problem of their own making. During years of cutbacks, emergency stockpiles of PPE dwindled and went out of date. The Government ignored warnings from their own advisers to buy missing equipment, and pandemic planning became yet another casualty of austerity and incompetence. It took Ministers until March to realise that the NHS supply chain, fragmented by years of marketisation, could not distribute PPE quickly enough to meet demand, which left Ministers scrambling to source PPE from elsewhere and overpaying by tens of billions of pounds.
Dan Carden
No, I do not have time.
Despite the enormous sums being spent, PPE was still not making it to the frontline. There was a huge disconnect between the boasts being made by Ministers in Parliament and the reality on the ground, where key workers were pleading for the kit that they needed to do their job safely. We all recognised that this was an emergency, but the need to act fast does not explain or excuse the Government’s actions. It does not explain why the emergency procurement rules should have been applied to non-PPE or non-emergency suppliers, such as public relations agencies, and nor does it justify why some consultants were paid in one week what a nurse earns in an entire year. It does not explain why rules around transparency, which were not suspended by the emergency procedures, were not followed, or why the Government still refuse to reveal basic information about who was bidding for contracts and how decisions about contracts were made.
Here is where the Government’s story really falls apart. We know that dozens of experienced local suppliers that offered to provide PPE were ignored. These qualified businesses had the capacity to produce large quantities of PPE quickly, but they were overlooked for contracts while businesses that had no prior experience were deemed fit. Ahead of this debate, I was contacted by reputable PPE suppliers that say they were crowded out during the pandemic by organisations that had no history of PPE manufacture or supply, some of which we now know had existed only for a matter of weeks. One established family-run company in Merseyside was forced to lay off staff after its offer of PPE to Government was ignored and then refused, as contracts instead went to Tory-linked firms buying from abroad.
The cronyism does not stop with contracts. We have also witnessed an opaque and troubling appointment process, whereby senior figures with close ties to the Conservative party have won public jobs that are of great importance in the national response to the pandemic. I pay tribute to Gabriel Pogrund and Tom Calver at The Sunday Times for their investigation, which was headlined, “Chumocracy first in line as Ministers splash covid cash”. Their investigation really is essential reading; it is extensive, and there is not time to do it justice in this debate, but it starts with the Prime Minister’s appointment of a close family friend, Kate Bingham, who is also the wife of a Conservative MP, to head up the vaccines taskforce. There was no formal appointment process, and Ms Bingham was appointed despite being a venture capitalist who had no previous experience in the field. She herself has said that her initial reaction to the Prime Minister’s offer was to say:
“I am not a vaccine expert, why should I be the right person?”
Bingham has spent £670,000 on consultants from a small PR agency with close links to the family of Dominic Cummings. She is also facing accusations that she shared sensitive Government information at a private equity networking event in the United States.
Then there is Lord Feldman, a former chairman of the Conservative party, who was secretly appointed as an unpaid adviser to the Department of Health. He sat in on discussions between health Ministers and Tory donor David Meller. Meller was later handed a £163 million contract for PPE despite his company having no track record of producing PPE. I wonder whether Mr Meller will be making any more donations to the Conservative party any time soon—he certainly must be flush for cash.
George Pascoe-Watson and Tory peer Lord O'Shaughnessy, chairman and senior adviser of the lobbying firm Portland Communications, were appointed as advisers at the Department of Health. They quite literally split their time between advising the Government on their covid response and advising their corporate clients on what was going on in Government. Lord O’Shaughnessy took part in calls with Boston Consulting Group, a Portland Communications client, which went on to be handed a £21 million contract from Government.
Of course, if anyone has a problem with any of this, they could take it up with the Government’s anti-corruption champion, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who is here with us today in Westminster Hall. He is also a Conservative MP and the husband of Dido Harding, the Conservative peer appointed to head the nation’s test and trace programme. Her appointment is now facing a possible judicial review.
Dan Carden
I will of course give way, as I have mentioned the hon. Gentleman.
John Penrose
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making some important points. However, I will just say in response to the charges he is making against myself and my wife that he really ought to confirm that he is aware that the anti-corruption champion’s role has never had—since it was first created under Tony Blair—investigatory powers; those are rightly held at arm’s length from political leadership. That has always been the case, and therefore to imply that there is some sort of investigation that I should be conducting is misleading and dangerous.
Could the hon. Gentleman also confirm that he is aware that both my role as anti-corruption tsar and my wife’s role, which he has just mentioned, are unpaid and that she is not the accounting officer for NHS Test and Trace, which is a position held by a full-time civil servant?
Finally, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that since both my wife and I are parliamentarians, and therefore have to make declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, he is not implying, and would not try to imply, that either of us has gained inappropriately in any way from our respective roles?
Dan Carden
On that last point, I can say I certainly never made that accusation. My point would be that it is inappropriate that he is in the position he is in as anti-corruption champion. How can a Conservative MP be in charge of overseeing corruption when the Government of the day is a Conservative Government?
John Penrose
On a point of order, Ms Eagle. It is important to note that ever since the role of anti-corruption champion was invented, it has, under Labour Governments as well as Conservative, always been held by an MP—sometimes a Minister—who is a member of the governing party of the day.
Dan Carden
It remains completely inappropriate.
In the words of The Sunday Times authors,
“As the government mounted a war effort to combat Covid-19, it has instead resembled more of a ‘chumocracy’. This is a world in which ministers have turned to friends with links to the Conservatives.”
While the British public continue to make huge personal sacrifices, a privileged group of business people with close connections to the Government has turned huge profits from the pandemic. What is perhaps most remarkable is that Ministers actually created a VIP high-priority lane for companies bidding for contracts, which were put forward by Government officials, Ministers’ offices, MPs and Members of the House of Lords. It is not just a perception of cronyism; we now know that the system was rigged, with privileged access granted to companies with connections to top politicians. These favoured companies were 10 times more likely to be successful than those without political connections. This flies in face of one of the key principles of procurement: that suppliers should be on a level playing field. If this happened in any other country, we would call it corruption.
There can be no justification for the Government withholding the names of fast-tracked companies allowed to jump the queue, often at the expense of more proven competitors. Transparency is a fundamental principle; the public have the right to know how their money has been spent. The NAO’s investigation focused on 20 contracts, and its revelations could just be the tip of the iceberg. There must be a full independent investigation into Government contracts granted during covid-19.
More than 100,000 people have now signed a parliamentary petition calling for a public inquiry. The Government must, as a bare minimum, implement the NAO recommendations. They must end the VIP lane, if they have not already done so, and return to undertaking competitive procurement. They must publish the full details of the companies that pass through the VIP lane, and the sources of their referral. In a number of other countries, including Ukraine and Colombia, details about emergency covid contracts must be published within 24 hours. If they can do it, why can’t we?
The Government must embed open contracting systems into their procurement processes. Their forthcoming Green Paper is an opportunity to go even further, to rewrite the rules of procurement to prevent such flagrant conflicts of interest in the future. I will return to the Green Paper in a moment, but let me briefly talk about the advisory panel that is informing the Green Paper.
The Government’s procurement transformation advisory panel contains some voices that are welcome in shaping Government procurement policy—the University of Sussex’s Centre for the Study of Corruption, for instance, is one of them. However, there are serious concerns about other appointments to the panel, most notably Amazon. Amazon has already been awarded 82 central Government contracts, worth £225 million, in the past five years, and has a deal enabling local councils to buy supplies in one marketplace. The manner in which Amazon is embedding itself into national and regional public procurement is, in the words of Paul Monaghan of the Fair Tax Mark, “truly frightening”.
How can it be right that Amazon should be given such a position of influence over Government procurement policy, while raking in hundreds of millions in Government contracts itself? Considering Amazon’s record on meeting its tax obligations, why should a company that refuses to pay its fair share into the public purse be in a position to profit so handsomely from it? Can the Minister tell me by what process members of the procurement transformation advisory panel were appointed? What steps, if any, were taken to identify and address potential conflicts of interest, and will the minutes of the meeting be published?
In the same week the NAO report was published, the UN published its evaluation of the UK’s implementation of the UN convention against corruption, in which it calls on the UK to take a tougher approach to handling conflicts of interest—especially those at the top of Government. When we look at how other Governments across the world have responded, not only to covid but to procurement specifically, there is a lot for the UK to be embarrassed about. In Sweden, Slovakia, Estonia and Latvia, the number of contracts awarded using open competition went up during the pandemic.
The upcoming Green Paper is an opportunity to put in place measures that would begin to restore some trust in the system. The Government must now consider implementing end-to-end digital transparency for all Government contracts from planning through to tender, award, spending and implementation. The Government must establish an effective conflict of interest regime, including a publicly accessible database of conflict of interest declarations. To support that, they should extend the remit of the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests to give them independent statutory status, including the power to investigate conflicts of interest and to take action.
The Government should look to introduce conditions requiring companies bidding for contracts to meet the highest standards to ensure that they are providing real social value. Companies should receive public contracts only if they meet their tax obligations and environmental standards, and if they recognise trade unions.
This debate goes to the heart of a much wider malaise. For decades now, people have been steadily shut out of decisions affecting their lives. Wealth and power have become more highly concentrated in the hands of a few. Wealth translates to influence, and influence back to wealth. The revolving door between big business, media, finance and politics never stops spinning. The only way to counter that is by deepening democracy and accountability to the public at every level. The Government’s own anti-corruption strategy warns:
“Corruption threatens our national security and prosperity, both at home and overseas. Unchecked, it can erode public confidence in the domestic and international institutions that we all depend upon.”
The obscene profiteering and cronyism that has been the hallmark of the UK’s response to covid-19 has further eroded what little trust people have left in our political system. The need to challenge conflicts of interest, extend democracy and fight for a robust system of checks and balances to hold power to account has never been more pressing.
Ms Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
I shall begin by imposing a three-minute time limit on speeches, but I think it will have to go down to two before the end of the debate.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Eagle. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this important debate. I absolutely accept that there are issues, that procurement is extremely difficult and that lessons need to be learned.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate, and for the latter-day conversion of many Opposition Members to an interest in the area in question. Having sat on the Public Accounts Committee, I did not see many of them at the time, or over the past 18 months, raising this issue. However, I accept that there are issues to be raised, and I am keen to raise them. Unfortunately, while in my view the issues need to be raised in a spirit of constructiveness, that was not evident in the hon. Gentleman’s comments. They need to be understood with an acknowledgement of the context in which we work. Failure to understand those points means we will not push forward the discussion in a useful manner.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton I am afraid that the selective quotations from the NAO report, which I have also read, need to be corrected. He said that action was taken without the usual Cabinet Office spending controls, whereas, on page 11, the report states that
“we recognise that these were exceptional circumstances”.
The hon. Gentleman said that things were undertaken before any processes were standardised, yet, as the report states clearly on page 32, even before standardisation occurred civil servants were able to
“research and report on financial details of companies and the background details of company directors within four hours at the peak, and produced reports rating suppliers as red, amber or green.”
Nowhere in the report does the word “mismanagement” appear—not in any of the 48 pages.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton talked about dozens of experienced local suppliers being ignored. I had similar suppliers that I was sending in, but they were not ignored. Page 8 states that
“the Department of Health & Social Care and the Cabinet Office put in place a clearance board to approve PPE contracts more than £5 million. PPE procurements were subject to normal departmental spending controls, including HM Treasury approval”.
On page 9, the report states:
“The cross-government PPE team established an eight-stage process to assess and process offers of support to supply PPE”.
The hon. Gentleman made a strong statement that the system was rigged, and yet page 9 states that both lanes, including the high-priority lane,
“used the same eight-stage process to assess and process offers.”
I was on some of the calls—with Members in this room—where we all directed statements and leads into that lane, without any expectation of favours whatsoever, but recognising that we were trying to ensure the best for our hospitals and the people on the frontline dealing with such difficult times.
In the 19 seconds I have left, the question that the hon. Gentleman failed to answer was the strategic one. In a period of emergency there is a choice: to prioritise output or process. Ideally, both would be prioritised, but if I had a choice, I would make sure that the PPE was in my hospital. I hope that some of the Opposition Members here will answer that question in the coming hour.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
To listen to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), one would think everything was rosy in the garden—of course, it is not. The Government have adopted processes that abandon the decades-old traditions of checking value for money when spending in the private sector. How else can we explain that, for example, £95 billion of outsourcing resulted in a 20% increase in contracts, and the £14.3 billion of additional expenditure on contracts that had been let? How else can we explain that many contracts were let without tendering processes of any kind? Some £10 billion of taxpayers’ money was spent without any form of tendering at all. To rely on the process that the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire has just described simply does not convince. One billion pounds have gone to Tory chums—these are staggering amounts of money.
I know it is not the subject of the audit report, but given the facts that emerged when Carillion went bust—that the Government had abandoned any attempt whatever to monitor the delivery of the contract—it is extraordinary that no further steps have been taken to protect the public purse. This is taxpayer money being wasted on a colossal scale, and in an unjustifiable way. When we consider that outsourcing is costing each household in this country £3,500, the scale is extraordinary.
There is an old expression, is there not, about never wasting a crisis? The Tories have not wasted this one. They have handed over billions of pounds to their Tory chums in the private sector in a wasteful manner, with no real effort to monitor contracts or secure value for money. When people discover that it is costing each household £3,500, I think the general response will be that this is a massive rip-off—some would go further and suggest that our British standards of probity, which lasted for more than a century, have been abandoned and have become so corrupted as to no longer be acceptable. Whatever one’s view on that, it is hard to disagree that the Government are spending taxpayers’ money like confetti at a wedding—in a most wasteful and reckless manner.
Ms Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
I am reducing the speaking limit to two and a half minutes in order to get everybody in.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Thank you, Ms Eagle. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this important debate. It is, of course, regrettable that this comes on the back of the National Audit Office investigation into Government procurement during the pandemic. The report itself, as hon. Members have pointed out and no doubt will continue to do so during this debate, is critical of the Government’s failure to guarantee transparency that should provide absolute confidence in the use of public funds.
I am sure Members from across the House will sympathise with the hand the Government have been dealt this year. No one could have anticipated a crisis on the scale we have witnessed, and it is natural that mistakes have been made along the way. However, in the interests of accountability, transparency and overall good governance, it is wholly wrong for a Government to hide behind such unfortunate circumstances while dismissing the concerns of Opposition politicians. We have asked probing questions—and yes, levelled criticisms—while seeking to provide appropriate scrutiny of and seek clarity on the decisions made in Whitehall offices. Such endeavours are prerequisites of a healthy parliamentary debate.
Despite that, it seems that the level of immaturity and arrogance that has infected the Conservative party of 2020 is tantamount to that of a petulant schoolchild: on one hand demanding praise and pats on the head for the things it gets right, while at the same time demonstrating outright dismissal when pulled up on its litany of failures. Most of my constituents work in the private sector and their livelihoods depend on it, so it is pretty galling to hear, repeatedly, the superficial retort that our opposition is based on some false hatred of anything beyond the public sector.
In a feat of human ingenuity and brilliance, we now have a vaccine being rolled out across the country. At the same time, a week is barely seen out without yet another story of Government cronyism emerging; companies with no track record or experience in delivering comprehensive outcomes on anything are awarded contracts to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash. The only thing the public can visibly note as the primary commissioning criterion is the obvious and apparent connections to the governing party.
Only last week, a Government Minister, Lord Bethell, was asked directly whether the Government intended to publish a list of companies that were contracted to supply PPE as a result of the high-priority lane. Owing to the so-called “commercial implications”, the Government made clear their intention not to publish the list of suppliers. That sort of culture and practice has been heavily criticised by the NAO.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Eagle.
The NAO report raises serious questions that the Government must address on both competency and cronyism. We have heard some of the numbers cited in the NAO report today from other Members, and they are staggering. Clearly, in the midst of a national—and indeed, an international—health emergency, where every country in the world was scrambling for supplies, standard procurement rules and processes needed to be relaxed; clearly, in such a competitive market, prices would skyrocket and some mistakes would be made.
However, the headless-chicken approach that the Government have pursued led to the procurement of millions of products that were not fit for purpose or that simply never materialised. For instance, £364 million was spent on full-body coveralls, with only 432,000 of those items delivered and used. That amounts to £840 per bodysuit, which is completely unacceptable.
We now know from the NAO report that companies placed on the VIP list were 10 times more likely to win contracts in the early months of the pandemic. There were no criteria for referrals to the fast-track lane, and the source of the referral was not always recorded, so I hope the Minister will outline clearly what criteria were used to assess offers from MPs, peers and Ministers, what processes were followed and what due diligence was undertaken on their credibility and suitability.
As we have heard already, many companies with no prior experience were awarded contracts, and others with good experience were turned down. The lack of transparency, the lack of risk management and the lack of a paper trail in relation to billions of pounds of public funds absolutely stinks.
Integrity, objectivity and accountability are among the seven Nolan principles of public life; these have been tested to destruction on numerous occasions, not least in the context of the whopping procurement decisions detailed in the NAO report. While NHS staff were wrapping themselves in bin bags and dying in the line of duty, and while schoolchildren were making DIY PPE, millions of pounds of public money was being siphoned off to inexperienced companies, many with links to the Conservative party.
Ministers must now commit to a thorough independent inquiry at the earliest possible opportunity, as the Liberal Democrats have been calling for. We should establish a cross-party committee to examine all contracts awarded for the remainder of the pandemic, not least in the roll-out of the vaccines.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Eagle. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this important debate.
From wasting taxpayers’ money on PPE that was not fit for purpose and Serco’s inept contact tracing system, to setting up a VIP procurement channel for people with political connections, this Government have disregarded their own rules, operated secretly and made dangerous decisions that have jeopardised public health. The OECD foreign bribery report found that public procurement is particularly vulnerable to corruption. It is worth bearing that in mind when we look more closely at some of the eye-watering examples that Members have set out.
Nadia Whittome
No. The hon. Lady has made many interventions already. Let me tell Members here, on behalf of our key workers in Nottingham and across the country, that these dodgy dealings might feel like games to Ministers, but they have very real life consequences for people across the country. Myself, my colleagues and thousands of frontline care workers struggled during the heat of the pandemic, when it was widely reported that a lack of adequate PPE and staff testing in care homes created a major risk of the virus spreading. We were smeared in the media, including by Members on the Government Benches.
Let me state again for the record: the lucrative contracts that this Government were handing out to their pals led to failures and delays that had a direct impact on frontline workers during the pandemic. People die when the Government get these things wrong. People have died. Does the Minister unequivocally accept the recommendations of the National Audit Office report, and by what date will they be implemented?
The Government need to immediately outline a list of all contracts awarded during the pandemic that are unlawful, terminate them and procure further services by way of fair and lawful competition. Will the Minister commit to that today? Ultimately, procurement for the public sector needs to be re-established, with the reliance on management consultants scrapped. People deserve to know that their money is being spent on keeping them safe, in a way that is fair and above board. We demand action and we demand answers.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Eagle. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this important debate, because with every new story that emerges, the public are right to be asking questions, as this country goes through one of its most difficult times. They should not be reliant on the media or independent investigations for facts. Transparency and accountability should be coming from our Government.
This Government may have a majority, but that does not give them the right to do whatever they like. The National Audit Office investigation has rightly shone a light on what has been an absurd outsourcing strategy. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton outlined all the usual checks and balances that were completely disregarded. The pandemic was unforeseeable, and we will not criticise people for not being able to prepare for something that we could not see coming, but a country of this advancement and with the level of resources that we have, has the ability to act quickly. It should have been able to act quicker to secure PPE and testing kits within the rules. Rather than putting our trust and money in smaller companies in this country and local actors with experience, the Government wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money corner-cutting with private contractors for substandard products and services.
Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, said:
“While we recognise that these were exceptional circumstances, it remains essential that decisions are properly documented and made transparent if Government is to maintain public trust that taxpayers’ money is being spent appropriately and fairly.”
That is a very fair statement. However, 10% of the suppliers were referred through political channels and, by contrast, only 1% of suppliers with no links had a chance of winning a contract. How fair is that? Some £10 billion-worth of contracts were awarded without competition, and almost 500 suppliers with links to politicians or senior officials were allowed to pitch directly for work.
The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) talked about putting protection over process, but how can that be the case when, at the beginning of the pandemic, we had so many people begging for PPE and tests, while PPE and testing kits were being produced in this country? Suppliers did not receive contracts from the Government and so were forced to sell their products to the EU and other countries. The case of PestFix, which is a vermin control company, shows how bad the Government’s outsourcing has been. We really need to get a grip on this.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Eagle. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this debate. I hope that, in the short time I have, I can impress on the Government the need to acknowledge the mistakes that have been made and the lessons that need to be learned. At the end of my remarks, I will offer a constructive way forward, and I hope the Minister takes it very seriously.
There is a company in my constituency called Arco, which was founded in 1884. It is a local family-run company that specialises in safety equipment. All it does is PPE and safety equipment. It is acknowledged as being world-leading in its field, and it is the only safety distributor that has its own independently accredited testing laboratory in the UK, so it really is a world-leading expert. During the pandemic, it took the decision to prioritise its existing clients, which were healthcare institutions and food production institutions.
Arco prides itself on having incredibly high standards. Hon. Members would therefore expect that it would be at the top of the list of any Government procurement system looking for PPE distribution suppliers. In fact, if hon. Members google “UK world-leading PPE suppliers”, they will see Arco right there at the top. Sadly, during the pandemic, it found that its products were unwanted. It was floored by the Government response to creating a new procurement structure, which led to confusion. Suppliers lacked information and clarity about who they should be working with, and the failure to obtain decisions and sign-off led to failed orders.
Arco tells me that the online portal system had one single email address for all inquiries, and I have heard since that it was flooded with offers from companies all around the UK, with no real process for sifting those that were more genuine or reputable. That single point of contact did not require suppliers to provide information about their expertise, experience or record in sourcing or providing safety equipment. In fact, it seemed to lack the quality control that we would expect. No proof was required of the ability to meet obligations under PPE regulations when making offers to supply to the Government. Arco tells me that genuine suppliers were crowded out.
Arco has produced a 10-point plan with recommendations to improve the future processes and ensure that high-quality PPE is made at all times. It has written to the Government, and I will be writing to the Minister with its 10-point plan. I urge the Minister to have a conversation with Arco. Let us learn the lessons from the mistakes that have been made and ensure that they never happen again.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for his excellent speech at the beginning of the debate. This is a fantastic opportunity to shine a light on this issue; sadly, the Government have been found lacking.
We know that huge sums of money have been spent since March. The National Audit Office report analyses £18 billion, but we know that the sums are even higher. Due to the economic downturn, serious financial decisions will have to be made in future to protect our public finances, yet so much has been wasted and given away to friends. The need for those financial decisions is made more pressing by the way in which the procurement decisions were made. This is public money, and our communities demand answers.
Since the report came out, the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers and Conservative MPs have been at pains to say that the contracts were rushed, but hon. Members should not forget that we had an exercise that showed what was needed in a pandemic. I believe that that still has not come to light. It should be brought to light now so that we can learn the lessons in advance of wave No. 3.
All hon. Members will pay tribute to the civil servants and armed services planners who played a key role in the huge logistical feat of managing. Without their efforts, where would we be? However, we can all remember the moment when we were watching on Sky News the aeroplane about to land, full of wonderful PPE from Turkey. Of course, that PPE arrived at great cost to the taxpayer, only to be found completely inappropriate and not to standard. That is just one snapshot. There has been a litany of errors, not just a few honest mistakes. It is clear that we need a new framework for procurement, particularly in advance of Brexit, after which we will not necessarily have the rigour that European law gives us.
I have three questions for the Minister. When will information relating to the remaining unpublished contracts be released? Will the Government commit to implement in full the recommendations of the NAO report on the rapid awarding of contracts? Thirdly, will the Minister commit to ensuring that all contract decisions will be covered by a future inquiry, with powers to prosecute any wrongdoing?
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Eagle, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing the debate.
Yes, we are living through unprecedented times, but it is disgusting that this pandemic has seen the wealth of billionaires rise by a third, while the poorest and most vulnerable are left destitute. They have been evicted from their homes and had their rights at work and wages slashed, with the number of universal credit applicants going through the roof. The report has proved beyond doubt that the Tories are profiting from this pandemic by handing lucrative contracts to their mates through the back door. A total lack of transparency and adequate documentation has been laid bare. At best, it is proof of a highly incompetent Government who cannot get the paperwork right. At worst, it is a deliberate attempt to cover the tracks of cronyism, to avoid scrutiny and to withhold information from the public.
Hundreds of contracts have been fast-tracked, and sources of referrals have gone undocumented. Documents are missing, and the pattern of suppliers being awarded contracts despite poor due-diligence ratings raises serious concerns around conflicts of interest and the lack of a proper process. The staggering report has exposed the fact that some contracts were awarded retrospectively after work had been carried out, including £3.2 million paid to Deloitte in July for work that it had been undertaking since March, jeopardising outcomes and accountability. Over £10 million-worth of covid contracts were awarded directly without any competitive tender process at all. One shameful example details the Department for Health and Social Care handing a contract for testing vials to the Secretary of State’s mate after a WhatsApp exchange, despite his having no experience whatever in medical supplies.
With all this evidence laid bare in black and white, can the Minister tell me how the public can have any trust that the Government are truly making decisions in our best interests? The revelations from the National Audit Office confirm once again that the Tories are happy to shell out millions to their mates, while the rest of us are told to tighten our belts as we are forced to pick up the tab for this pandemic. The sacrifices of working people in fighting this pandemic have been immense, serving communities and keeping the country going. The outsourcing clearly shows that the Government have no concern for their responsibilities or for getting value for money for the taxpayer, with outsourcing impacting on workers. As the Government hand out contracts to outsourcing firms, can the Minister tell me how they are ensuring that the workers are protected and treated fairly?
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Eagle. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for securing the debate.
For the vast majority of the country, this pandemic has been an utter misery. It has been eight long months of loneliness, hardship and bereavement. For a wealthy few, however, it has been something quite different. For them, it has been opportunity to cash in on connections, and, boy, have they cashed in. Take, for example, Conservative donor David Meller, who has donated more than £60,000 to the party in the past decade, including thousands to support the leadership bid of the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who is now the Minister for the Cabinet Office—the Department that happens to be in charge of PPE procurement. Mr Meller’s company ordinarily specialises in home and beauty products, but has now been awarded more than £163 million in PPE contracts. That is nearly a tenfold increase on its entire 2019 turnover.
Such deals are far from isolated. A small, loss-making firm run by a Conservative councillor was handed a £156 million contract to import PPE. A company run by the former business associate of Conservative peer Baroness Mone was handed a £122 million in a PPE contract just seven weeks after it was set up. A deal to hand a private equity company a £252 million contract for face masks, which were never used, was brokered by a senior adviser to the International Trade Secretary, who also happens to sit on the board of the private equity company.
The National Audit Office report found that companies with political contacts were 10 times more likely to be handed contracts than those without such contacts. The newspapers describe these dealings as “chumocracy”, and they have also called it cronyism, but if it was happening in another country, they would call it by a different name. I will leave it to the imagination of Members present and our constituents as to what that name would be.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Eagle, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this vital debate. I would like to respond to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) by saying that many of us were not at the PAC 18 months ago because we were not in this place, and I am pleased to see so many of the new intake—at least seven of us—challenging the Government, as is our role.
The Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, of which I am a member, has been looking at lessons learned from the covid response, including the appointment process of key figures in the UK’s response, and I was pleased that this point has been raised by Members. We found that there was a clear lack of due process, likely conflicts of interest, and potential cronyism. Lord Evans, chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said only a couple of weeks ago during our inquiry that “urgent procedures” exist in times of urgent need, but added:
“Even if many of the people are exactly the right people, it is better if people know they are the right people because there has been proper, open competition.”
That is a key theme, whether those roles are paid or unpaid.
That theme has also come through in the NAO’s report, which is damning. It shows that contracts have been awarded without due diligence, with a lack of documentation, no clear audit trail or transparency. In some instances contracts were awarded retrospectively, for work already done. Hundreds of contracts have been fast-tracked for companies through the Cabinet Office’s VIP process, and while this may have been the same process as referred to earlier, many companies were referred by Ministers, officials, MPs and peers. The NAO found that firms in the VIP lane were far more likely to be awarded contracts than those that were not—a one in 10 chance, against a chance of approximately one in 100 for those outside the priority lane. That is disgraceful.
The sheer lack of due process has led to the waste of millions of pounds. I will not go through a list of the companies involved, because many have been mentioned already, but I just want to say that this angers me. In the public sector, we have many workers who have now faced 10 years of austerity, who cannot even justify getting Post-It notes from the store cupboard, yet this Government are mismanaging taxpayers’ money and are refusing to give public sector workers a pay rise. It is shameful.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Eagle, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this important debate. I will highlight the issue of scrubs, and ask the Minister to go back to the Department and sort out the national scrubs crisis, which is still carrying on and has not been addressed properly by the NAO report. However, that report is damning about procurement processes, and highlights a failure and mismanagement of the process for procurement contracts.
At the start of the crisis, there was a shortage of scrubs, and volunteers across the country jumped into action, including in the Minister’s own constituency, in Upminster. That is understandable: there was a short-term shortage of scrubs, which was met by amazing volunteers. However, why are those volunteers still there, having to fulfil contracts from hospitals that are saying they still have a shortage of scrubs all these months later? What is happening in the procurement process that means we are still facing this?
Putney Scrub Hub is an amazing place. The volunteers who run it are incredible, and their leader is an established leader in her field of producing scrub robes. She will not go back to work: she has taken time off until this scrubs crisis can be sorted out. She is fulfilling contracts from King’s College Hospital, Central Middlesex Hospital, the West London Kidney Patients Association, Royal Brompton Hospital and Northwick Park Hospital, as well as meeting the increasing need of vaccine clinics for scrubs. What is going on with procurement? In response to a written question, I was told that NHS Supply Chain is the main provider of scrubs, so I hope the Minister can go back and ask questions of NHS Supply Chain, to find out what is going wrong. The NHS Supply Chain hotel services tower has not put out any tenders for new contracts in the past 12 months, so who are these 14 suppliers who have the contracts? Why are they not stepping up to the plate? Why are hospital staff phoning up and finding out that there is a three-month delay in getting scrubs?
Back at the hospitals and clinics, there are shortages. This means that NHS staff have to go home, or are being told to bring in tracksuits, which is very damaging to morale. Will NHS Supply Chain meet with the leader of Putney Scrub Hub to talk about what the problems are with the procurement chains? Why are there billions of pounds’ worth of contracts on one side, yet our NHS staff do not have their scrubs? Will we enable the Putney Scrub Hub volunteers to at last put down their scissors and go home?
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Eagle. As one of the people who originally asked the NAO to look into the handling of PPE contracts, I was of course extremely interested in what its report had to say. I asked for that because throughout the summer, suppliers contacted me as they were angry about being overlooked, especially given that they had put in many hours of work to get some of the contracts. Their anger turned to rage when they saw that some of the companies to which contracts had been awarded had no background in PPE and sometimes no background as a company at all. In fact, their chief qualification was a connection to the Tory party.
How did we get into that position in the first place? Of course, there was unprecedented demand, but it seems that the Government failed to heed their own warnings about the readiness of this country to deal with a pandemic. They ignored the recommendations of Exercise Cygnus and allowed the PPE stockpile that we did have to go out of date and dwindle—a dwindling stockpile, by the way, that we were paying a private company £11 million a year to sit on.
The way in which warnings were ignored created the conditions for the get-rich-quick specialists to thrive and for the taxpayer to foot the bill for overpriced PPE from people who had never sold as much as a pair of gloves the previous year. At the same time, companies with the contacts, experience and even the stock were given the run-around, so we had the scandal of doctors and nurses bringing homemade PPE to protect themselves, while British companies were selling their stock abroad because they could not get their own Government to take an interest in it. We then saw the absurd spectacle of a Secretary of State proclaiming on national television that help was on the way with a shipment of PPE from Turkey, most of which never arrived or turned out to be unusable. That was an international embarrassment that we must never let happen again.
When the Minister responds, will she set out exactly how many millions of items of PPE that were purchased either never showed up or were found to be unusable? Will she tell us how much of that has already been paid for and whether we have received any refunds? So far, I have not heard any contrition from the Government about the way in which procurement has been handled, and we need to hear some today, because the public will not forget the arrogance until long after the last person has been vaccinated.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Eagle. I add my own words of congratulations to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for securing the debate. In his opening remarks, he did an absolutely excellent job of dissecting the morass of contracts that have risen to public attention for all the wrong reasons and do not, on any objective measure, pass the sniff test.
We have heard much about what the report does tell us, so before the Minister responds, let us be absolutely clear about what the NAO says the report does not tell us. Page 44 of the NAO report states:
“This report should not be considered as offering positive assurance over aspects of any of these contracts which are not detailed in the report, or as offering any legal opinion on the use of public procurement regulations… We have not drawn any conclusions regarding the value for money of the procurement”.
The report was drawn up on the basis of a risk-based examination of 20 contracts, which are a fraction of the 8,600 new contracts that had been awarded by 31 July. To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking that risk-based approach. That core analysis is done to find what issues emerge, and my goodness, what issues have emerged. It seems that the NAO knew exactly where it should be sticking its spade in the ground when it started this work.
Of those new contracts, £0.7 billion-worth were awarded through contract extensions; £0.2 billion-worth through competitive tendering; and £6.7 billion-worth through existing framework call-offs. Those contracts are not the ones that should cause anyone any particular concern. Rather, scrutiny should rightly focus on the £10.5 billion-worth of contracts that were direct awards with no competition.
Obviously, the Government have to have the ability to give direct contract awards in situations of extreme urgency, as the law allows. Rightly, however, strict conditions are attached to that. I do not think that anyone would disagree that those conditions are likely to have been met in the very early weeks of the crisis, but what came thereafter is an entirely different question. Within those contracts, whenever they were awarded, it is important to be able to get a sense of what was proportionate, where conflicts of interest may have arisen, how those conflicts of interest were managed, what steps were taken to mitigate the risks and how value for money was ensured as far as possible. All too often, as the report highlights, inadequate records were kept, which means that transparency has been diminished and, in many cases, it is not possible to demonstrate how particular decisions were reached and why.
I accept that, in cases of urgency, sometimes processes need to be circumvented. The law allows for that. Certain corners will be cut; certain niceties might be overlooked. The fact that this took place does not overshadow the many genuine efforts of Government employees to procure swiftly under conditions of urgency and great difficulty, but the importance of record keeping is absolutely key to maintaining transparency, so that we know that the right decisions were taken for the right reasons. The fact that the Government are still citing the need to procure with extreme urgency as a reason for persisting with this method of procurement, even after the summer, does not wash at all.
As we have heard, there are serious public concerns about certain contracts that were awarded. In some cases, those who were awarded the contracts were unable to fulfil them either at a reasonable price or to the required level of quality. In some cases, those who won them already enjoyed a closeness with the Government and some members of the Government, which was inappropriate at best.
It is remarkable that people with no experience of manufacturing, who were simply acting as middle men looking for a slice, could find themselves in a priority queue for consideration. The fact that there was a priority queue is a matter for concern. Although both lanes were supposed to be using the same gateway and scrutiny process, a stark set of numbers emerge from that analysis: 47 out of 493 contracts, or 9.5%, of those in the priority lane went on to secure a contract award, compared with only 104 out of 14,892, or less than 0.75%, of those in the normal lane.
Many contracts were awarded without any kind of financial due diligence being undertaken on the companies. In some cases, due diligence was done after the awards were given and came back as an amber or red condition. I accept that in times of urgency one may need to press on and take the chance. However, the further one goes into the process, the less justifiable it is to take that risk. To do financial due diligence in that way on contracts worth not only tens of millions of pounds, but in excess of £100 million, is a bit like going bungee jumping and only worrying about whether the cord is attached after embarking on the journey downwards. Frankly, it is beyond belief that this was allowed to happen.
The differentiation between the lanes was not based on evidence of any ability to deliver, nor was the aim to speed up the procurement process; it was preferential access, pure and simple. I was not the first Member to refer to suspicions of a crony virus working in Government, but the suspicion lingers. For too long, too many people too close to the centre of Government have won too many contracts, of which too few are properly documented or can demonstrate adequate value for money.
On 15 March, the Health Secretary said:
“Our approach to tackling coronavirus is to be as clear and transparent as possible—because all that matters is getting this response right ”.
In her summing up, the Minister will no doubt seek virtue in the fact that the Government were, in their own eyes, getting on with the job at an incredibly difficult time in a global pandemic. We must be clear: if that is the defence mustered for the content of this report, it is an excuse that is beginning to run on empty. The report stated:
“This has diminished public transparency, and the lack of adequate documentation means we cannot give assurance that government has adequately mitigated the increased risks arising from emergency procurement or applied appropriate commercial practices in all cases. While we recognise that these were exceptional circumstances, there are standards that the public sector will always need to apply if it is to maintain public trust.”
There is an urgent need for openness in these processes so that the public can maintain their trust in them and trust can be restored in the Government’s approach. That is why today I repeat the SNP’s call for a full public inquiry into the awarding of tenders and into those who had access to UK Government meetings preparatory to procurement awards throughout the health emergency. The Government absolutely must also accept unreservedly, without any qualification and in full, the recommendations made in the National Audit Office report. If they are to escape the suggestion that they have been allowing preferential access and enrichment to a select few under the cover of an unprecedented emergency, they can really do no less than that.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Eagle. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this important debate. The National Audit Office investigation into Government procurement during the covid-19 pandemic reveals a series of calamitous errors in how decisions were made and taxpayers’ money was wasted. It is imperative that Members have the opportunity to debate its findings.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Many important points were made. Time does not permit me to mention every contribution, but I will highlight my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who rightly raised the Carillion procurement scandal and asked why lessons do not seem to have been learned. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) spoke from her direct experience of the consequences of procurement failure for social care staff working on the frontline. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) gave the powerful example of Arco, a world-leading PPE supplier in her constituency that was ignored by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) raised her important work highlighting the ongoing national scrubs crisis.
The Opposition recognise that, when faced with a national emergency on the scale of the global covid-19 pandemic, the Government needed to act quickly to procure goods and services, but the National Audit Office found that, even allowing for accelerated processes, proper checks and controls were not carried out. The report states that
“procurement processes established by the cross-government PPE team enabled PPE to be purchased quickly, but some procurements were carried out before all key controls were put in place.”
Seventy-one contracts, with a total value of £1.5 billion, were awarded to suppliers before proper company checks were put in place. Even worse, some contracts were awarded only after the work had been completed, significantly increasing the risk of budget overspend and poor performance, and more than half of the £17.3 billion awarded to suppliers was awarded directly with no competition.
The report highlights the Government’s failure to set out clearly why they chose a particular supplier or how risks from a lack of competition were identified and mitigated. The National Audit Office highlighted that that was critical
“to ensure public trust in the fairness of the procurement process.”
It is clear that public confidence has been hugely damaged by this debacle.
We have contracts awarded without key controls, awarded sometimes after the work had already been completed, and often with no competition and without adequate documentation. On top of that, we find that the Government again and again awarded contracts not to trusted long-term suppliers of PPE with a track record of delivery but to companies with strong links to friends and donors of the Tory party—chaos facilitating cronyism.
With the huge gaps in transparency and company checks identified by the National Audit Office, the Government have serious questions to answer about the back door VIP special procurement route. How did it operate? Who had access? What weight was given to the individual making a referral through the route in the award of a contract? How many contracts were awarded through the VIP route without competition, company checks or adequate justification?
Reputable British firms with a track record of delivery who wanted to help at a time of desperate need such as Seren Plus—a long-term supplier of PPE to the NHS—were left to watch incredulously as inexperienced firms failed to deliver. Ayanda Capital received £156 million for PPE that could not be used. PestFix, with barely any money in the bank and no track record of providing PPE, received £160 million of taxpayers’ money, and the Health Secretary’s pub landlord received £30 million to provide vials, despite no track record in providing medical supplies.
The real bottom line in all this is that frontline staff in our national health service and social care, putting their lives on the line every single day and in desperate need of protection, did not receive the PPE they needed for weeks and weeks. We watched the heartbreaking footage of social care workers with no protection, hospital staff reusing masks and gowns, while the Government flushed millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money down the drain, employing firms with no track record, which unsurprisingly proved unable to deliver.
With procurement happening so quickly under emergency measures, the Government should have been creating more transparency, opening up to greater scrutiny, so that the public could have confidence in the pandemic response. Instead, the opposite appears to be the case. Again and again, the Government shrugged their shoulders at revelations of crony contracts and failed to make any commitment—
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very serious allegation when she talks about cronyism, implying corruption. On the basis that the NAO report found no evidence that Ministers were involved in procurement decisions, at whom is she directing those allegations?
Helen Hayes
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my former colleague on the Select Committee, for his intervention. Cronyism and corruption are different in law. I am talking about cronyism. The important point that was made by the National Audit Office and reiterated in the debate today is that, when the Government have a scenario where normal rules are bypassed because of an emergency, it is incumbent on the Government to have absolute transparency on connections, conflicts of interest, routes taken and the reasons for decisions being made. I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that the NAO has found the Government wanting. What is lacking from the Government is appropriate contrition and an appropriately transparent response to those allegations that the NAO has made.
Dan Carden
We know that £1.5 billion of the money spent has gone to companies linked to the Conservative party. Does that not sufficiently warrant a further independent investigation?
Helen Hayes
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I repeat: with procurement happening so quickly, under emergency measures, the Government should have been creating more transparency, opening up to greater scrutiny, so that the public could have confidence in the pandemic response. Instead, the opposite appears to be the case. Again and again, the Government shrugged their shoulders at revelations of crony contracts and failed to make any commitment even to publish a full list of the companies awarded contracts under the VIP route.
I ask the Minister to answer the following questions in responding to this debate. When will the Government publish a full list of all the companies awarded contracts under the VIP route? Will she explain why the Government again and again failed to meet the requirement to publish contract awards within a timely manner during the pandemic? That was an obligation that was not relaxed by the emergency legislation. Will she explain why trusted British firms were bypassed in favour of companies with no track record of delivery? Will she commit to a full investigation of the extent of cronyism in procurement throughout the pandemic? Most importantly, will she set out what the Government now intend to do to rebuild the trust and confidence of the British public and British businesses in their broken approach to procurement?
Ms Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Minister, please leave a couple of minutes at the end for the response.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Eagle. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for tabling an incredibly important debate, and all those making contributions today. I am also grateful to the NAO for the report. The care with which we spend taxpayers’ money matters very deeply to public confidence in Government.
I do not wish this morning to present a carefully constructed political argument that seeks to dismiss the concerns that have been raised. I want instead to be candid about the challenges the Government had to navigate at the height of the pandemic, provide some context to the NAO’s report, and set out what went well and what undoubtedly could have been done better in the period it focuses on, between January and July.
I was on maternity leave at the height of the pandemic and only began my ministerial role in the Cabinet Office in June. As I took on that role, I confess I shared some of the concerns that have been raised with me in the House about the cost and the circumstances of particular procurements. I wanted to assure myself of what had happened and to get a sense of the full story. Today, I hope to share some of that and to be as transparent as possible, but as I do so, I ask hon. Members to keep three broad points in mind.
First, it is very important to recognise the sheer volume of procurement activity in response to this national health emergency. By 31 July, more than 8,600 contracts worth £18 billion had successfully been awarded, some 90% by the Department of Health and Social Care in value terms. That compares with 174 contracts worth £1.1 billion awarded by that Department last year. In other words, there was a colossal upscaling of effort to take this country through this crisis. Of those contracts, the NAO’s report examined just 20. It obviously focused on the contracts that attracted most public interest.
Secondly, due to time pressures, I am afraid I will be unable to address all the comments. I will focus my contribution on the areas looked into by the NAO report. Finally, although it has become a political cliché to say that we have to learn the lessons from particular events, in this case it is especially important that we learn the right lessons. It might make for a snappy headline or an eye-catching political campaign to suggest that the story of procurement during the crisis has been one of Tory corruption, but it behoves us all to understand what really happened, so we do not overlook what needs to change.
At the height of the crisis in April, as the NAO described in its report, health services across the world faced an unprecedented situation where demand for PPE and other medical products far exceeded supply. Faced with these exceptional levels of global demand, the usual vendors in China who service the central procurement function of the NHS very quickly ran out of supply and the world descended on a few factories in that country to bid for available items. In that market context, the Government needed to procure with extreme urgency, often through direct award of contracts, or we risked missing out on vital supplies. It is here that I would like to address the first of several criticisms being repeated here today: that the Government ripped up procurement rules. That is simply not true.
Regulation 32(2)(c) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which predate the pandemic, explicitly allows for emergency procedures, including direct award. No rules were suspended, relaxed or changed. This was just a case of using existing legally compliant regulations for the purpose for which they were intended. Similar approaches were taken by countries such as Japan, New Zealand and Finland.
In a situation of genuine crisis and extreme emergency, when we had to accept or reject offers in a matter of hours or days, it was simply not viable to run the usual procurement timescales, even if we took advantage of accelerated processes, which still require a minimum of 25 days. Hon. Members will recall that everybody in this House was saying, “Get hold of the kit,” including the Leader of the Opposition.
Nor is it the case that the Government cast aside value-for-money considerations. All offers went through the same eight stage assessment process, and where full competitions for PPE were not possible because of time pressures, we examined prices against a rolling benchmark of prices to protect the taxpayer from mispricing. That is not to say that prices were not higher across the board. It was a massively overheated spot market. Product was often going for more than five times the normal price, and that was made worse by the appearance of opportunistic middlemen, who appeared and started to put down deposits on product, then reselling it for very high handling fees.
Of course, the Government would not normally pay those kinds of fees, but procurement teams were left with some very difficult choices. Either we bought the product, as was rightly and vociferously demanded, or we did not get hold of it for the NHS.
This situation was further complicated by what was going on internally, and that is what I mean when I say we have to make sure we learn the right lessons, particularly about the challenges within our own systems. Some 450 people from across government were moved into the DHSC to become a stand-up virtual team to urgently assist with securing PPE. That team is normally only 21 people-strong. In many ways, getting that number of people together was a great feat, but it also meant that there were a lot of people who did not know each other, all working remotely suddenly from home, on a range of different IT systems, with suppliers they did not know, on product with which they were not familiar, in the most highly pressured market of their careers. That was not an easy operating context.
As concern grew about the level of PPE that might be required to deal with the challenge of covid, the Prime Minister put out a call to action, which I am sure hon. Members will all recall. With great commitment and energy, the British public and the business community responded, but that meant that, in very short order, commercial teams were dealing with more than 15,000 offers of help. Frankly, leads were coming in faster than they could be processed, and when they were rejected or if they were delayed, people started chasing through their MPs. I am sure that many of us in this room experienced that.
In order to manage the influx of offers, a separate mailbox was set up to handle this area of work. That is the oft-cited high-priority lane, which the Opposition have sought to portray as much more sinister than it actually was. Far from being a secret referrals lane, that mailbox was in part a triage for directing more credible leads, and in part an engagement communication tool for managing some of the correspondence that was coming from parliamentarians of all colours, including Opposition MPs and peers. As the NAO said, it was right that we sifted the credible PPE offers from the others. The most important thing to note, as the NAO does in its report, is that all PPE offers, no matter where they came from, went through the same eight-stage check, so there was no special treatment for friends of Ministers.
There has been excitable public commentary, which has been repeated here today, and claims that people were 10 times more likely to get through if they had Tory friends. If anything, the fact that that mailbox had a higher conversation rate demonstrates that the initial triage process was working, as those leads were often more credible and proved fruitful once they had gone through the due diligence process. Even so, it is important to note that, of the 493 offers that came through the priority mailbox, only 47 were taken forward. In other words, 90% were rejected. Indeed, more than 20,000 individual product offers were rejected between the end of March and mid-June because of the robust due diligence processes that had been put in place by our commercial teams.
A number of Members have referred to companies that missed out, and a number of vocal companies have gone on television to say that they do not understand why they missed out. The Government do not have a right to reply in those circumstance, because if we were to set out publicly why that company did not secure a contract, we would be betraying commercial confidences.
The existence of the separate mailbox has added fuel to the fire for those accusing the Government of chumocracy, but if they have read the NAO’s report they should have noticed the conclusion, which has been mentioned by other hon. Members and states that
“ministers had properly declared their interests, and we found no evidence of their involvement in procurement decisions or contract management.”
Our own internal audit on PPE has not found any conflicts either, and we have been searching for them.
Julia Lopez
I am afraid I am really short of time. Forgive me; I want to get through the content.
As I say, no PPE contracts were awarded by reason of who referred them. I remind colleagues that, ultimately, there was very little waste. Of all the product in question, so far only 0.5% of what was ordered was found to be unusable. That is not to say that we cannot improve. Admittedly, there was not an adequate stockpile, and the lack of a central stock control system made it very difficult to get a clear grip of the demand signals coming in through the NHS. That is an extremely important issue to rectify.
Julia Lopez
I am so sorry; I would really like to make progress.
We have also had to rapidly address a strategic over-reliance on China. We have now built up our national capability and resilience, with the potential for 70% of PPE to be produced in the UK. I hope that those lasting national enhancements will be bolstered by the work of the Department for International Trade’s Project Defend, which is looking at other areas where we are critically dependent on other countries for important parts of our manufacturing.
The NAO was absolutely right to identify delays in publishing documentation in relation to emergency procurement. The sheer pace of activity meant that documentation was not perfect. The result is that contracts have not been published online as quickly as they should have been, and it has been left to DHSC to piece together relevant paperwork from the different IT systems, partly because of the large team that had to be brought in from outside DHSC. I very much regret that that lag in our normal transparency timescale has created a sense of mistrust, but we are nearly there. At the time that the NAO did its scrutiny work, only 50% of required contract notices had been published. As of 3 December, it is now 96% of PPE contract award notices on Tenders Electronic Daily, which is the European journal, and 94% on Contracts Finder.
I have concentrated today on PPE, as that is a large focus of the NAO’s two most recent reports. However, the NAO also looked at communications contracts, which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton referred to, so I would like to spend a moment on that. For context, a number of external research agencies were engaged by the Cabinet Office’s comms unit to test the public reaction to Government messaging on public health. That was crucial to helping us understand people’s attitudes and behaviours during this time and refine public health messaging accordingly to drive behavioural change.
At the time I began my ministerial role, there were reports suggesting that some of those contracts for comms services had been improperly let, and naturally I was unhappy to hear that. Unfortunately, I cannot comment in detail on the specifics of those contracts because the Department is still working on a detailed defence and disclosure in the ongoing judicial review proceedings. However, I can say that following a preliminary internal fact-finding exercise, the Cabinet Office resolved to delve into that properly and commissioned an independent expert review, led by Nigel Boardman, who sits in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and is also a well-respected legal professional, to consider those findings and set out how we could improve, particularly looking at the processes and guidance that teams in the Cabinet Office have access to. The review and its results were published yesterday on gov.uk. The report is forensic in its analysis and hard-hitting in its recommendations. I am pleased to tell colleagues that we will take forward all 28 recommendations in full.
Before I close, I want to say a little about the wider civil service reforms that we are proactively pursuing to address some of the concerns beyond the NAO report. During this time of crisis, people have been concerned about the use of consultants. We are looking at how we can better skill-up civil servants, reduce our reliance on consultancy, and potentially have our own in-house consultancy. We are also consolidating the number of IT systems used across the civil service so that it is easier to move people around internally at speed, and for those systems to be compatible. As has been referenced, we will soon launch our procurement Green Paper. I very much encourage all hon. Members to engage with the consultation process, because once we leave the transition period our country will have an extremely important opportunity to look at these issues.
The proposals have long been in development and will include specific measures to strengthen transparency, making sure that we can have a choice of direct award and more competitive tendering during crises. At the moment it seems that we have either the full-fat procurement, which is much too slow in emergency situations, or direct awards, which lead to the kinds of concerns that we have debated this morning. I know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton is particularly concerned about issues of company conduct in procurement. The Green Paper will include proposals to use exclusion rules to tackle unacceptable supplier behaviour, such as tax evasion, embedding transparency by default and developing faster review methods to speed up the court process on legal challenges to genuinely improper procurements.
There is a lot to say, so I am sorry to rush through it all, but I will end by saying that the public are absolutely right to demand that we spend their money with care. I hope the proactive and candid approach that I have set out this morning is reassuring. I remind colleagues that we were procuring for a purpose, and that purpose was to get us through the pandemic. We achieved sufficient PPE for the NHS. We now have 32 billion items of PPE, with no reports of outages, and we have established a four-month stockpile of PPE from November 2020 onwards. Given the extraordinary context, that is an extraordinary feat.
Finally, I pay tribute to civil service colleagues in the commercial function. They might not be on the frontline of the NHS, but they have done extraordinary things in a very difficult operating context. I thank them for all the work that they have done.
Dan Carden
Thank you, Ms Eagle, for chairing the proceedings, and I also thank colleagues across the House for their contributions. I do not think the issue will disappear. Too many millions of people have faced financial hardship and difficult circumstances over this past year, so there is anger out there among the public over what is seen as a chumocracy, cronyism or whatever we want to call it. We know that huge sums have been handed to close contacts of the Conservative party. Although I welcome the Minister’s reply and how she engaged with all the issues, she was not able to explain away the privileged access given to friends and chums of the Conservative party. Following this debate, we need a full public inquiry into covid contracts.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the NAO report on Investigation into government procurement during the covid-19 pandemic.
Ms Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Will Members please leave promptly by the exit door on the left while observing social distancing?
Disabled Children: Accessible and Inclusive Education
(3 years, 4 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
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered accessible and inclusive education for disabled children.
It is an absolute honour to present this motion with you in the Chair, Ms Eagle. I thank a number of organisations for their hard work on the issue of disability inclusion in education, including the Disabled Children’s Partnership, Sense, Scope, Mencap, the Alliance for Inclusive Education and the One-Handed Musical Instrument Trust, to name but a few. I have been asked to raise these issues with the Government in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities.
Children with disabilities have often been most affected by the coronavirus pandemic. In terms of immediate impact, people with disabilities have accounted for six out of 10 deaths involving covid-19, while Mencap’s social care survey has shown that seven out of 10 people with a learning disability have had their social care provision reduced as a result of the pandemic.
Looking at long-term consequences, the Centre for Mental Health estimates that 1.5 million children will need mental health support for conditions such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the pandemic. The NHS’s digital report anticipates a 50% increase in mental health problems for children and young people as a result of the pandemic.
When we account for the heightened immediate impact of covid-19 on children with disabilities, coupled with the mental health consequences predicted for young people, it quickly becomes apparent that the wellbeing and inclusion of children with special educational needs and disabilities must be prioritised. That is why I secured the debate today.
One of UNICEF’s seven principles of quality education is disability inclusion. The presumption that children with disabilities would be welcome in mainstream education was first introduced into law in the Education Act 1996 and expanded in the Children and Families Act 2014. That Act also enshrined into law disabled children’s rights to special educational needs provision and, where necessary, the provision of education, health and care assessments to establish what adjustments a child with special educational needs might have, and how best to facilitate their integration into mainstream educational facilities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I am aware of this issue in my constituency and it is important to address it. Does she agree that education by Zoom, which many people have had to do recently, does not achieve the best results for some sensorially-impacted children? That underlines the importance of face-to-face teaching, where it is safe to do so. I understand the circumstances, but that is not the most suitable option for people with disabilities or those who are sensorially disadvantaged.
Dr Cameron
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is an excellent point and it was well made. Children with disabilities have often lost out on educational provision because the format has moved almost wholeheartedly on to Zoom and the internet. I have been contacted by many families who have children with autism, who do not particularly like that format and will not engage with it, and by families who have children with sensory impairments, who cannot receive the adaptations in time to use the format at all. That has led to children with disabilities being disproportionately affected by the pandemic.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I want to raise the issue of access to education for disabled children. They cannot access education if they cannot get there, and, despite personal transport budgets, the school transport system is limited. I have a case where only 50% of a constituent’s costs are covered. Is it not right that we ensure that local authorities have sufficient provision to enable all children to access education?
Dr Cameron
Absolutely. The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point, which is echoed by my experience in my constituency. I have been contacted by a number of families. Local authority provision means that a young child with autism, who does not like close physical contact, has had to travel for hours in a taxi with individuals to whom he is not accustomed. That has caused behavioural issues and really impacted on his education. It is incumbent on us as legislators to make sure that those who are most vulnerable have access through local authorities to the provision that they need to meet their educational and care needs, and that takes account of their sensory, development or learning difficulties. I thank the hon. Lady for making that point.
Provision of inclusive education was greeted with absolute optimism by those who had long campaigned for it. Unfortunately, however, many aims have been left unfulfilled. There are gaps in support and a need for additional funding, as I have highlighted. Another issue that must be addressed is specialist professionals providing support for children with disabilities. As with so many underlying issues in our society, covid-19 has shone an additional light on the many challenges and barriers that children with special educational needs face in their everyday lives. It has exacerbated them, as I have explained.
Before the pandemic, the Disabled Children’s Partnership identified a £1.5 billion funding gap in health, social care and education, which would need to be filled to adequately support disabled children and their families. Sense has also noted that the gradual erosion of specialist support available to disabled children has significantly hampered the ability of the school system to provide accessible and inclusive education. There is an ever-decreasing number of teachers for the deaf, the visually impaired and those with multi-sensory impairment. Will the Minister comment on that provision and funding, and outline a plan to meet the needs of children and families? The lack of provision not only hampers participation; it also means that education, health and care needs assessments often lack input from an education specialist, such as an educational psychologist—I declare an interest and refer to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Appropriate adjustments in the classroom can also be missed.
Since the start of the pandemic, many parents of children with special needs have done their absolute best to educate them from home. We should celebrate the introduction of tools to help them, such as Freeview’s accessible TV guide, which has helped facilitate remote learning through making programmes such as “Newsround”, “Bitesize Daily” and “Horrible Histories” accessible in a range of formats during the pandemic. However, a lack of specialist equipment and broader resources for parents has meant that many now fear that their children’s education has suffered disproportionately. Parents have struggled to cope.
Despite schools returning full time, the Disabled Children’s Partnership has found that 24% of children with disabilities have not yet returned to school full time. Many are being taught on part-time timetables due to health and safety concerns, making their needs all the more immediate. The return to school has been particularly challenging for pupils with tracheostomies and those with aerosol-generating procedures, as delayed Government advice, finally published on 13 November, left many families feeling in limbo for months. Furthermore, the Coronavirus Act 2020 suspended a number of key provisions in the Children and Families Act 2014, which has meant that 31% of children with disabilities are still waiting for key therapies to be restarted. Some 51% of those waiting for an assessment for an education, health and care plan have been waiting more than six months, which is entirely unacceptable for families who are struggling to provide the care that is so necessary for their children.
With that in mind, I implore the Minister on behalf of children with disabilities and the all-party parliamentary group for disability to do everything in her power to ensure that children with disabilities are able to return to specialist and mainstream education as soon as is safely possible. I also ask that she ensure that provisions in the Children and Families Act 2014, which are key to ensuring disability inclusion in the classroom, are resumed without delay.
There is increasing anxiety among many qualified health professionals and therapists who work in schools—and who are absolutely key to disability inclusion in the classroom—that they might be redeployed to hospitals and health services in the coming months. That could be incredibly detrimental to the learning of children with special educational needs. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that medical support for children with disabilities is maintained out of this pandemic, and that continuity of care for children with special educational needs in the classroom is protected.
I have been contacted by the OHMI Trust, which undertakes truly innovative work adapting musical instruments for children with special educational needs, to highlight the importance of music as a key element in inclusive education. To this day, this is often denied to children with special educational needs due to lack of awareness among music teachers or tuition providers, or a lack of specialist equipment that has been tailored to a child’s particular disability or needs. Music can provide an opportunity for socialisation and creativity, and has also been linked to improved academic achievement. I would welcome a comment from the Minister about ensuring that music is not omitted from any efforts to include children with disabilities going forward, and to work collegiately with the OHMI Trust to develop specialist instruments for children across the United Kingdom who have special educational needs.
Before I finish, I will touch on further education for those with special educational needs, and particularly the case of Mr Gary Copland from my constituency. A student at the University of Glasgow, Gary is in his mid-20s, has been registered blind since birth and has autism. He is currently studying for a bachelor of law. Gary was forced to go part time due to poor levels of support, and is now in his fifth year. In his first year, he was given only one course text adapted for his disability, five days before the end of term. In his second year, he had only four textbooks, leaving him to write all essays and take exams from memory. He has had no working IT for over 43 weeks, leaving him unable to graduate with everyone else in his year. The whole family is suffering from trauma as a result of these issues, and Gary has lost 30 kg and is now medicated for depression. I ask the Minister to speak with universities to look at these issues, Gary’s in particular—perhaps the Equality and Human Rights Commission could review this particular case.
Finally, I would welcome a statement or response from the Minister on the Government’s funding plans for disability-inclusive education. In 2019, a review of special educational needs criteria and practice was promised, but this publication has been delayed. It would be remiss of me, therefore, not press the Government for a date or timeline for publication. Despite the current circumstances, it is an absolute priority. It would also be helpful to have an update on autism assessments and the progress the Government are making, because many families tell me that they cannot receive the support required for children who have autistic spectrum disorder in school, or at home, because they are still struggling to get assessments.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning autism, because currently it is very much viewed through a medical model, so people are unable to access the support they need until they have a diagnosis. Does she agree that we need to look at this through a much more social model, in order to ensure early intervention support for parents, as well as for young people?
Dr Cameron
Absolutely, that is crucial. Getting earlier assessment, intervention, and support, even if a diagnosis is taking a long time, is crucial to help and support children and families to cope. That really must be addressed, and all too often children and families who are awaiting diagnosis have no support in the interim, which is really a failure of the system for those who are most vulnerable.
Lastly, speaking from my background as a psychologist, I believe that disability has to be at the heart of Government’s response to the mental health concomitants of the pandemic among young people. Children with disabilities are far more likely to have been isolated during the last eight months, to have seen disruption to their care and treatment, and because of the difficulties of adapting to home learning they are at increased risk of seeing their academic progress fall apart and fall behind that of their peers. We must do everything we can to support, include and cherish every single child with special educational needs across the United Kingdom. That is the aim of the all-party parliamentary group on disability, because we know that these children have so much potential and so much to offer their families, the community and society at large.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Ms Eagle, and good morning.
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing a debate on this important subject. Let me start by stressing that we want all children and young people, no matter what their special educational need or disability is, to have the ability to reach their full potential and to receive the right support to succeed in their education, and as they move into adult life. The ambition is for every child, no matter what challenges they face, to have access to world-class education—an education that sets them up for life. If education is to be accessible and inclusive, it must also be world-class, which is why we have increased the high needs budget by £1.5 billion, or nearly a quarter, over a two-year period. I am also pleased to report that at the beginning of this month 80% of children with education, health and care plans were back in schools in England.
Ofsted’s regulatory inspections have been recently updated, and Ofsted is explicit in its inspection framework that all schools need to have an inclusive environment that meets the needs of all pupils. In addition, the cross-Government SEND review is looking at the reasons for the increased demand by parents for places in special schools that we have seen over recent years, and one of the review’s aims is to identify ways to strengthen the role of mainstream schools in SEND, by having faster access to extra help where needed.
In 2014, the legislation that we introduced on SEND made it clear that where a child has complex needs, and their parent or the young person themselves wants a mainstream placement, they can express that preference, and local authorities are then under a qualified duty to ensure that preferences for mainstream placement are met wherever possible. However, there are some circumstances where a child’s special educational needs may be best met through specialist provision, and it is absolutely right that parents should have that choice of being able to access places for a child with complex SEND at mainstream or special schools, depending on the child’s individual needs.
Throughout the pandemic, I have had the great pleasure of meeting—often virtually—mainstream and special school leaders up and down the country, and hearing from them about how they are have risen to the challenges of providing education during the outbreak. I really thank all of those staff, headteachers and children who have spoken to me. I am currently on a virtual tour of special schools in tier 3 areas, so I thank everybody who has spoken to me during that. I particularly thank the staff, children and young people from Thriftwood School and College, which is in my constituency, for talking to me as I sat in their playground—in a socially distanced way—about how much being back at school has made a difference to their lives. It has been an absolute privilege to talk to all of those children and teachers.
I am proud of the SEND system in England. There are plenty of things about it that can and must be improved, but fundamentally it is a good system based on the well-supported principles of co-production with children and young people themselves and with their carers, and a focus on the whole child and their education, health and care, as well as a focus on life outcomes, backed up by strong protections of the rights of parents.
We should all acknowledge that life for many families raising children with SEND was already hard before the pandemic came, but then they faced the extra challenges of lockdown and coronavirus. It has been a high priority for me and the Government to put children and young people with SEND and vulnerable children at the heart of our response. That is why I have spoken to many parent carers directly on many occasions and regularly written open letters to them and those working closely with SEND children to let them know what we have done to support them and what they should be expecting from the services on the ground.
Throughout the pandemic, we asked schools to stay open to pupils with EHC plans, where it was safe to do so. I am really proud that, even at the peak of the pandemic in the spring, we were one of very few countries in the world to keep schools and colleges and early years open for vulnerable children. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, keeping those schools and colleges open is critical for children’s wellbeing, as well as for their education. Since September, our priority has been ensuring that those children and young people have returned to college. It has been challenging for certain groups, such as the small number of children who need aerosol-generating procedures, but I am very glad to hear the vast majority of them are now back in school.
We have published detailed guidance throughout this time to schools and colleges, specialist settings, residential special schools and many others to support the return and to support their safety, but we do not underestimate the challenge that this represents. We know that special education settings may face even greater challenges, which is why we work so closely with them.
Our £1 billion covid catch-up package includes £650 million to support schools for lost teaching time, and there is an additional weighting for special schools, which get three times as much as a mainstream school. Headteachers can decide how to use that. They could be spending it on educational psychologists, speech and language therapy or other activities to support children.
We recognise the importance of respite for families with disabled children and young people themselves. We reaffirmed that message and legislated to allow a wide range of respite services to continue, including in the family home. We encourage local authorities to prioritise that support.
There may be circumstances where a child is not able to attend school due to coronavirus—for example, if they are self-isolating—and that is why we have made it clear that schools have a duty, in line with the guidance and the law, to provide remote education for state-funded school-aged children who are unable to attend a school due to coronavirus. We have also reviewed the remote education guidance. Schools should always work collaboratively with families to put in place adjustments to enable pupils with SEND to successfully access remote education alongside their peers.
Rachael Maskell
I raised the issue of transport into schools, which comes out of local authority budgets. I have a constituent who currently is not in school because they need specialist transport and cannot travel with others, and the parents are having to pay for 50% of that travel. Will the Minister go back and look at the issue of children being unable to access school because of the insufficiency in the transport budget for local authorities?
Vicky Ford
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Of course, we have given local authorities additional funding during this period for exactly the matter of transport, but if she cares to write to me about that specific case, I am very happy to look into it. Some parents have decided that they will do the transportation themselves, particularly if they want to reduce the amount of contact that their child has with other people outside the family bubble or school bubble.
We know that children and young people have needed to work online, and we have provided additional support, including for those children with SEND, but of course there are extra challenges. The Oak National Academy provides video lessons on a broad range of subjects from reception to year 11, including specialist content for children with SEND. In April, we launched the EdTech Demonstrator network, which is a peer-to-peer support network for the expert use of technology. It has done some phenomenal work supporting teachers—especially SEND specialists—across the country. Specialist support is provided by Highfurlong School in Blackpool, and the National Star College in Cheltenham has been running webinars weekly in which over 1,800 schools and colleges have participated so far, with many more accessing the recorded content. That shows how, throughout the pandemic, teachers and staff are absolutely passionate to learn more about how they can use technology to support those with SEND. That will have a lasting, positive benefit.
I am also delighted to announce today that one of those specialist providers, the National Star College, will roll out assistive technology-specific training. As colleagues will know, we are on course to have delivered nearly half a million laptops and tablets by Christmas to support disadvantaged children in years 3 to 11 where face-to-face education may be disrupted. Many of those laptops will be provided to children and young people with SEND.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow mentioned the importance of other medical treatments and specialists. The chief nurse has made it clear that health visitors and school nurses should not be redeployed elsewhere in the NHS this winter. We have also been clear that specialist therapists should be back in schools.
The debate comes at a timely point, because the Government are working both on the new cross-Government disability strategy for publication in the spring and on the autism strategy. As the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, autism is extremely important. The Department for Education is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care on the comprehensive review of the autism strategy. In developing the strategy, we are listening closely to autistic people, including over 2,700 people who contributed to the call for evidence.
Early identification of autism is really important. Under the Government’s opportunity areas programme, there is a fantastic project in Bradford using the outcomes for each individual child at the early years foundation stage tests and teacher observations to find out whether there are markers of early autism. The results are so impressive that we have rolled it out from the 10 first pilot schools to the next 100 schools. I am hopeful that in the future that could lead to much earlier diagnosis.
The SEND review, which the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow asked about, has always aimed to enable the education system to have that transformative effect on those with SEND and to focus on the person as a whole, with a joined-up offer of transparent services co-produced with them and their family to suit the child’s individual needs. That was the driving force behind the legislative changes we made in 2014 and it is the driving force behind the SEND review. It will require significant change from everyone involved in the system to deliver those changes. It is a fundamental and cross-cutting review in which we are working hard to find ways to make best practice in the SEND system become common practice. During the outbreak of the pandemic, it was necessary to reduce the pace of the review, but I and the whole of Government remain completely committed to it, and our ambition is to report in the spring. The areas we aim to improve are of long standing, but we are determined to deliver that real and lasting change.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing our attention to this important agenda. We are as committed as ever to getting the right support in place for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities so that they can thrive and achieve their potential. Both she and the hon. Member for York Central raised important concerns, which I hope she is happy to hear the Government take seriously.
Dr Cameron
I thank the Minister and everyone for taking part in the debate. I pay special tribute to Greenburn, Sanderson High, and Duncanrig schools in my constituency and invite the Minister to the all-party parliamentary group for disability to further discuss these issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Government Policy on Iran
(3 years, 4 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
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to the normal practice in order to support the new call list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members must arrive at the start of the debate and are expected to remain for the winding-up speeches if there is space to do so. Members are also asked to respect the one-way system around the room and to please exit by the door on the left.
Before Members use their microphones, they should sanitise them using the cleaning materials provided and dispose of the cleaning materials in the bin by the door as they leave the room. Members can use the seats in the Public Gallery, as they are being used to ensure we have enough space for people to be able to join this very well-subscribed debate. I now ask John Howell to move the motion.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government policy on Iran.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I will concentrate on two issues: the nuclear issue in Iran and state-sponsored terrorism. That will leave the field open to others to consider matters such as human rights. For many years, colleagues from across the House have raised concerns over Iran’s malign activities and their impact on the UK’s interests in the region and beyond. The recent expiration of the UN arms embargo and the election of President-elect Joe Biden offer us an invaluable opportunity to review events in the region and consider the UK’s policy towards Iran. It is a policy that I believe requires urgent reassessment and that would benefit from a clear-sighted assessment of Iran and the challenges it poses to the UK and its allies.
Ever since the Islamic revolution altered the course of Iran’s hitherto great history, its fundamentalist leaders have been driven by a central goal: expanding Iranian hegemony in the region and exporting the revolution. The founding father of the Islamic Republic spoke clearly of his vision for the new Iran:
“The Iranian people’s revolution is only a point in the start of the revolution of the great world of Islam.”
That is a mantra that Tehran’s leaders have ruthlessly and violently pursued ever since.
The radicalisation at the heart of that ideology has led to untold suffering in Iran, throughout the region and far beyond. Iran’s support for international terrorism is perhaps the best documented means of exporting its fundamentalist concept of Islamic revolution. It is why Iran is often referred to as the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism. It certainly explains why, to this day, Iran’s leaders ensure that vast sums are invested in its terrorist proxies, even amidst a devastating pandemic and economic crisis, to the detriment of its long-suffering citizens.
Iran’s operation of an ever-expanding nuclear programme presents the international community with an historic challenge. The joint comprehensive plan of action nuclear agreement has not restrained Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and certainly has not made it reassess its harmful trajectory, as many wishfully advocated at the time of its signing. The JCPOA was signed in 2015 and was heralded as an historic moment in non-proliferation. Sadly, events have shown that that was far from the truth. Although the deal included extensive verification mechanisms to allow the international community a line of sight into aspects of Iran’s nuclear work, it has fallen short of the necessary safeguards in many areas.
Mindful of the time we have for this debate, I will provide a brief overview of the most concerning aspects. First, much of Iran’s advanced nuclear infrastructure was merely mothballed, instead of being dismantled. That has enabled Iran rapidly to bring enrichment equipment online in recent months, after it decided to breach the terms of the JCPOA and enrich uranium, not only at a higher purity, closer to that required for weapons grade, but in higher quantities. By the International Atomic Energy Agency’s own estimation, Iran now has 12 times the permitted amount of enriched uranium. That far exceeds the amount required for a peaceful domestic nuclear programme and is reportedly sufficient to produce two nuclear warheads. Much of the advanced enrichment work has even taken place deep underground in new production halls at the controversial Natanz nuclear facility.
Secondly, Iran’s historic nuclear activities—especially those with possible military dimensions—were inexplicably left unaddressed by the JCPOA. It emerged in 2018 that Iran entered the 2015 nuclear deal on false pretences, after an Israeli intelligence operation found documents proving that Iran had conducted more advanced testing related to nuclear weapons development than it had declared.
Thirdly, the deal failed entirely to address the pressing problem of Iran’s support for international terrorism. The failure to pursue a broad deal and the segregation of core issues from Iran’s nuclear activities was a costly strategic mistake. Iran has shown no inclination to open those activities to negotiation following the JCPOA’s signing. Why would it? It achieved invaluable sanctions relief at a critical moment in the country’s economic life; and, besides, the export of terrorism is the very cornerstone of exporting revolution.
Fourthly, the JCPOA failed to address Iran’s ballistic missile programme, which we must not forget is the primary means for delivering a nuclear warhead. While the UN sanctions in effect may relate to that programme, that has not for one second given Iran cause to pause its test launching and construction of advanced missiles capable of delivering explosive material thousands of miles from Iran.
Fifthly, human rights abuses were not even discussed in the negotiations, despite Iran’s having one of the worst human rights records in the world. The manner in which any country treats the lives of its own citizens sends an unmistakeable message about its integrity. I am a member of the Council of Europe, the foremost human rights organisation in Europe, and it is an embarrassment having such a pariah on our own doorsteps.
Last, and by no means least, by lifting all nuclear-related sanctions with immediate effect the P5+1 lost any leverage it retained to prevent Iran from subsequently breaching the terms of the nuclear deal.
It should be little surprise that our Prime Minister said earlier this year that this was “a bad deal”. While the deal itself was unquestionably bad, I fear that the P5+1 has further undermined its collective efforts in the implementation of the deal. This year, despite many breaches, there have been no tangible consequences for Iran. Just this week, the UK joined its E3 partners in speaking of their efforts to preserve the JCPOA, and Iran’s egregious breaches warrant nothing more than the expression of deep worry.
I wholeheartedly supported the UK’s triggering of the dispute resolution mechanism at the beginning of the year. That stood to be an important moment in restraining Iran’s actions. Conversely, it appears that the E3 has allowed the process to become an interminable period for dialogue, without any tangible action or sense of authority, despite the fact that the IAEA has provided extensive evidence of increased Iranian non-compliance. Will the Minister please outline the strategy of Her Majesty’s Government in the administration of the dispute mechanism and say whether, in his assessment, it has any impact on Iran’s nuclear activities? In addition, what outcome is the E3 working towards with the dispute mechanism?
The snapback of sanctions was an important failsafe measure enshrined in the JCPOA—a measure that has not been initiated by the P5+1 signatories, with the exception of the United States—so will the Minister please outline how the Government’s position on the reimposition of sanctions on Iran as a result of its non-compliance is going to work out? Have the Government notified Iran at any stage of the possibility of sanctions being re-enforced? What message does the Minister think it sends to Iran when we condemn its nuclear non-compliance but do not enforce the consequences agreed in UN Security Council resolution 2231 and repeatedly state our commitment to preserving the JCPOA?
The expiration of the UN arms embargo on Iran was problematically mishandled this year. By this point, Iran was in full defiance of the JCPOA. Allowing the embargo to expire without extension sends a regrettable signal to Iran that its actions elicit no consequences, regardless of how flagrant they are. That is particularly relevant, given that a further set of embargoes, including on missiles, is set to expire in 2023. The depth of concern felt on the Conservative Benches about the expiration was seen clearly in October when more than 80 Conservative parliamentarians signed a letter to the Prime Minister, co-ordinated by Conservative Friends of Israel.
Earlier this year, Ministers stated that the UK was
“working…to address the planned expiry”,
but we ultimately abstained on a US-led UN Security Council resolution to extend the embargo to August. I regret to say that the UK’s assessment at the time that the motion would not have passed anyway so we should not support it seems illogical. I am sure it is not UK Government policy to abstain on votes purely on the basis that they are unlikely to pass.
It should cause additional alarm to Her Majesty’s Government that our P5+1 partners Russia and China opted to enable the resumption of advanced weapons sales to Iran, which will further Tehran’s dangerous regional activities. China is reportedly negotiating a $400 billion deal with Iran to increase military co-operation. I fear that history will not favourably judge our inability to bridge the divide between the United States and our European allies by ultimately abstaining.
What is the Minister’s assessment of the growing divergence within the P5+1 and its implications for any future attempts, first, to bring Iran back into compliance with the JCPOA and, secondly, to negotiate a broader framework with it? Although an EU arms embargo is set to remain in force until 2023, does the Minister accept that concerns are centred around Iran’s ability to procure advanced weaponry from states outside the EU?
Iran seeks nuclear weapons as a protective umbrella for its dangerous activities throughout the middle east, which is why combating its support for terrorism abroad should be part and parcel of our Iran policy. In Lebanon alone, Iran has armed the Hezbollah terror organisation with an estimated arsenal of up to 150,000 rockets—more than 10 times more than it had in the 2006 war. I welcomed the UK’s proscription of Hezbollah last year, and it has been reassuring that several other countries have followed suit, but there is much work still to be done.
Iran is reportedly distributing almost $20 billion per year to its proxies throughout Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq and Yemen, and it is backing President Assad in Syria. The sanctions relief windfall that Iran received from the JCPOA would have directly facilitated such extensive financial support. The consequences of Iran’s investments need no explanation. As the Defence Secretary said, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force is one of the foremost architects of Iran’s malign activity. Yet although the IRGC is believed to be responsible for the deaths of dozens of British servicemen and women, and IRGC-linked terrorist activity in Europe is well documented, the UK does not proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation. The US proscribed the IRGC last year—a significant step in the fight against international terrorism.
The UK Treasury lists the IRGC, the IRGC Aerospace Force and the IRGC Quds Force as being subject to UK terrorism and terrorism-financing sanctions, so they should surely meet the criteria for full proscription. I am aware that the Government do not comment on such matters, but perhaps the Minister can highlight that discrepancy with cross-departmental colleagues. The US includes non-nuclear Iranian targets in its sanctions regime. Does the Minister agree that our new Magnitsky-style sanctions regime should be used to keep the pressure on Iran on non-nuclear issues?
It is of great regret that the UK’s policy towards Iran in recent years has failed to curtail its wider regional aggression. Iran has shown no desire to come in from the cold, and continues to subvert regional peace and stability. That stands in ever more stark contrast with the push for peace in the region that we have seen between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Not only is it in the UK’s interest to curtail Iran’s regional aggression, but it is quite simply the right thing to do. It is incumbent on the UK to work with our international partners to formulate a new strategy to combat the Iranian threat. The acceptance that Iran’s war by proxy and nuclear programme are not mutually exclusive must be at the heart of our new programme.
There are some who say we should keep the JCPOA on life support indefinitely, as it is the only deal on the table. In reality, that deal has been dead for some time, and we must accept that in order to make progress. As we all know, the US withdrew from the agreement in 2018, but President-elect Biden has expressed willingness to return to the deal as an interim step, if Iran complies with its terms. If, in due course, Iran begins to indicate a preparedness to return to the JCPOA, it will be critical that sanctions relief is not given prematurely. The UK, along with its P5+1 partners, must ensure that Iran reaches a number of verifiable technical milestones, proving it is committed to compliance before sanctions are lifted. Specifically, it must remove its stockpile of enriched uranium and end enrichment beyond the permitted JCPOA limit. Beyond that, the only way forward is a new comprehensive agreement, addressing all of these concerns. What steps has the Minister taken alongside our international partners in working towards that?
Iran’s actions over the last year are of concern to many in this place, as witnessed by the number of hon. Members who have turned up for this debate. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to adopt a clear-sighted approach to Iran. Unless we begin rolling back Tehran’s harmful activities, UK interests and the much-desired peace and security of the middle east will be jeopardised.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, I remind colleagues that they cannot contribute from the seats in the Gallery. Perhaps others can make space to allow people to move forward as and when. This is a heavily subscribed debate, so I suggest a three-minute informal time limit to try to get everybody in. I will be calling Front-Bench speakers at 3.28 pm.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller.
The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) outlined the issues to do with the nuclear threat, and I will not touch on that, to give hon. Members time on other issues. He was right to say that Iran is one of the world’s most malevolent pariah states. It is a destabilising influence across the middle east, and it now stretches its extremist statecraft across Europe.
Iran backs terrorism. In 2018, Members from this House were caught up in an event in Paris; some people in this room attended it. One of Iran’s front people tried to murder people at that protest by way of a bomb. Many Members were moments from death. The person who was accredited with carrying out that bombing was an Iranian diplomat who is now using his diplomatic immunity to avoid prosecution.
Iran sponsors direct links between Hezbollah and the Real IRA. Its radicalism drives via the Muslim Brotherhood to radicalise people in this country. The UK has a choice to make to now—to urgently take action against the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a surrogate for Iran and for extremist ideology in this country.
We have quite rightly proscribed Hezbollah, which was funded by Iran. I believe that Iran uses other surrogates—al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Daesh and the Real IRA—and I call on the UK Government to signal that they are now going to tackle the terrorism and extremism sponsored by the Muslim Brotherhood seriously by signalling that they intend to proscribe that organisation as urgently as possible. The Muslim Brotherhood is a cesspit for extremist ideology and for training young people in this country to hate this country. We should be taking actions to pull them away from that.
Today, I have left in the House of Commons Library a very important report by Cornerstone into the Fakhrizadeh assassination, which links some of the activities in the Gulf with Qatar and Iran, and with the Muslim Brotherhood. Some of the reading in that report is very worrying indeed. For example, it indicates that the USA—our partner—no longer shares information that has military intelligence associated with it with Doha, because of its concerns over the proximity that Qatar has to Iran. I know there is going to be a debate in the House on Qatar tomorrow, but these things do not stand alone, and I urge Her Majesty’s Government to use their power, authority and influence to influence Qatar to influence Iran to pull itself away from some of these things. At the moment, we in the UK buy something like 31% of all our gas from Qatar, which is astounding, and yet that country is playing a role in Iran, which is influencing extremists in this country also. We really have to stand up for the Arab quartet—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates—and help those countries stand up against the extremism sponsored by Iran.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller, and I congratulate my dear Friend the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this important debate. Forgive me if I repeat some of the points that he touched on.
Iran is a malign and malevolent influence in the Gulf region and more widely, and has been since the Islamic revolution in 1979. Its actions greatly concern us in the UK, as a P5+1 member, a signatory of the joint comprehensive plan of action—the Iranian nuclear deal—and a nation with a long history of vital strategic interests in the region. Despite recent moves by other Gulf states to promote a more peaceful neighbourhood, such as Israel signing a peace deal with the UAE, Iran continues to promote terrorism and instability throughout the Gulf and the wider middle east. It is supporting the Houthi militia in the civil war in Yemen; it is supporting Hezbollah and other proxies to prolong the “no war, no peace” struggle against Israel; it has undertaken attacks on shipping in the Gulf; it continues to work towards developing a nuclear weapons capability, despite the 2015 nuclear deal; and it uses hostage diplomacy. The terrible case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is a very obvious example. In all these matters Iran has shown consistent bad faith, and demonstrated its destructive and aggressive policy towards its neighbours and us in the west.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
My constituent, Mr Anoosheh Ashoori, was captured some three years ago while visiting his sick mother in Tehran, and has since been held in prison under really brutal conditions, which have included solitary confinement and physical torture. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that British citizens such as Mr Ashoori who are subject to unjust trial are being held as hostages due to their dual nationality, and that the UK Government must acknowledge them as such?
Jack Lopresti
I completely agree with the hon. Lady: something must be done. These terrible acts, which are clearly politically motivated, need to be sorted by HMG.
Just yesterday, the UK and our French and German allies warned Iran that its plans to expand its atomic energy programme risked the collapse of the international agreement put in place in 2015—the JCPOA. Last week, the Iranian Parliament voted to end UN inspections of its nuclear facilities and boost its uranium enrichment. Many lawmakers reportedly chanted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” following the vote. I am sure that in his summing up, the Minister will join me in condemning those actions and deeds. Tehran is enriching uranium to a higher fissile purity than is permitted under the nuclear deal, and putting itself on a trajectory that brings it closer to possessing weapons-grade enriched uranium.
As I do not have much time left, I will go straight to my conclusion: our policy towards Iran should be based on considerations of our security, our values and our vital strategic interests. Our policy should mirror that of the US and Israel, our allies, in saying that the Iranians must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapons capability.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) both on securing this debate and on an excellent speech. I found himself in agreement with most of what he said.
My view is simple: not only does Iran support terrorist groups and foment unrest across the middle east, but its strategic aim is an arc of influence from Tehran to the Mediterranean sea and the border with Israel. It is currently fitting global positioning systems to its Zelzal-2 missiles for that purpose. Iran recently showed on state television pictures of one of its missiles, with the words along the side in Hebrew: “Israel must be wiped out.” Iran is absolutely clear about its objective. Its supreme leader said in 2015 that it was his intention that Israel be destroyed within 25 years, with or without a nuclear agreement. Iran’s ideology is simply riddled with a hatred of Jews.
Iran is not content with suppression at home or turning the middle east into a cauldron. We have heard, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, that Iran’s agents are active across Europe. I think that it was last year that our own security services found a Hezbollah bomb-making factory in north London. And in Belgium at the moment, we are witnessing scenes that could come from a John le Carré novel, with Asadollah Asadi, a diplomat from Iran’s embassy in Austria, on trial for both planning and facilitating an attack on an opposition rally in Paris. Apparently, when questioned, he threatened reprisals from the regime if there was any attempt to take action against him. Also, of course, Foreign Minister Zarif has recently conceded that Iran is interested in prisoner swaps, which possibly explains why innocent dual nationals are being seized; they may be insurance against further terrorist attacks.
This is a regime that I say we cannot negotiate with. If there is any attempt to negotiate with it, President-elect Biden should not go back to the joint comprehensive plan of action. And if we have any influence on the President-elect, I hope that the Minister will say that we must stick with what the President-elect himself said during the primaries—that we need a stronger and longer arrangement, which must include Iran’s terrorist activities and ballistic missile programme. And we should certainly proscribe the IRGC, because it is a terrorist organisation and should not be allowed to operate anywhere in Europe, let alone in this country.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this debate and agree with everything that he said. I am now, unfortunately, in my fourth decade of saying negative things about the Iranian regime; it would be good to still be here in Parliament when I can say something positive about it. However, I was not best pleased when I read in the newspapers recently that when I was leading a delegation at a rally in Paris in 2018 I was, together with one or two colleagues who are present in this Chamber today, the target of a terrorist attack.
As we take the presidency of the G7 next year, the United Kingdom will be at the centre of the world stage, with increased opportunities to influence international policy. Even though it was agreed last year at the G7 summit in France that we would foster peace and stability in the middle east, and ensure that Iran never acquires nuclear weapons, that message needs to be reiterated and taken further. I was very encouraged by the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister, but it has not always been the case that the Government have taken that view. Nevertheless, I thought that what he said was splendid and I very much hope that he will take it even further when he responds to the debate.
In November 2019, the Iranian regime killed at least 304 people and injured thousands more at peaceful protests, using lethal force and institutional violence. However, the death count may be much higher than that, as Government forces confiscated the bodies of the dead protesters to hide the true casualty count.
Last week, the Iranian Parliament voted to end the UN’s inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities and to boost Iran’s uranium enrichment. I hope that the Minister’s Department is working carefully with our close allies to create a more robust deal that particularly focuses on deterring Iran’s human rights abuses. Of course we have all received countless emails about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who is a constituent of the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), as the hon. Lady mentioned. I went to see Nazanin’s husband when he was on hunger strike last year, and I very much hope that we will continue to build on the pressure created by that action.
Iran’s global terrorism reach has infiltrated Europe and, as I have said, it has transpired that at a rally in 2018 Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, decided to launch a terrorist attack; some people may be disappointed that it was unsuccessful, but I am very pleased.
In conclusion, we must address the regime’s diplomatic blackmail and acts of terrorism in Europe and hold those responsible to account by imposing sanctions on the regime’s leaders and officials. I know that oil is very important, but we must be firm on this. We must include a halt to the regime’s ballistic missile programme and uranium enrichment programme. We must make any future diplomatic and economic relations contingent upon an end to the regime’s state terrorism. By doing that and supporting the National Council of Resistance of Iran, we can help to bring peace and stability to Iran. And we should do more to support Mrs Maryam Rajavi.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this debate. I will not repeat the points that he made.
At a time when the United Kingdom needs to be really clear-sighted about our strategic priorities and international objectives, our policy on Iran risks appearing—forgive me for saying this—confused and unclear. We are caught between, on the one hand, a desire for rapprochement and normalisation of relations with Iran, and on the other hand, the certain knowledge that Iran’s posture on the international stage is a negative one. Its activities across the middle east are deeply harmful to the region and are a direct threat to global peace, our own interests and those of our closest allies.
The desire for normalisation was enshrined in the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Iran in 2015. The hope at the time was that—we were in government, Mrs Miller—that would herald the beginning of a new, brighter phase of UK-Iran relations, and that the UK would somehow play a role in helping Iran find its way back into the mainstream of the international community. The truth is that the hopes that we had at the time were not well founded. Although it might still say on the gov.uk website that we believe the outlook for UK-Iran trade is positive, and that we want to see greater engagement between UK businesses and Iran, reflecting a desire for normalisation, what is the reality? This year, 2020, has demonstrated what the reality is.
The year started on 11 January in Tehran with the illegal arrest of our ambassador by the Iranian regime, in a complete violation of international law. We said at the time that Iran was at a crossroads moment, and that it faced a choice whether to continue its march towards pariah status. We warned that there would be consequences if it chose that path, and that is exactly what it has chosen. It has spent the year openly, belligerently and defiantly breaching its obligations, breaking international law and breaking its commitments under the JCPOA, and it is not clear to me what the Government’s response has been.
I do not understand, for example, why—I am sorry to say this—we sat on our hands at the United Nations in August and did not support our closest allies, the Americans, in voting for an extension of the arms embargo on Iran. I do not understand why we continue to try to keep the JCPOA on life support when it is clear that there were huge failings in that agreement.
I will finish shortly to allow others to speak. I know the Minister understands these issues thoroughly; we have discussed them previously. I urge him: I want to see the UK Government playing a really strategic role between the EU and the new American Administration and looking towards a new agreement that does not just narrowly focus on nuclear-related obligations, but deals with Iran’s ballistic missile programme, its support for terror, its human rights abuses and its systematic undermining of democracy all across the region. That would be the clear-sighted, positive role that the United Kingdom could play.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is nice to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I am pleased that my good friend, the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), has led the debate. It is a pleasure to be alongside him again.
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief, but I want to speak about one specific group of people whom I have spoken about before. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman and I have both spoken about the Baháʼí faith in Iran. It will be no surprise to anyone in this Chamber that I am going to use this opportunity to highlight a religious group that is under massive pressure in Iran: those of the Baháʼí faith. I have spoken about them many times. Not only they are subject to persecution, discrimination and violence, but Christian groups are as well. Women in Iran are subject to many things: acid attacks, violence, imprisonment, job losses and so on.
Baháʼís continue to be denied access to higher education in Iran, and most are excluded by national entrance examinations, when their files are returned as “incomplete”, as they are not from one of the four constitutionally recognised religions. A small number of Baháʼís are admitted to university, but often face interrogation about their religious beliefs—that happens all the time. They have the choice to recant their faith or face expulsion. There is a real focus of discrimination on them. Those practices align with the provisions of the 1991 secret memorandum on “the Baháʼí question”, which stipulated that Bahá’ís must
“be expelled from universities, either in the admission process or during the course of their studies, once it becomes known that they are Bahá’ís.”
At every stage, from entering universities to studying there, Bahá’ís are discriminated against.
A number of Bahá’ís pursue degree-level studies through the volunteer-run Bahá’í Institute for Higher Education, but they, too, face repression for seeking an education. On 22 May 2020, one Bahá’í student had her sentence of six years’ imprisonment extended to seven years and was made subject to a two-year ban on working in public sector jobs through the tazir law provisions. That is further discrimination. The student, the mother of an infant child, was charged with propaganda against the regime and membership of opposition groups. Fortunately, she obtained her university degree through the BIEHA. Her degree was probably better than those from other universities.
Since Dr Hassan Rouhani assumed the presidency in August 2013, more than 283 Bahá’ís have been arrested and thousands barred access to education, and there have been least 645 acts of economic oppression, including the intimidation of Bahá’í business professionals and the closure and prevention of Bahá’í businesses. I read a briefing that said that it is vital that the United Nations, Governments and Parliaments around the world continue to hold Iran accountable for its violations of the rights of its own citizens, including the innocent Bahá’í community. They are a lovely people, as those who have met them will know.
During this time of global crisis owing to the covid-19 pandemic, the long-standing persecution of Bahá’ís in Iran has increased. That has been evident in the number of arrests and imprisonments in that community, as well as changes to legislation and the penal code, and arbitrary punishments against Bahá’ís on the grounds of their religious belief. I believe that the Government have a responsibility to highlight and support the Bahá’í faith, ensuring that any policy on Iran must help the Bahá’í community and exert veritable diplomatic pressure on Iran to deal fairly and appropriately with the Bahá’í community.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this important debate. While the world’s attention has quite rightly been on coronavirus, Iran has continued to violate the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal without facing significant consequence. Those violations have already been clearly set out already, so I will not repeat them.
The UK was right to trigger the dispute-resolution mechanism alongside France and Germany in January, sending a strong—if overdue—signal that Iran’s non-compliance would no longer be tolerated. The terms of the nuclear deal clearly state that if the issue had not been resolved by the Joint Commission within 15 days following the triggering of the DRM, and if the complaining participant felt that the issue constituted “significant non-performance”, they could refer it to the UN Security Council for a vote on a resolution to continue lifting sanctions. Back in August, seven months on from the triggering of the DRM, the E3 identified
“systematic Iranian non-compliance with its…obligations”.
In the light of that, it is reasonable to ask why the issue has not, so far, been referred to the UN Security Council.
The most troubling outcome of that inaction was the expiry of the UN conventional arms embargo on Iran in October. The E3 said that it had
“serious concerns regarding the implications for regional security of the scheduled expiry…particularly given Iran’s destabilising activities, which continue unabated.”
Why, then, given Iran’s continued non-compliance, was the embargo permitted to expire? Iran is now free to acquire advanced weaponry from Russia and China, having signed a reported $400 billion strategic deal with the latter. I look forward to the Minister’s response to those points.
Non-compliance with the nuclear deal is not all that should concern us about the Iranian regime’s actions. We have seen Iran emerge as a leading state sponsor of terrorism in the middle east and beyond. It provided funds and weapons to terrorists in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has used the Quds Force and proxies such as Hezbollah to carry out espionage and terror attacks globally. Colleagues have set out how Iran’s regional ambitions have a malign and destabilising effect on the middle east, but it is essential to note that its actions have a global reach, including here in the United Kingdom.
Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, has been active here since the 1980s. Just five years ago, a Hezbollah cell in north-west London was caught stockpiling 3 metric tonnes of ammonium nitrate. Let us be under no illusion: Iranian-inspired extremism is a serious security threat to the UK, and plays an active role in disrupting social cohesion and community relations in this country and across Europe.
We have seen this hate spill over onto the streets of our capital—a good example is the al-Quds day march, where we have seen Hezbollah flags being waved. Hezbollah’s official television station, Al-Manar, is spreading antisemitic hate speech and conspiracy theories, glorifying terror and violence, including a 29-part drama based on the antisemitic text, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.
In conclusion, spreading misinformation and radicalising people is part and parcel of Tehran’s agenda; it is our responsibility to be vigilant against this, and to robustly protect minority communities in this country, as well as to stand firm with our allies against Iran’s malign activities in the middle east. The stakes are high and a failure of statecraft would have untold consequences. A major rethink is needed.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) for securing this debate.
Iran is a part of the world steeped in history, culture, art, and religion, from the Seleucids to the Parthians and the Sassanids to the Rashidun caliphate and beyond. This is a part of the world that I greatly admire, so what follows is not a criticism of the Iranian people but, rather, of the regime which controls their country and has set back thousands of years of progress.
Iran is a bad actor on the world stage. We are not dealing with a country that has much interest in the international rule of law or standards of human rights and transparency, which we and our partners would consider the baseline for a country’s conduct in the wider world. Tehran is enriching uranium to a higher fissile purity than is permitted under the JCPOA, and is on track to possess weapons-grade enriched uranium. This is not a clandestine activity by a secretive state; it is a flagrant and belligerent provocation by a thugocracy. Iran continues brazenly to violate the terms of the JCPOA, and it has failed to engage in constructive dialogue. I would urge Ministers to consider what the next steps are.
Iran’s malfeasance is not limited to its nuclear ambitions. In January, I had an opportunity to visit the Golan heights in Israel. Just a short distance from where I stood, a bloody, brutal civil war is raging. “Civil” is, in all honesty, a terrible misnomer for what is happening in Syria—it is the systemic suppression of that country’s people by a despot. Iran has invested millions in military assistance for Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah controls the country’s southern border with Israel and acts with the impunity of a terrorist state, regularly staging attacks on its neighbour. The common thread, again, is substantial financing by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard. It has become a prolific and notorious state sponsor of terror; its tentacles are wrapped around each of its regional neighbours, and it cannot be treated separately from its proxy.
Our Israeli friends have an expression: “Ve’im lo achshav aymatai”—“And if not now, when?” In recent months, Israel has agreed landmark peace deals with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan, and those outstanding achievements are evidence of a new direction of travel for a more peaceful and prosperous middle east. The normalisation of Israel’s relations with its regional neighbours is underscored by a shared common concern about both Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its sponsorship of terror through its proxies.
The Arab world should be commended on how far it has been willing to come in such a short time, and on or the statesmanship of its leaders in setting aside old and bitter rivalries with the region’s only democracy. To quote a common Arabic phrase, “Eljyaat ahsan men elrayhat”—“What is coming is better than what has been”. Iran is looking increasingly like the outlier in the middle east.
In closing, I would urge colleagues in the Government to redouble our efforts to bring the Iranian regime to account. We owe it to the people here at home; we owe it to our friends in the middle east, and we owe it to the Iranian people. There will come a day when Iran is a free nation again, loosened from the dogmatic and extreme regime that grips it, but that will not be an easy process.
There is a Persian expression: “Baa yek dast nemitunaan do hendhuneh bardaasht”—“You can’t lift two watermelons with one hand”. It means that one should always get some help. The Iranian people need a hand, and we should be willing to reach out.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
Iran boasts a long and rich history that has played a crucial role in influencing culture, art, poetry, science and philosophy across the globe. Not only is Iran home to one of the oldest civilisations, which began with the creation of Elamite kingdoms in 3300 BC, but it is also home to the Cyrus cylinder, the first historically recognised universal charter of human rights, created in 534 BC, pre-dating the Magna Carta by well over a millennium.
Regrettably, the Minister will be aware that the Iran we know today is very different from the one we look back to and admire. Today’s Iran is one of the world’s biggest state sponsors of terrorism and home to one of the deadliest dictatorships in the world. Human rights abuses are rife. Hundreds of Iranian civilians have been killed by their own Government. Protesters have been brutally repressed and religious minorities such as the Bahá'í face persecution.
On the international stage, Iran’s stratagem threatens the regional balance of power, our interests in the region and our own national security. Tehran openly supports the terrorist group Hezbollah, providing it with financial aid, weapons, munitions and military training. One attack orchestrated by Hezbollah, fortunately followed by MI5, was against targets in our own capital, London. In 2017, Iran reportedly carried out a cyber-attack on the UK Parliament and against email accounts belonging to Cabinet Ministers and our Prime Minister.
Allowing Iran to continue these attacks affronts, insults and diminishes our position in the eyes of the world. Releasing the Iranian oil tanker Grace 1 was nothing short of a national embarrassment and undermined our image as a reliable ally that does not buckle under pressure. If we wish to better secure our national security and bolster our reputation in the eyes of our allies, a much stronger stance must be taken against Iran. Now is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate our willingness to stand up to the tyrants of Tehran, whether for breaching the joint comprehensive plan of action, their flagrant disregard of fundamental human rights or their financing of terrorism.
The UN arms embargo on Iran expired in October, which now provides Iran with a chance freely to purchase deadly weaponry. We have an opportunity to campaign for the reinstatement of the embargo and even to unilaterally establish our own embargoes. Other measures must be considered, such as further trade sanctions for failure to adhere to the articles of the joint comprehensive plan of action. The use of Magnitsky-style sanctions against key targets in the Iranian regime that propagate human rights abuses would send a strong message to the opposition and to Iran’s Government.
In the post-Brexit era, the United Kingdom no longer has the obligation to side with Brussels in our policy on Iran—a policy that has too often been based on appeasement. We should work instead with our strongest friends and allies, notably the United States, to become a true champion of freedom and an opponent of those in Iran who effectively hold their own people hostage.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this important debate. I shall begin by talking about sanctions relief and how that has helped to shape the challenges we face today; I think we may have made the same mistake twice.
Prior to the JCPOA, the international community had constructed one of the most stringent and far-reaching sanctions regimes of modern times. It was the result of strong global co-operation and had the necessary impact of bringing Iran to the negotiating table. As part of the JCPOA, many of those sanctions were lifted almost immediately. We must be cautious in removing them and proceed slowly; as the old proverb goes, we must “trust but verify”.
The sanctions relief brought billions of dollars to Iran. We know that, far from curtailing its activities since the JCPOA came into force, Iran has stepped up its proxy activities, as we have heard today, using terrorism as a form of foreign policy. It has increased its investment in violence, openly seeking to extend its Hezbollah franchise into southern Syria and even replicating that approach in Iraq.
We made a similar mistake when we failed to extend the UN arms embargo. That has now given Iran’s future defence contracts the undesirable cover of legitimacy. As a result, regional neighbours of Iran will undoubtedly feel compelled to strengthen their own defence capabilities and we will need to stand ready to support them in doing that, including by encouraging further steps towards peace between the Gulf nations and Israel.
We also need to think carefully about the steps that China is taking with Iran. Our own relationship with China has changed in recent years and will no doubt continue to do so. We should of course work together on our shared challenges, but with a clear eye on the strategic issues, because China is using all the tools at its disposal to influence activity, including not just foreign policy, but economic and security policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said, reports indicate that China is advancing a strategic agreement with Iran— a 25-year deal worth $400 billion. Already Iran’s largest trading partner, the deal will see massive injections of Chinese investment into areas such as energy, infrastructure, and telecoms, as well as defence. The potential of joint Iranian-Chinese training exercises, intelligence sharing, military research and development and more poses a clear challenge to UK interests in the region and beyond. Further plans would also see China establish a strategic foothold in the Persian gulf: a vantage point on a globally important shipping lane, and a listening post covering the middle east. We know the importance of that region and should remember that it was only months ago that we had to arrange Royal Navy escorts for vessels passing through. I urge the Minister and the Government to reflect on some of these emerging strategic challenges as the Government proceed with the integrated review.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, may I say that for the last two speakers, unfortunately, it will be two minutes so that we finish on time? There will be a full three minutes, however, for Brendan Clarke-Smith.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
Thank you, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this important debate today. At the time of the JCPOA signing in 2015, proponents of the agreement argued that it would encourage Iran to moderate its behaviour and reduce its systematic human rights abuses. However, since the deal was signed, human rights abuses have escalated—from unlawful executions and arrests to torture, forced confessions, unfair trials without due process, repression of the press, and discrimination against women and minorities. Women are punished for poor wearing of the hijab, which is mandatory, while homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death.
Although many hailed Iran’s President Rouhani as a moderate, the indisputable fact is that oppression and the use of the death penalty have soared under his leadership. At least 251 people were executed in Iran in 2019, the second highest figure in the world after China. Iran ignored pleas from the international community to spare the life of 27-year-old national wrestling champion Navid Afkari, who was reportedly tortured into confessing to murder. Mr Afkari was executed by hanging in September this year. In November 2019, at least 304 people were killed by the Iranian regime, and thousands were injured when lethal force was used to crush nationwide economic protests. Iran’s press freedom has been all but eliminated, with dozens of journalists, bloggers and cartoonists jailed for issuing material deemed contrary to the Islamic Republic’s values and principles. It is unsurprising that Iran ranked 173 out of 180 nations in the world press freedom index this year—down from 170 last year.
What is permitted and, in fact, celebrated, is holocaust denial. Tehran launched its third holocaust denial cartoon contest in September this year, which also urged entrants to paint as traitors any nations that made peace with Israel. The disgraceful event is a project of the art zone division of Iran’s Islamic propagation organisation, which reports directly to the regime’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. The supreme leader himself has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, and the ultimate target of Iran’s nuclear activities and regional terrorism is self-evident.
We are all aware of the plight of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the British-Iranian mother held hostage by Iran; the appalling treatment she has faced is further evidence that Iran has not come in from the cold since the nuclear agreement was signed. Hon. Members will remember that our ambassador to Iran was arrested at a vigil for victims after Iran shot down a Ukrainian passenger plane in January. In separating Iran’s nuclear programme from its other destructive and repressive actions, the JCPOA failed adequately to hold Iran to account. The human rights situation has deteriorated significantly, and a reset on the UK’s policy towards Iran should urgently address that fact.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
For the sake of brevity, I shall skip to the point. This debate provides a timely opportunity to highlight the issues regarding Iran’s activity globally and, more specifically, here in the UK. The Iranian regime has a long history of propagating antisemitism, often including holocaust denial, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) has just outlined.
In a speech on 22 March this year in response to a coronavirus outbreak, the ayatollah himself, in an attempt to blame the USA, claimed that Jews were experts at sorcery and were creating relationships with demons. He previously called the holocaust a myth. In recent years, there have been at least two high-profile international holocaust cartoon competitions held in Iran, with Government support. The most recent competition was held in 2016 and, according to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, included 150 entries.
Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984 by the US State Department, which considers it to be the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism. Iran’s support for terrorism is a global threat, particularly for the Jewish community, which has been repeatedly targeted. The most noticeable example is the 1994 Hezbollah bombing of the AMIA building, a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires, killing 85 and injuring hundreds. In doing so, the bombing ripped the heart out of the community.
This continued threat is a major reason why Jewish communities around the world, including in the UK, require security at schools, synagogues, community centres and events. I would like to pay tribute to the fantastic work of the Community Security Trust, in keeping not just the Jewish community but my constituents safe, as they go about their daily life.
In 2012 alone, Iran or Hezbollah were connected to incidents targeting Jewish communities or Israeli interest groups in India, Georgia, Thailand, Singapore, Cyprus, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria and Kenya. Those incidents need to stop. I will conclude by echoing—and I will refer to him this way—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) in calling for the IRGC to be proscribed by the Government.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this timely and important debate. Since the signing of the nuclear deal in July 2015, Iran’s regional aggression has continued unabated, as has its deeply troubling human rights record, which remains one of the worst in the world. The Islamic Republic is still a leading sponsor of state terrorism, providing financial and material support to extremist Islamist terrorist groups across the middle east, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Iran not only supports acts of terrorism, it seeks to form militias in parallel to national armies throughout the region, in order to bolster its influence. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is tasked with exporting Iranian revolution, with its infamous Quds Force establishing pro-Iranian proxy militias in other countries. Those forces are created using the IRGC’s effective blueprint, which includes the creation of social welfare projects financed by Iran, in order to take advantage of power vacuums and gain support in local communities for the militias.
As we have heard, Hezbollah has amassed an arsenal of up to 150,000 rockets on Lebanon’s border with Israel, and currently has an estimated 45,000 fighters, many of whom have extensive battle experience from their time in Syria, where Iran is deeply engaged in supporting Assad’s regime. In May this year, Iran’s supreme leader compared Zionism with a virus and a cancerous tumour, and said that Israel must be eliminated as soon as possible. Hamas, meanwhile, has fully restored its military strength to levels before the 2014 Operation Protective Edge conflict in Gaza, including its rocket arsenal, military infrastructure and attack tunnels infiltrating Israeli territory.
Last year, the US designated the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organisation, the first time a part of another Government has been named an FTO. The US said that that underscored the fact that Iran’s actions were fundamentally different from those of other Governments. The US was right to state that the IRGC was the Iranian Government’s primary means for directing and implementing its global terrorist campaign. I urge the Minister to encourage governmental colleagues to examine the IRGC for proscription, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) has already outlined, following the welcome move to proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
We now move on to contributions from the Front Bench. Please leave two minutes at the end for John Howell to wind up.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) on bringing this important debate to the Chamber and on his impressive speech, with which I agreed entirely. I can be brief this afternoon because a number of excellent points have already been made. Iran is a complicated place; the middle east itself is complicated. Everything is connected to everything else and Iran is behind many of the region’s problems.
We should not turn a blind eye to rights abuses anywhere, whether in Israel, Gaza, Yemen, Saudi or, indeed, Iran, whose actions in fomenting terrorism abroad and developing nuclear weapons, and oppressing opposition and minorities at home, must have consequences. All that said, I would always tend towards dialogue. Although I fully agree with the misgivings on the failings of the JCPOA that we have heard today, I believe that there is an opportunity for a reset with an incoming American Administration that has a different tone towards Iran. I would be grateful if the Minister could give his assessment of the opportunity for a reset.
In parallel with that aspiration, however far in the future, Iran’s actions must have consequences. One thing that I am surprised has not been mentioned thus far is Magnitsky sanctions. We have an appropriate toolkit for targeting sanctions on individuals in the regime. There has already been movement in that direction, and I would be grateful if the Minister can comment on the scope for further targeted sanctions against those regime individuals. Our problem is not with the Iranian people; Iran has a proud history and hopefully a bright future. It is a complicated place, and there are forces of progress, however weak, within Iranian politics, which we can strengthen. However, the Iranian Government policy has to change. I agree with a number of the points that right hon. and hon. Members have made, and if the Minister works in that direction, he can rest assured of the SNP’s support.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a delight to contribute to this important debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller.
I want to highlight the immense suffering of the Iranian people during covid. Iran has been particularly badly affected due to its broken economy and its high level of disease. We must always bear in mind in foreign policy discussions that there are human beings there who suffer enormously because of politics that goes wrong.
In foreign policy terms—that is the essay question for today—Iran has remained a significant challenge for all of us in western countries for many years with its woeful human rights record, the low role of women in society, the proxy wars in the region, the nuclear programme and the high-profile hostage diplomacy. I have a constituent who is currently in Evin prison with Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
Obviously, the past four years, with President Trump in the White House, have been rather unpredictable, and the question is whether it has helped the dialogue that needs to happen on Iran. We know that the recent assassinations of the military general Qasem Soleimani and the nuclear expert Mohsen Fakhrizadeh—excuse my pronunciation; I believe that we have a Farsi speaker among us—have been subject to high-profile reporting in Iran, and I believe that has made it a little more difficult to enter into dialogue.
The US’s 2018 withdrawal from the joint comprehensive plan of action, which was carefully crafted by Baroness Ashton in the other place as our EU high representative back then, has increased tensions between the US and Iran, and I believe has undermined progress on the nuclear programme. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) mentioned the important deadline that we have on deterrence in 2023. I hope that the International Atomic Energy Agency verification process can step up, and that there can be more international observers so that we know exactly what is happening in terms of proliferation.
Obviously, the issue of US sanctions and the Magnitsky question are very much for the Minister. I look forward to hearing what his position on that is and what the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is currently thinking about the scope. The Magnitsky tools are new for us in the UK, but they provide an opportunity to clamp down on a small number of very dangerous individuals. I look forward to hearing whether much progress has been made within the FCDO on that question.
I also want to highlight the excitement that perhaps Mr Biden will bring a fresh change. Many hon. Members have questioned whether the JCPOA is a bit tired. It is always hard to have to reinvent things that were the thing in 2015. Hon. Members who were here in 2015 will remember that the then Member for Runnymede and Weybridge came and spoke to the House, and we could hear a pin drop because it was such an important moment. That is hard to recreate, so we need some very creative experts in the FCDO to bring us another solution. Hopefully, it can bring dialogue so that we can talk about human rights, non-proliferation and eventually some form of good, high-quality economic involvement in the future.
I also want to touch on the crucial dialogue with Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi with the aim of reducing tensions in the region and laying the foundations for future co-operation. Hon. Members have mentioned the role that the G7 will play in the coming 12 months. I wonder whether our leadership of COP and the climate challenge provides another work stream that we could introduce into any future dialogue.
I want to highlight the ongoing harassment and persecution of the staff and journalists of the BBC Persian service. The Iranian authorities have been systematically targeting BBC Persian journalists, who are mainly based in the UK, and their families in Iran since the service launched on satellite TV in 2009. That is a form of terror. Intimidation of BBC Persian staff’s family members in Iran is a regular occurrence and has increased in the past three years. We have a duty to stand up for the free press. I urge the Minister to highlight the support that the Government are providing to the BBC and to clarify whether such attacks and occurrences have been brought up in engagement with the Government.
I have about one minute—
Catherine West
Lovely. I have enjoyed the debate and hearing the many contributions from the different regions and parts of our Parliament. I hope that the Minister can bring us an exciting new alternative to what appears to be a dangerous situation, with the human rights of so many affected and so many suffering—particularly the diaspora. Many of us have people who come to our advice surgeries to tell us of the pain and suffering in Iran. I also hope that he will bring some solace for those of us who are worried about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and all the others still in prison in Evin and other places for no good reason except that they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That hostage diplomacy must stop—we all agree on that across the aisle. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution and clarification on those questions.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) for bringing forward this important debate, which is clearly of interest to right hon. and hon. Members from every part of the House. I am grateful for their informed and passionate contributions.
Getting our approach to Iran right is of incredible importance, and it is clear from how well attended today’s debate is that there is a strong feeling on this issue right across the House. Those feelings have been expressed today. Before I address as many of the points raised as I can, it is right that, as has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, our criticism—unfortunately, criticism will come—is not of the Iranian people. These are a people—indeed, Iran is a country—with a fantastic history, a marvellous heritage and a tradition in the arts and the sciences. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) said he has spoken in critical terms about Iran for four decades and hopes that, in the near future, he will be able to speak in positive terms about Iran. I echo that. There is so much about Iran that could be spoken of in positive terms, but unfortunately today we find we are more critical than speaking in praise. It saddens me that that is the case, but nevertheless that is the situation we find ourselves in.
The Government’s priorities with regard to Iran are to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, to promote stability and security in the region and to secure the permanent release of all detained British dual nationals. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has consistently made it clear that we favour a diplomatic solution that addresses the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme and, in parallel, seeks to address both its destabilising behaviour in the region and its behaviour to its own people within its borders.
President-elect Biden has said that if Iran returns to compliance with the JCPOA, the US will re-enter the agreement and seek both to strengthen and to extend it. This is an important opportunity to restart the engagement between Iran and the United States of America and to realise the full set of objectives set out in the joint comprehensive plan of action, which we support.
In the meantime, we remain clear that Iran must reverse its systematic non-compliance with the nuclear commitments under the JCPOA. We are deeply concerned by Iran’s actions and, in particular, its research and development and stockpiling of low-enriched uranium, which is in breach of the terms of the nuclear deal. If Iran is serious about the JCPOA, it must not implement the recent law passed by the Iranian Parliament to take further steps in violation of the JCPOA. That would undermine the important opportunity to return to diplomacy that the incoming US Administration have offered. Iran has a choice, and we strongly urge it to take the sensible, pragmatic choice of moving back towards diplomacy.
Our objectives remain to use the structures set out under the deal to address Iranian non-compliance and to reopen the door for re-engagement with the United States. We have not yet exhausted the dispute procedures set out in the JCPOA. To advance the discussions, the joint committee of the JCPOA will be held on 16 December at official level and followed shortly afterwards by a ministerial meeting of the JCPOA participants. Iran must engage on a route back to compliance through the joint commission as an essential step to rebuild confidence in Iran’s commitment to preserving the deal. Alongside our E3 partners, France and Germany, we have worked hard to preserve the deal. It currently remains the only way to monitor and constrain Iran’s nuclear programme.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned snapback. We maintain the ability to snap back UN sanctions on Iran and we have made it clear to Iran that it must remain in compliance in order to preserve the deal. We will continue to support the deal for as long as it provides the benefits that I have mentioned. We will engage with the incoming Biden Administration to see whether we can strengthen and extend the deal further, to address the non-nuclear malign activity that Iran undertakes against its regional neighbours, because I share their concerns and the concerns expressed today about the continued risk of escalation in the region. Conflict is in none of our interests.
We continue to urge Iran to show restraint and to avoid any actions that might escalate tension in the region, and we echo those calls to its regional neighbours. We have long been clear about our concerns over Iran’s destabilising activity in the region, including, as has been mentioned this afternoon, its political, financial and military support to a number of militant and proscribed organisations and groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and in Syria, militias in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen.
Catherine West
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is very generous. Does he see a possible role for Magnitsky sanctions in relation to any financial facilitation perhaps assisting those sorts of groups external to Iran, so that we can use the might of the City of London to clamp down on any illegal facilitation of that kind of activity?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Let us be crystal clear: Iranian support for those groups contravenes UN Security Council resolutions and breaches international law. We currently hold Iran to account through a list of over 200 EU sanctions that are currently in place, including those against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety.
The hon. Lady mentioned our new autonomous Magnitsky-style sanctions, as did other right hon. and hon. Members. We have heard those calls. Right hon. and hon. Members will understand that we never discuss future designations under our autonomous sanction regimes, to prevent the risk of individuals removing assets that we might seek to freeze, but the calls for us to review the actions of members of the Iranian regime, in light of the sanction regime, have been heard and noticed.
We continue to support the enforcement of UN prohibitions on the proliferation of weapons to non-state actors in the region. We are committed to work with regional partners, the E3 and the US to find a solution to Iranian proliferation in the region.
Our concerns are not limited to Iran’s nuclear programme or regional behaviour. A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), highlighted Iran’s actions towards its own people and its minority communities. Iran’s heavy-handed response to protests, its restrictions on freedom of expression, belief and religion, its use of the death penalty and its continued use of arbitrary detention, including to British dual nationals, remain of deep concern to the UK, and we remain opposed to them.
We continue to make clear to the Iranians our concern and opposition to their repeated, persistent violation of human rights. As has been mentioned by a number of Members, I can assure the House that the safety and good treatment of all British dual nationals in detention in Iran remains a top priority for the UK Government. We will continue to lobby at all levels for the immediate and permanent release of all British dual nationals in arbitrary detention, so that they can return home to the safety of their country and the embrace of their loved ones.
The Foreign Secretary recently summoned the Iranian ambassador to hand over a letter from E3 Foreign Ministers, expressing our concern about the grave human rights violations in Iran, including the arbitrary detention of dual nationals. We are deeply concerned that Iran has issued new charges against Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. These are indefensible, unacceptable and unjustifiable. We have been consistently clear that she must not return to prison. The UK Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, remain committed to doing everything we can for her and the other British dual nationals held in detention.
We want to see a peaceful and prosperous Iran, that is famous for its art, culture and history, not for its destabilising influence in the region and the world. We want to see an Iran that does not pose a threat to the UK, or to our friends and allies.
Christian Wakeford
Many colleagues mentioned the need to proscribe the IRGC. Will my right hon. Friend commit to working across Government, and across parties, to make sure that that sensible, credible plan is adopted moving forward?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I cannot give him clarity on that in today’s debate, but I recognise that those calls have come from every corner of the House and that there is cross-party support for that. Again, it will be noted, and I genuinely take his and other Members’ position on this seriously.
Clearly, we want to see Iran abandon its intentions to develop nuclear weapons, but we also want to see it act as a good neighbour and a responsible regional power. We want to see it end arbitrary detention and improve its domestic human rights record, and the United Kingdom Government will continue to engage with international partners and directly with the Government of Iran to bring that about.
We have to understand that our approach needs to be based on a number of elements, including engagement and incentives, but also pressure, delivered bilaterally, through partners, and multilaterally. The future relationship between the UK and Iran, and between Iran and its regional partners, could be infinitely better than what we see at the moment, but ultimately it is in the gift of the leadership in Tehran to make that happen. I urge them in the strongest terms to take the actions to do so.
John Howell
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions to what has been an excellent debate. It is quite reassuring to me that everyone who has stood up to speak has agreed with what I said. I take that not as a compliment to me, but as a united effort to give to the Minister, whom I thank for his response, which covered much of the ground. I think he understands that the strength of feeling on this issue is clear and that Iran’s actions harm our interests as well as those of a number of our allies.
As the new Biden Administration take office, the UK has an important role in ensuring that it waits until Iran returns to compliance with the JCPOA before giving any sanctions relief prematurely. As colleagues have mentioned, a comprehensive deal that addresses Iran’s ballistic missile programme, support for terrorism and human rights abuses is the only way forward. In the meantime, I urge the Minister to look at Magnitsky sanctions for those who are abusing human rights in the area. Once again, I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate.
Jim Shannon
On a point of order, Mrs Miller. I would like to convey to you, and perhaps you can convey it to those responsible, that Westminster Hall has become a cold house for many people, not because people are not allowed in here, but because the heater over there, and I suspect others, is blowing cold air, and the heaters behind us do not work. I do not want to make a complaint, but really—I say this respectfully—there are ladies here. I say this because yesterday there were ladies coming into Westminster Hall and they took their scarves and overcoats off, but after half an hour in here, their scarves and overcoats were back on and their collars were turned up. Really, we need to do something. Can I perhaps ask you, Mrs Miller, to please do that? Thank you.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
I am sure that many hon. and right hon. Members will be very thankful to the hon. Member for putting that on the record. I can assure him that his comments will be relayed back to the Chair of Ways and Means to see whether we can get some action on that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government policy on Iran.
Rural Scotland: Excess Delivery Charges
(3 years, 4 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
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered excess delivery charges in rural Scotland.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The word “rural” can sometimes conjure up an image of a far-flung place, but this issue affects many communities in Moray. Although it is a rural constituency, it is also made up of substantial towns, such as Elgin, Forres, Lossie, Buckie and Keith. This is an issue that also affects the city of Inverness, the capital of the highlands, as well as many communities, towns, villages and cities north of Perth. Although we are talking about rural delivery charges, they have a big impact on many urban areas as well.
I want to start by giving a little background on this issue, which I have raised in the main Chamber and Westminster Hall on many occasions, including during Prime Minister’s questions. Indeed, almost three years ago to the day, I led a similar debate in Westminster Hall. It was a 90-minute debate, and the room was full of Scottish and Northern Irish MPs raising concerns on behalf of their local constituents. Had today’s debate not been a 30-minute debate, we would have seen similar attendance by MPs across the north of Scotland and other parts of the country, whose constituents continue to suffer as a result of excess charges for delivery.
This is also something on which I got the Scottish Affairs Committee to have an inquiry. I was pleased that companies such as Amazon came along to give evidence and commit to tackling any issues that were reported to them about delivery charges being added after a sale had apparently been completed. Indeed, with one sale that I reported, the seller ended up being brought to task and punished by Amazon for adding a surcharge to delivery after a purchase had been made. I will mention later the work I have been doing with the Advertising Standards Authority, which has done a lot of work to tackle this problem and to take enforcement action against companies and couriers who add excessive charges.
I would like to praise Citizens Advice Scotland, which has done a tremendous amount of detailed research and work on this subject. The briefing that it provided ahead of the debate sums up a lot of the issues that we face. Research by Citizens Advice Scotland has found that consumers living in affected areas pay on average 30% to 50% more for delivery of goods bought online than consumers in other parts of Great Britain. Sometimes we think this is just about consumers sitting at home and making individual purchases from online retailers, but the problem also affects many small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland. The report goes on to say that one in four of the Scottish SMEs that were questioned about this said that they had ordered items online for businesses and were asked to pay an additional charge, so it is affecting our businesses as well as individual consumers.
Clearly, the covid pandemic has increased awareness of this issue. For weeks in the early stage of the pandemic, people across the country were asked to stay at home and go out as little as possible, so many turned to online retailers for purchases. That has led to a surge in online shopping and more parcel deliveries. As I have mentioned parcels and we are in December, it is only right to mention the outstanding work that our posties up and down the country are doing at this extremely busy time of the year and, indeed, all year round. Sadly, unlike in every other year since I have been an MP, we cannot go and thank them in person in the run-up to the Christmas period, but I am sure the Minister and the whole House agree that they do incredible work at this busy time of the year. They have our greatest thanks for that.
It is not surprising that in the early months of the lockdown during the covid pandemic, when people had more time on their hands and were at home rather than getting out and about, they were shopping more online. For people in Moray and other parts of Scotland, however, the ease of online shopping comes with a heavy price: the surcharge they have to pay. If someone has a postcode in Moray, the Highlands or parts of Aberdeenshire, they face a familiar problem. They try to make a purchase, look for a product, browse and then when they put in the postcode or address, they are suddenly faced with an additional charge simply to have it delivered. Now, hon. Members do not need to be experts in geography to know that Moray, the Highlands and Aberdeenshire are all part of mainland UK. They are part of the mainland, yet we are often charged as an island community. Moray is attached to the rest of the United Kingdom in the same way that Highlands and Aberdeenshire are, yet we are faced with charges because some companies do not believe we are part of mainland United Kingdom.
A recent paper published by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre estimated that shoppers had paid an extra £43.1 million for parcels to be delivered in 2020, up from £40 million in 2019 and £38 million in 2018. That is not the cost of the purchases—that is simply the cost to have these parcels delivered to parts of Scotland. That is the surcharge for my constituents and constituents across the north of Scotland.
The report found that the covid-19 lockdown led to a big increase in online shopping, which is not surprising. People had no choice in many cases but to shop online, given they were told to stay at home. Once again, the worst-affected areas were Moray, Highlands and Aberdeenshire. Moray constituents purchasing online paid an extra delivery charge that has mounted up to £3 million.
Unfortunately this is nothing new; I have a long list of constituency cases of people who have tried to challenge these rip-off fees—I will go into more detail later—but many people feel like they are banging their head against a brick wall. When complaints are made to stores or online outlets, courier companies are often blamed. Taking the courier companies to task can be tricky. Often, they simply state that their policy is to charge more for deliveries to certain locations. That in itself should be open to challenge, and I hope that the Minister can look at what the Government can do with couriers and retailers to try and get some form of balance in the charges that they are imposing.
It is not all doom and gloom. We have made some progress in the time that I have been working on this issue, particularly where companies advertise that they say they will deliver for free—no charge at all—or a flat rate everywhere in the United Kingdom, only for a surcharge to be added. Where it has been clearly defined that they offer free delivery or a set charge across mainland United Kingdom, if that is not the case when someone goes to make a purchase, I routinely take up cases with the Advertising Standards Authority.
One recent case involved a constituent who was getting a package from a gin distiller in another part of Scotland. His home is in Spey Bay in Moray, 130 miles away from the retailer, and he was told he did not qualify for free delivery, despite it being explained on their site. However, if he had sent the package to his friend, for whom he was buying the product, in Truro in Cornwall— 596 miles away—it would be shipped free of charge. There is no rational way to explain that disparity. It simply cannot be right.
I was recently passed an email exchange between a customer and a business, and it transpired, as it often does, that the blame for the extra charges was laid at the door of the courier. Again, I raised it with the Advertising Standards Authority, which I am pleased to say responded quickly and has told me that an enforcement notice will now be issued. Citizens Advice Scotland note that enforcement notices were issued to
“almost 300 online retailers during 2018/19”
and that work resulted in a “97% compliance rate.” So we are making some progress.
Sadly, it is not enough, because constituents and individuals are still suffering. People go around in circles trying to claim money back for the extra charges. In one case, a constituent complained that he had been hit with an additional charge of £60 for delivery of a package that weighed less than a pound. In many other cases, people do not complain to their MP; they just grin and bear it, as they feel they have no choice. It is clearly not fair to ask anyone to pay more for delivery of a parcel because they happen to live in the northern half of mainland Scotland. It has gone on for far too long and needs to stop.
Up to now, there have been efforts to give regulators in this area more teeth. In 2018, the Committee of Advertising Practice, which sets the rules that the Advertising Standards Authority enforces, made very clear that it would act to ensure a level playing field across the United Kingdom. It said that companies selling goods online had to abide by its guidance, and it specifically ruled out misleading claims of UK-wide delivery if that is not what they offer. Any surcharges applying to parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland should be clear and up front so that the buyer knows before he or she pays what the final cost will be. That is even meant to apply where there is a headline claim of free UK delivery, for example, but the small print might say something like, “exemptions for north of Perth”. Even in those cases, a company would be found to be misleading customers. The problem is that, two years on, it is still happening and, as far as I am concerned, if a company advertises free delivery or a flat-rate delivery all over the UK, it should stick to that.
Another example is from a constituent in Fochabers who had found what he was looking for and had seen “free UK delivery”, but when he put in his postcode, he was hit with a £75 delivery charge. There are more cases like that. If the companies do not stick to their promises, considerable penalties should be applied. Any repeat offenders should be hit with an increasing severity of sanctions. It is clear that a letter being sent to say that this should not happen again does not do any good. Let us be clear. The industry should not have to wait for Government intervention before doing what is right; it should be able to come up with the solutions to avoid the extra charges. That applies to retailers as well as couriers.
Any online retailer should be keen to keep customers onside. They should not simply shrug their shoulders and say that the charges are set in stone when they clearly are not. If enough companies decide to do something about it, we could finally make some progress.
Likewise, the courier firms could work together to come up with a plan to reduce the burden on buyers to pay unnecessary surcharges. That could take the shape of a shared distribution centre in the highlands that reduces the distance between the warehouse and the delivery address, or a simple commitment to treat mainland Scotland in the same way as mainland England and Wales. I do not think we are asking for too much.
As I referred to earlier, in the past three years more than £100 million in additional charges has been paid by shoppers in the north of Scotland—a huge sum of money. At a time when our economy is struggling, people are losing their jobs and seeing their working hours cut, every little helps. That money could go back into the businesses rather than into paying excessive charges. Let us not allow this discriminatory practice to continue. Let us stand up for all the people who are being ripped off in Moray and across parts of Scotland on a daily basis. Let us say that enough is enough. Let us ask the industry—the retailers and the couriers—to get their house in order. If they will not do that, the Government should take steps to address the inherent unfairness.
I held such a debate as this three years ago on 20 December 2017. I remember the date well because it was my wife’s birthday, so I now have 11 days to make sure she gets the right present for this year’s birthday. I will make sure I buy local in Moray to avoid any excessive delivery charges. By having this debate at this time of year once more, we can again impress on the Minister and any businesses or couriers watching that the practice has gone on for far too long. We have suffered for too long in Moray and parts of the north of Scotland because of the disparity affecting people living in different parts of the country. We can end this practice and, with the Minister’s help and some encouragement from the Government, I am sure we can get these businesses to realise the error of their ways. It would be a cheerful festive message to send out that we are once and for all going to deal with this issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. Thank you for stepping in to enable my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) to make his really important case. I congratulate him on securing this debate. The issue continues to be important for his constituents and for those of other Members in the similar debates that he has led over the years. He has been a dogged champion for his constituents in Moray on this and other subjects. They should be proud to have someone championing people who live in the highlands and other parts of rural Scotland.
Delivery charges are part of the underpinning of trade within the UK, so I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s concern that some consumers in parts of Scotland are charged differently from consumers in other parts of the UK. I also recognise that similar issues exist for consumers in Northern Ireland.
I am pleased to be able to take part in today’s debate, and to outline the progress that has been made since the previous debate back in July 2019. Let me first of all remind colleagues of our general approach as a Government. The Government’s aim in relation to post is to secure a sustainable, efficient and affordable universal postal service. With regard to delivery charges specifically, it is crucial that retailers are up front about those charges, as my hon. Friend eloquently articulated: where they deliver to, what they charge, and what premiums apply, if any. Consumers then know where they stand, and can make an informed decision before they purchase. That is what the law requires.
Our legislation is robust. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 set out that information given by traders to consumers regarding delivery costs, including any premiums, must be up front and transparent before a transaction is entered into. Any consumer who believes that these rules are being breached should report it through the specifically set up deliverylaw.uk website, so that incidents are recorded and appropriate enforcement action can be taken.
A significant amount of work has been undertaken by the Advertising Standards Authority—I am glad to hear about my hon. Friend’s work with the ASA on this issue—and by the Competition and Markets Authority to ensure businesses comply with that legislation. Where that compliance has not happened, both bodies have on the whole acted swiftly. The ASA has issued enforcement notices to online retailers whose parcel surcharging practices have been reported, and has achieved a compliance rate of over 95%. The CMA has issued a number of advisory notices to the major retail platforms, and I take the point my hon. Friend makes about letters: just telling companies not to do it again goes part of the way, but clearly those companies need to actually change their behaviour, rather than just getting a warning letter. We need to see the results of that. The CMA has also published guidance to retailers who sell via those platforms, and continues to work through primary authorities to ensure improvement in these areas.
On the legal compliance side, significant progress has been made, and our enforcement partners will continue to monitor and take action where necessary. However, the Government recognise that the delivery costs to reach some parts of the UK can be higher, and strongly encourage businesses to, as far as possible, provide consumers with a range of affordable delivery options. To help achieve this, we have ensured that everyone, including retailers, has access to an affordable postal service for deliveries across the UK under the universal service. Through the universal service obligation, Royal Mail delivers parcels of up to 2 kg six days a week at uniform rates throughout the UK. I echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to posties up and down this country, in every part of the UK, who have been working through the pandemic to make sure we remain connected even when we are locked down. As my hon. Friend has said, it is a shame that we cannot join them in the sorting office to wish them a merry Christmas and thank them for all their work as they enter this particularly busy time, but this is a good platform to be able to echo his thanks and season’s greetings to them all.
Let me make this clear: it is up to businesses to respond to customers’ needs and determine the most appropriate delivery options for their customers. There are no rules to prevent the differential charging between businesses for deliveries, and I do not believe, for example, that imposing a price cap is necessarily a practical answer.
The postal sector regulator, Ofcom, recently published new information on how this part of the market is operating as part of its annual post monitoring update. Ofcom collected information on the extent to which parcel operators vary the price that they charge online retailers for bulk delivery of parcels to different parts of the UK. The long and the short of it is that some operators do vary their prices, whereas others do not.
The information gathered by Ofcom showed that operators take different approaches to the pricing of parcel delivery services: two large business-to-consumer operations, Royal Mail and Hermes, do not set different prices based on location. However, the geographical profile of deliveries can still play some role in determining the uniform price that these operators negotiate with retailers, especially if volumes are skewed towards a particular part of the UK.
Douglas Ross
I again go back to the Citizens Advice Scotland briefing for today’s debate. I am looking forward to attending the annual general meeting in Moray tomorrow, where I am sure we shall discuss this issue. One of its recommendations is that consideration should be given to whether Ofcom requires further regulatory powers in relation to the parcels market, following on from the publication of the recent data on this market. Is that something that the Minister would consider, and take up with Ofcom?
Paul Scully
Obviously we work with Ofcom; it straddles a number of different Departments. We will always look at issues with it, as we do with other regulators, to make sure it has the powers to do the job it needs to do.
As I was saying, there are a number of delivery options that businesses can adopt. Some have minimal delivery charges, and others are more bespoke models. A competitive market in delivery charges, which will ultimately help consumers, should put downward pressure on the charges applied by retailers and delivery operators. There are positive signs that things are changing in that regard.
In August, for example, Argos announced that it would deliver large items to more than 98% of residents on the main Scottish islands, bringing deliveries to 41,000 more homes and another 56 islands, including Shetland, Orkney, the Inner Hebrides and the Western Isles. In 2019, Wayfair took the decision to scrap delivery charges for orders over £40 anywhere in the UK and charge a standard rate of £4.99 for orders below that threshold. Those are the types of commercial decisions that will set businesses apart from their competitors, drive competition and lead to lower costs.
Let me reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are not complacent. The consumer protection partnership chaired by officials in my Department continues to work on the issues. That goes to the point about working with companies to help foster the necessary competition. I am more than happy to continue to work with my hon. Friend so that we can help, convene, push and shape the conversation. Ultimately it is a free market; we are both free marketeers. However, we can make sure that consumer voices are heard, so that if consumers in his constituency have complaints, and if surcharges are imposed after the event, the consumers’ voice will be amplified and heard, through his work and through the Government, to stop unfair practices.
Alongside the work of the consumer protection partnership, and others, Ofcom will be undertaking a review of its future regulatory framework for post over the next year. A call for inputs from stakeholders will be launched before the end of the financial year and a statement on the future framework is expected to be issued by the end of the 2021-22 financial year. The review will consider issues affecting the broader postal sector, as people’s reliance on parcels continues to grow.
I am unconvinced of the need for further legislation, but my hon. Friend talked about whether there is a need for new powers, and what more can be done to encourage the market, drive competition and make sure we enforce the current regulations and legislation correctly. My priority is exactly that—that robust enforcement of the law should continue to ensure that customers are not surprised by delivery charges, and that competitive pressures should continue to drive down delivery charges, as has already happened. I congratulate my hon. Friend once more on securing the debate and on his further championing of his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Covid-19 Support Schemes: Ineligible People
(3 years, 4 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
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new call list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. I remind Members that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the wind-ups, provided there is space in the room. Members are also asked to respect the one-way system around the room. Please exit by the door on the left.
Members should sanitise their microphones before they use them, using the cleaning materials that have been provided, and they should dispose of the materials they have used as they leave the room. Members in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats become available. Members can only speak from the horseshoe.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for people ineligible for Government covid-19 support schemes.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
“Feelings of betrayal, hopelessness, abandonment and not belonging have caused me immense anguish over the last 9 months”.
Those are the words of Lisa from London, who spent 34 years as a pay-as-you-earn taxpayer and was newly self-employed in April 2019.
I am incredibly grateful, as are the many thousands of people who have been in touch—both directly and indirectly—to share their stories with me, to have been granted this very important debate, which also addresses three petitions. I am aware that many Members were unable to make the crowded call list today.
It is 261 days since the furlough scheme was announced and 258 days since the self-employment income support scheme was announced, yet those very welcome schemes had gaping holes in them. We know that some 3 million people—approximately one in 10 of the workforce—fell through those gaps. Often, they were ineligible for universal credit, so they were left without a penny of Government support over the past nine months. Their plight has been raised time and again in this place, and the largest all-party parliamentary group has been formed to champion their cause. Yet the Treasury has repeatedly refused to do anything to address this glaring injustice.
Those who have been excluded span many different categories of workers, including, but not limited to, employees who were denied furlough or were ineligible for it, which includes new starters; the self-employed, including those newly self-employed; those over the £50,000 threshold; those who earn less than 50% of their income from self-employment; directors of limited companies who are paid annually or via dividends, or directors of such companies that are not yet in profit; PAYE freelancers; those on zero-hours contracts; and new mothers. These 3 million individuals are from all walks of life, from beauticians to builders, teachers, driving instructors, taxi drivers, lawyers, those working in our world-leading creative industries, and many, many more.
I will address up front some of the misrepresentations that exist, then touch on the impact of this injustice and, importantly, refer to some of the solutions that have been proposed. To date, the responses that we have had from the Government include, “It is too difficult and complex to include these groups.” I am afraid that, nine months on, that just does not wash. I understand that the schemes were set up at speed, but there has been ample time to work through and implement solutions. Another response was that the schemes were targeted where help was most needed. It is clear from the thousands of case studies received and the surveys conducted by the House of Commons digital engagement team, the Organise group and ExcludedUK that that is simply not true. There are heartbreaking stories of desperate need, including the use of food banks and people not being able to switch the heating on this winter.
There has, at times, been a suggestion that some of the excluded are highly paid and dodging tax in some way, especially those paid via dividends. My constituent, Fraser Wilkin, who runs a travel company in Twickenham, pays himself by dividends because of the huge fluctuation in annual income due to events outside his control, such as the coronavirus. If he had drawn a regular salary through the year, he would have been unable to fulfil his statutory and contractual obligations to his clients, in terms of prompt refunds when their holidays were cancelled due to the pandemic.
Universal credit is cited as the fall-back. A survey of more than 3,000 individuals found that almost three quarters were unable to access universal credit. Let us face it: we all know that universal credit is not meaningful support. Otherwise, the Government would not have felt the need to create the furlough scheme or the self-employed income support scheme.
We know that the mental health impacts on many of those excluded from support have been stark. There have already been eight reported suicides, and one respondent to the House of Commons digital engagement team said that she almost took her life several times, and one week spent every day in contact with the Samaritans.
The Centre for Mental Health has said that covid-related unemployment has caused an additional almost 30,000 people to request services for depression. Those mental health impacts spread well beyond the 3 million individuals to their families and support networks. Many report having to move back in with elderly parents and rely on their pensions. Marriages and relationships have been strained or ended. Parents of young children talk about the stress it is putting on their children. An anonymous respondent from the north-west said:
“my mental health has plummeted and my family are anxious too, so much so my teenage daughter is getting counselling for her anxiety”.
Personal debt is rising. Rachel from the south-east says:
“I am selling my house, cannot get a mortgage, selling my personal belongings just to put food on the table. Getting into so much debt. Never been so scared in my life. I’m also a single parent and it’s heart-breaking telling my daughter that Santa can’t afford much this year”.
In terms of the wider economic impact, those businesses and entrepreneurs, who are natural risk-takers, are the wealth creators and the lifeblood of our economy. Retaining their skills and health, and stopping their businesses going to the wall are critical to our post-covid economic recovery. It is incredibly short-sighted to cast them aside in this way.
Moving on to solutions, many proposals have been put forward by a number of groups, such as the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed, the Treasury Committee, the Federation of Small Businesses, the gaps in support all-party parliamentary group and the various representative groups for those who have been excluded.
I have limited time today, but some of the solutions include using HMRC data to support claims for those with PAYE income history; widening the accepted evidence for demonstrating proof of employment; extending cut-off dates; looking at the two specific schemes that have been put forward for directors of limited companies; removing the 50% rule; removing bereavement payouts and carers’ allowance from the calculation of PAYE income; and extending the criteria for discretionary business grants. Many of those solutions just require imagination and will. Plenty of experts stand by to help make them implementable.
I want to conclude by sharing from a children’s book sent to me by Kev Payne, who was a teacher and became an illustrator in 2018. He is ineligible for support because of the 50% rule. He wrote a story to try to explain how he feels. In it, the mice are the taxpaying workers and the bear is the Government. A storm hits and the bear provides food and shelter for all the animals, but the mice are left out and told that there is no space for them:
“‘But I gave you my food’, said Mouse. ‘You said you would help me.’
‘I cannot help you now,’ said Bear. ‘I will see you when the storm is over.’
‘But…’ began Mouse. Bear glared and growled at Mouse. It turned its vast back against her.”
My plea to the Minister is to listen to how these hard-working, tax-paying people are feeling and to look at the long-term impact of his policy. The Chancellor does not have to be the big, bad bear; he can be Santa Claus this Christmas.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I will start the winding-up speeches at 5.10 pm. There are lots of Members who want to speak, so I am afraid we will have to have a time limit of two minutes.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this important debate. I am delighted to co-chair the gaps in support all-party parliamentary group. We are all here today bringing the case to this House.
Blue Collar Conservatism, of which I am a founder member, set up the campaign asking for supermarkets to return their covid business exemption, specifically with the purpose that that money would be redirected to those who have had no support during this period. We met with Tesco, Asda, the British Retail Consortium and others. They have done the right thing, stepped up to the plate and committed to returning that money. I pay tribute to those who have done so.
My message to the Minister is that that campaign specifically aimed to redirect that money to those who have not had any money. Having spoken to those firms, that was the basis on which they have handed the money forward. I hope the Minister will act in the same faith and spirit as those supermarkets that handed over that money and support for those people.
I want to mention two big supermarkets that have not yet committed to give that money forward: Iceland and the Co-op. I ask the shadow Minister to tell the shadow Chancellor, who is a Labour and Co-operative Member, to speak to her friends to ensure that the Co-op pays that money back, unless it thinks it is more in need than others. We think it should do the right thing, join in with the other supermarkets and hand that money back.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I think we should start by thanking the Government for what they have done to support people through a very difficult time. The Government have spent some £210 billion in dealing with the pandemic. That is an unprecedented fiscal response. We should put on record our thanks for the scale of that intervention towards people who are in more regular employment.
The scale of that generosity brings into question its allocation, when people in so many groups have not received the same scale of Government funding as people in PAYE employment. It is not just about individuals. I have spoken about the events industry before and the exhibition industry. I spoke with the British Events Industry Coalition earlier this week. In the weddings industry, I think of Eggington House in my constituency.
In terms of individuals, we are talking about people who work with a construction industry scheme card, directors who pay themselves through dividends and the newly self-employed. I had a letter today from a driving instructor. He only set up in October 2018. That was not his fault. He has done everything he has been asked and he pays what he should, but he is left out. This affects beauticians, freelance musicians and so many more.
The Office for Budget Responsibility, in its July 2019 fiscal risks report, put the tax reduction for someone on £70,000 being paid through dividends at 11.6 percentage points. That is slightly less tax, but those people are getting very much less than 11.6 percentage points lower than what people are getting through the furlough scheme. I ask the Treasury to look again—it has clever people—and to please remember these 2.9 million people who have been left out so far.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
Yesterday I chaired a meeting of the gaps in support all-party parliamentary group, during which we heard from Andy Burnham, Dan Jarvis and Steve Rotheram about how the metro Mayors are working to support businesses in their areas to plug the gaps left by Government.
Dan Jarvis, the Mayor of Sheffield, explained that an estimated 68,000 people are excluded from support in Yorkshire. At 13.1%, Yorkshire has the highest proportion of new starters in the UK, but because of a fluke of timing they have been thrown into poverty and homelessness, joining the 1 million freelancers now in debt, according to IPSE. Entrepreneurs, business people, creatives and strivers who have worked with their employers and been paid in any way the employer deems more convenient are now paying a heavy price for that flexibility.
I will share a couple of stories. Nicola is 46 and a single mum of two girls in West Yorkshire. She is on a zero-hours contract with a publicly funded charity, working in the supported living sector and paid the minimum wage. She asked to be furloughed but was told that she could not because her job was publicly funded, and was then told that there was enough work. Her application for unemployment benefits was refused as she was still under contract and had received a wage. Nicola was not just excluded from support; she was refused support and had to live on child benefit, going deep into arrears.
Sadly, as Steve Rotheram said yesterday, “whatever it takes” has turned into “whatever we will give you”. Andy Burnham said that it is up to politicians to stand up for people against the machine of Government and to mitigate risk. This is now an opportunity for the Government to listen to the solutions that they have heard this afternoon and put them in place to support the millions who are excluded and who face the hardest and harshest of winters.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I want to make a few brief remarks. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing the debate.
I recognise the massive effort made this year to provide broad support right across the economy. In its recent assessment of the UK’s economic response, the International Monetary Fund praised our Government’s actions as
“one of the best examples of coordinated action globally”,
saying that they had
“helped mitigate the damage, holding down unemployment and insolvencies.”
I take my hat off to the Chancellor. His policies mean that many more jobs will be saved and our economy will experience a faster bounce back.
I also have a lot of sympathy, however, for specific businesses and sectors in our economy that have missed out, often through no fault of their own. For some, the types of support were not relevant or they had unfortunate timing issues. This includes a number of my constituents, and I want to give just three examples.
First, Jo from Brackley runs a building maintenance company. She has received only £550 a month since lockdown and has lost thousands of pounds’ worth of work. Secondly, Shirley runs a small, independent clothing business. She has received no income for herself or her business and is having now to sell all her stock at a loss as well as make her staff redundant. Thirdly, Mark and Louise are, along with so many other wedding and event organisers, unable to operate at all. They have experienced almost 100% cancelled bookings and a total collapse in income.
I think that most people in the country would agree that this Government have gone further than any other Government to protect livelihoods as well as lives. I agree with other hon. Members, however, that now is the time to consider those left behind and see what we can do to help them survive into 2021. If we do that, they can start to rebuild their businesses and to create new jobs, as they have done so successfully in the past.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this debate.
I have repeatedly called on the Government to listen to the concerns of people who were not covered by the self-employment income support and job retention schemes. There has still been nothing beyond social security for those who have been excluded from support from the start, and many self-employed people remain cut out from social security support for measly reasons.
My postbag has been full of real-world examples caused by the Government’s callous neglect in recent months—from photographers to driving instructors, events organisers and wedding planners. My constituent Simone is a prime example of those who have been repeatedly allowed to fall through the net. She started out as a self-employed driving instructor very recently, so she does not qualify for the support scheme. She also cannot receive universal credit, as her partner is employed. Although she was able to start working again between the first and second lockdown, the latest restrictions mean that she finds herself unable to earn and without the ability to access support.
The Chancellor said he would do “whatever it takes” to support people and businesses through the economic impact of the pandemic, but millions across the country, including many in my constituency, know that he has not delivered on that promise. That has left those affected in Portsmouth feeling like “collateral damage”, as my constituent described it, abandoned by the Government in the face of unprecedented uncertainty. That is also economic illiteracy.
We are all asking the same question: when will the Government finally support my constituents and those across the country who have been allowed to slip through the safety net for far too long?
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on calling this important debate. We must applaud the vast scale of financial support provided to many millions since March. It is unprecedented and rivals that of any western country, but there have been exclusions that have caused distress and suffering for many—the self-employed, freelancers, zero-hours workers and entrepreneurs who have taken huge risks to start new businesses and create jobs and opportunities. Those people have worked hard, but when they were most in need of support, they found themselves left behind.
On Small Business Saturday at the weekend, I visited businesses in Frome and met Liz Huband, the owner of Badger House Leather in the town’s fantastic Black Swan arts centre. Liz started her business two years ago, self-funding all of it. Her business was growing, but when the pandemic hit, she had to stop trading. In order to keep funding it, she worked half time supporting social work education. Because of that, she became ineligible for the self-employed income support scheme. The support system has entirely let her down; it has forgotten her. I have other examples, as I am sure we all have, but in two minutes I do not have the time to mention them. Some 3 million people are unable to reach meaningful support, which is a catastrophe for so many lives and livelihoods.
With vaccinations starting this week, there is an end in sight to the pandemic, but in rebuilding our economy, we will need entrepreneurs such as Liz to drive the recovery. I urge the Minister to look again urgently at ensuring that support is allocated fairly and proportionately to all those who have felt, until now, entirely left behind and forgotten.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure, Ms Rees. Like others, I am angered by the Government’s blinkered obstinacy in denying the existence of 3 million people—people such as my constituent Chris Anderson, a self-employed filmmaker for 37 years, who has been denied support and is surviving on limited benefits and dwindling savings. John Powell is from a family of showmen based in Ocean Beach Pleasure Park, who have been in the business since 1847 and are now being forced to sell some of their fairground equipment just to get by. Their business survived two world wars, but I am fearful that they will not survive this Tory Government.
In March, my constituent Neil Jelly lost 80% of his business revenue overnight. He has had to turn to universal credit and is seeking advice on how to close down his business. He said to me that this year has been a mental and emotional struggle—a year ending with him trying to explain to his young children that their dad failed in his business and Christmas will be different this time. Of course, Neil has not failed. He has been failed by an uncaring Government.
Universal credit is not the answer; not everyone is eligible. Every single time I hear a Minister speak of how wonderful it is, I am more convinced that they have literally never met anyone who claims universal credit. Being on universal credit is a miserable and soul-destroying experience. It is no coincidence that the rise in UC claims and the refusal of claims is matched by empty food bank shelves up and down the country.
Poverty and debt affect individuals, and local and national economics. It makes no sense at all to continue denying people support. The all-party parliamentary group and the Treasury Committee have provided solutions. I sincerely hope that the Minister will not revert to his script today and close his ears, as the rest of Government have, to this appalling scandal.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
Since the start of the pandemic, the Treasury has implemented a suite of support measures that have been nothing short of extraordinary. For most people and most small businesses, money was received in a timely manner, and proved vital in protecting businesses and the employees they support. However, a large number unfortunately fell through the cracks. Earlier in the year, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury accepted that certain individuals were unintentionally excluded from the Government’s financial support measures, but highlighted the difficulties of assessing those on a case-by-case basis.
We are nine months on from March, and a growing number of individuals have not received support throughout the pandemic, despite paying their taxes. One example in my constituency is testament to that. Graham Whitehead, a project manager in the arts and culture sector, left his full-time employment in January 2019 and decided to become self-employed. As he became self-employed in January, he did not have the required tax returns over a three-year period and did not meet the threshold of 50% self-employed income for the tax year. As of 10 July 2020—127 days after the industry was closed—he had received a total of only £6.27 in universal credit from the state.
There are many cases across the country like Graham’s—cases of individuals who have bravely taken a leap, spurred on by their entrepreneurial desire to forge their own path. Those excluded are the risk-takers who this Conservative Government should be encouraging. That is deeply unfair. They feel let down by the absence of support.
Over the past few weeks, support provided by Her Majesty’s Government has been returned to the Treasury from Tesco, Sainsbury’s and other large supermarkets. These funds should be repurposed and directed towards those who have yet to receive adequate support. Her Majesty’s Government have taken many truly unprecedented steps to protect lives and livelihoods throughout the pandemic. However, we should endeavour to ensure that no one is left behind.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
We are here yet again to make a plea for our constituents in Greater Manchester, 130,000 of whom have fallen through the gaps—people like three of my constituents. There is Luana, who runs a small interior design company; Shan, who is a sound engineer—we make the best sound engineers in the world, and Shan tells me he is really worried that there will not be a live music industry to come back to; and Zena, who runs festivals. They were all recommended to pay themselves through dividends because they have irregular income. They are not people who invested in companies to make a profit. This is their income and their wages, and they are really struggling. Can the Minister look at the proposal from the Federation of Small Businesses for something like a director support scheme? The evidence can be based on trading profits. If we do not support such directors, their businesses will fail, and the people who work for them and with them will fail as well.
There are solutions out there for the various types of people who have fallen through the gaps, including the newly self-employed, the 50% limit people, the self-employed with a profit cap limit and pay-as-you-earn freelancers. There are potential solutions if the Government will just look at them. We are tired of making these arguments, and I am sure the Minister must be tired of hearing them. I know he is a decent guy. Will he commit today to looking at those proposals, including those from Prospect and the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union? I am sure he will have received their paper, which proposes a number of solutions for those people.
The constituents who are coming to us are hard-working, decent people. Some of them are looking at selling their houses and moving back in with their parents, or selling their possessions. They are really struggling, and the Government appear not to want to listen, so I ask Minister today to please listen.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing the debate.
It is true that where the Government schemes have worked, they have worked well. It is also true that Government schemes are not an entitlement, but a use of very scarce taxpayers’ money. If we are honest with ourselves, many of those 3 million people are probably not high on the list of those who are in greatest need, because they earn a lot of money, or because a large proportion of their income comes from other areas. Notwithstanding, some specific areas need focus.
It is depressing that too often the Treasury looks like a wholly owned subsidiary of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, rather than having a broader view of the economy as a whole. I want to focus on company directors, because that group, as other hon. Members have said, has the grit and determination that will be so crucial to our recovery.
Becoming a company director is often a moment of pride. It says, “I’m going to do something. I am going to make something happen.” It is a tangible moment that defines why someone is going to contribute to society. As the hon. Member for Twickenham has said, as we emerge from the recession, these are the risk-takers whom the Government need to support.
My hon. Friend the Minister needs to find a standard reporting event. He needs to ensure that people can demonstrate a negative impact on their business and can confirm they have not received any benefit from Government under any existing schemes. Within those three parameters, it should be within the wit of man or woman—certainly within the wit of the Treasury—to find something, perhaps along the lines of the forgivable loan suggestion of Professor Francis Green of Edinburgh University, or the directors income support scheme supported by others.
This is a group on whom we will rely. I urge the Minister to ensure we do all we can to see if there are ways to support them with the scarce taxpayers’ funds available.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this important debate. Covid-19 does not discriminate, but for the 3 million people who find themselves with no support, it must sometimes seem like the Government do. I—and I am sure they—acknowledge that many millions of people have been helped by successful Government schemes, but that is not enough. It is no consolation to them that someone else has been helped by the Government. It does not help them feed their children. One of the things I find most surprising is that many of the people suffering are the very people whom successive Conservative Governments have rightly described as the backbone of our economy: the self-employed, the innovators and those in the creative sector. And no, it is not easy for ballet dancers to retrain in IT.
I was contacted recently by a woman—a make-up artist—who had used her husband’s pension to set up a small business to provide for her and her two children, but she cannot work and she is getting no support. I get calls every week from constituents who built up successful businesses that they are now losing through no fault of their own because they are following Government rules, and the Government are not helping them. They are distraught; they are at their wits’ end.
I know what it is like to build a career, and I am sure many on the Government Benches know—or think they know—what it is like to have it ripped away for following the Government’s rules. In many cases, these are people who voted for the Government. Yes, many of them are the people we will depend on to rebuild our economy, but to do that, they will have to depend on the help they get now. We want our west-end theatres to be alive again and our TV industry to thrive, and in my city, we want our world-famous festival to regrow, but they all need help now. Covid-19 might not discriminate, but we know how to be fair; this Government could do so.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). Two minutes does not give hon. Members much time to comment on the issues raised with them, but I thank the Chancellor, who took the time to speak to me last week specifically on the newly self-employed, who we know—it has been mentioned in the debate—have been among the hardest-hit groups.
I pay tribute to the Chilbolton and Wherwell small business group, which set up as a self-help group for many small businesses in those villages to find ways to support one another. It has come to me with tales of company directors who are not eligible for support, of microbusinesses set up from home that do not pay business rates and therefore are not eligible for those grants, and of very new businesses—the newly self-employed. I reiterate the pleas for help for them.
I will mention three cases from my constituency. First, Jo, from the events industry, tells me that she and her husband have been forced to sleep in friends’ spare rooms so that they can Airbnb their home. Secondly, there is the lady trying to live on child benefit because her husband earned more than £50,000 last year but nothing this year, giving them an income of just £25,000 a year over two years. Thirdly, I hesitate to use the word “pensioner”, but my constituent Susan is drawing a small pension of £11,000 a year and supplementing it with self-employment. However, because less than half her income comes from that, she is not eligible for the self-employment income support scheme. She says she needs to augment her pension, but she is really struggling to get by.
There are tales of real hardship where mortgage holidays have come to an end and loan repayments are having to be made again. These people are really struggling. I know that my neighbour the Minister, who will be familiar with many of the places I mentioned, will do his best to listen and respond, but the argument every Member has made is that people need help now. Christmas is coming; please give them some hope.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), and declare my interest as a director of two limited companies. As I have said countless times before in the Chamber, and in Westminster Hall, the Government’s economic response to the pandemic has been unprecedented. As we promoted Small Business Saturday over the weekend, I was pleased to note that almost 1,500 businesses in my constituency have benefited from bounce back loans, and 3,500 people have kept their jobs because of the furlough scheme. As I made clear three weeks ago, it is time for the Government to provide support for directors of limited companies.
Being a limited company has some small benefits with regard to national insurance payments, although much of that is negated by the payment of corporation tax. The main reason for being a limited company is, as is indicated by the name, to limit one’s liability as an individual. To be penalised because one is a director and takes remuneration through a dividend seems harsh.
A week is a long time in politics; three weeks, it seems, is a lifetime. On 18 November I stood in the Chamber along with many of my colleagues and called for large supermarkets to return the rate relief they had received from the Government, as they had not been hit financially by covid. I am pleased to say that since then £1.8 billion has been issued back.
With this in mind, I call on the Minister to do three things: ensure that those businesses and sectors that were not in financial trouble return the moneys gained through rate relief; give businesses the option to tick an opt-out box to ensure they do not receive unneeded support in the first place; and, most importantly, listen to the concerns and recognise the plight of the self-employed directors. We are receiving funds back from supermarkets and other businesses; now is the time to use this money wisely to allow businesses to stay afloat as we begin to reach the light at the end of the tunnel.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I thank hon. Members for adhering to the time limit; it is much appreciated.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am pleased to be able to sum up in this debate for the Scottish National party. I commend the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing the debate, and everyone who has contributed. As others have said, we could have filled this Chamber four or five times over with hon. Members who would have liked to take part, but realised there would not be space. I cannot be the only person who has noticed that today, again, nobody has defended the Government’s failure to support these 3 million people.
I also commend the campaign groups that are helping to make sure that this scandal will not go away—not this year, not next year, not any year—until it is addressed. I am sorry there is not time to mention by name all my constituents who have contacted me and asked for their plight to be publicised, let alone the people from outside my constituency who have been in touch over the past few days specifically because I was going to speak in this debate.
The first and most important point that must be made—it is one that the Government sometimes try to fudge—is that this is a deliberate policy decision. It is not that the Government could not have helped these people by now, had they wanted to; it is that, frankly, they do not seem to care enough to try. It has to be the UK Government who address the problem. None of the devolved Administrations has borrowing powers that would come anything close to the amount the UK Government are borrowing to fund their covid support package. By 2025, UK Government debt will be somewhere in the region of £2 trillion to £2.5 trillion. The devolved Administrations are not allowed to borrow money to this extent; if they were, I am sure that at least one, and possibly all three, would.
To the many harrowing stories we have heard today and in other debates, I can add that of my constituent Gemma, who moved from being employed to being self-employed early in 2019. For 2018-19, her PAYE income was higher than her self-employment income, and she did not qualify for support. She has now submitted her tax return for 2019-20, the period ending shortly before lockdown was imposed. Deliberate policy from the Government is that they ignore her accurate tax return for 2019-20 as evidence of what she was earning—what she would have earned this year. However, HMRC is happy to use the same tax return as evidence that she now owes them £9,000.
There was good reason why 2018-19 tax returns were used as a basis for the first scheme when it was announced last year, but now that the Government again have a scheme open for self-employed support applications, there is no excuse whatsoever to continue to exclude people simply because their 2018-19 tax return significantly understated their self-employment earnings.
There are some cases, such as that of Joanna in my constituency, where alleged employed earnings were significantly overstated. Joanna still runs a small business. Her family ran another business that failed because a serious accident befell a close family member who was involved in the business. To cope with that, they cashed in their pensions at exactly the wrong time in 2018-19. This meant that their pensions were counted towards her earned income. Had it been a few months earlier or later, it would not have counted, and Joanna would qualify for covid self-employment support. Now, they get nothing. Just like Gemma, Joanna’s tax return for 2019-20 will give a much more accurate picture of her earnings but it will be ignored by the Government. Again, of course, HMRC will quite happily use it as a basis for the tax she is due to pay them.
It would be easy just to say that this is happening because the Government do not care, but even if it was true that they genuinely could not care less about the plight of these 3 million people and their families, surely they care about the damage to the economy if these people disappear from wealth creating in the future. Let us not forget that this time last year all those people were working in their businesses, creating wealth and providing valued services to the local communities and beyond. Some were giving jobs to other people in the community. All were paying taxes into Government coffers. That is what they were doing this time last year. This time next year, or maybe even earlier, every one of them wants to be doing exactly the same—to be part of a post-covid shared economic recovery. To do that, they need support this time, this year.
I say to the Minister, even if the Government’s approach to these people is as callous as it sometimes appears, surely it is in our shared interest to help all those who want to be in business after covid to get into business or to stay in business. It is not about charity; it is simply about parity.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Ms Rees. I appreciate that we are slightly pushed for time. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing such an important debate on a timely issue. For nine long months now, many workers have had no support whatsoever from the Government due to glaring gaps in the Government’s various schemes and wider provisions—inadequacies that the Opposition have highlighted time and again. Many of these problems could be fixed with political will, but the Government so far have chosen to do nothing. Those problems have festered and worsened, and today they are endangering our economic recovery.
I pay tribute to the Members we have heard from, whose contributions showed the impact that being shut out of support has had on many of their constituents right across the United Kingdom, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), who made such passionate cases on their constituents’ behalf. Like many Members, I have also heard from constituents who find themselves in this position. One constituent, newly self-employed after starting his own business, told me:
“I am from a working class background. I’ve worked and paid taxes since leaving school, funded my own retraining. I’ve not claimed any benefits at all during this time. I’ve worked hard to earn everything that I have achieved. I admit to feeling disappointed and let down, that due to a quirk of timing and dates, I won’t be afforded the same level of Government support.”
I have also heard from many of the unions representing working people in this country: Community, Equity, the Musicians’ Union, the Writers’ Guild, Prospect and the GMB about how many of their members are in similar situations. I have also heard from the Federation of Small Businesses. Across professions, the same issues come up time and again: the exclusion of the newly self-employed, the 50% threshold, and people who are not eligible for universal credit despite a huge drop in income. We also know that, despite some recent welcome changes, there is ongoing discrimination against women who have taken maternity leave.
I have said before, and will say again, that the Opposition accept that it was difficult to get everything right when the Government set up these income support schemes back in March—but we are months into this pandemic now. We know where the gaps are. We have pointed them out repeatedly and Members have made the case here today. I ask the Minister, again, what is being done to sort out these issues? No doubt he will list the schemes the Government have already made available, but surely he must understand that this will be cold comfort for those still unable to access support. Does he have anything new to say today?
The Government’s failure to address these issues is also storing up problems down the line. There are many self-employed people who have put money aside into savings accounts to pay for end-of-year tax bills. In many cases, these savings trigger an end to their universal credit eligibility or they can only claim at a reduced rate. This means that not only are they going without support for longer, but that they will face even greater financial difficulties when required to pay their end-of-year tax bill. As we have heard today, Government inaction risks the very economic recovery we all desperately need and want.
Entrepreneurship is the backbone of our economy. A dynamic economy needs people who are willing to take risks, become self-employed and start their own businesses. After all, after the 2008 financial crash, it was SMEs that spearheaded economic recovery and gave people hope and work. Now, however, when so many self-employed people are in need, the Government are not there to help.
Self-employed people have seen how the Government have treated them, and I worry that they will be wary of taking steps that could help to drive our recovery. As we have heard today, many people who are already self-employed are considering giving up on their careers and their businesses. That is of particular concern among women, those from low-income backgrounds, and black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.
We should do everything we can to ensure that an economic recovery benefits everyone in our country, and we should give the self-employed the confidence to keep going, not leave them to sink or swim. If we do not, we will face a much slower and less inclusive recovery. That is in the Minister’s hands. It is not too late to listen; it is not too late to act.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Would the Minister mind leaving a few minutes at the end for the summing up? Thank you.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing the debate, and I thank the 14 Back-Bench Members for their contributions—I listened very carefully to each—which spoke powerfully to the many cases of hardship that I recognise exist throughout the country.
I acknowledge the article written by the hon. Member for Twickenham for The House magazine today, and the briefing by ExcludedUK, which was made available yesterday for the debate. I have looked at that carefully and shall take back the three-stage approach, and we will continue to see if we can move forward. I recognise that there is a sensitivity about Ministers standing up and listing all the measures that have been put in place so far, so I will go through some of that only briefly, but I will then move on to the context and rationale behind some of our decisions, and address some of the points that have been raised.
Clearly, the pandemic has profoundly affected the lives of countless people. As a Government, we have a moral obligation to protect jobs, livelihoods and our country’s economic capacity, a point that has been made and acknowledged by many Members during the debate. We have spent £280 billion on what has been one of the most comprehensive responses, including the job retention scheme, which protected 9.6 million jobs; the self-employment income support scheme, which provided grants to 2.7 million people; affordable loans for businesses, which we have adapted over time; extra help through the welfare system; bespoke interventions for different industries, such as the £1.57 billion for the creative industries; as well as other support, such as income tax time-to-pay arrangements, payments to those asked to self-isolate and grants for businesses required to close.
We have striven, as a Government, to provide support for as many individuals and businesses as we can, as rapidly as possible. That has meant taking some difficult decisions, however. I will set out the rationale for some of those decisions, particularly in relation to the self-employed, before moving on to how we have adapted our support schemes so far.
To give some context, when we designed those schemes, we had to keep some guiding principles in mind. First, the help must be targeted at those most in need. To achieve that, we obviously had to set clear rules. That is why we have said that those eligible to claim from the self-employment income support scheme must have made profits of no more than £50,000 from self-employed activity. I recognise that for those on the upper side of the £50,000 cut-off, that must feel unfair, but we did have to draw a line somewhere, and wherever we had drawn it, we would have had the same challenge.
According to HMRC data, those in that category had an average income of between £100,000 and £200,000. We have also said that support from that scheme must go to people whose main income is from their self-employed trade. That is why we also said that to claim, workers should make at least half of their income from self-employed activity. HMRC analysis shows that typically for those who make less than 50% of their income from self-employed sources, their profits are on average between £1,800 and £3,500 per year. That strongly suggests that self-employment is not their primary income source.
I now come to the second principle that we have used, which is the need to balance the Government’s duty to support individuals with our responsibility to protect taxpayers. Colleagues will be aware of the wide concern about fraud that continues to be, rightly, something that is raised in Select Committees and by those commentating on what we have done. To verify claims through the self-employment income support scheme, we needed to use data from an individual’s tax returns, and that means using returns from the year 2018-19. That has meant that people who became self-employed in 2019-20 have been unable to access the scheme, because HMRC does not yet hold complete tax return data to check their details.
We are listening closely to individuals who pay themselves through dividends, but that presents another challenge, which is that there is no practicable way of distinguishing between dividends derived from an individual’s own company and those from other sources.
I know that the past months have been very difficult for many people in the groups that I have mentioned, but I want to stress that we have not taken a dogmatic opposition position to any particular group and we continue—
Peter Grant
I am grateful to the Minister for letting me intervene. It is patent nonsense to suggest that we cannot tell the difference between shareholders who are directors of a small company and shareholders who are anonymous investors in a big company that they know nothing about. Companies House holds all those records. Why, nine months later, have HMRC and the Treasury made no attempt to do a data-matching exercise between what HMRC holds and what Companies House holds?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course, one of the challenges that we had to come to terms with was the need to deliver a scheme as quickly as possible, and to as many people as possible, within the context of a finite number of individuals who could verify that data. Short of introducing a scheme whereby people would need to manually go through and verify those different data sources—
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that, practically, was the challenge that we, working with officials, had to overcome. We had to make a judgment as to how to reconcile those two realities.
I want to reiterate that we are not adopting dogmatic opposition to any particular group, or contribution or idea that could move this forward. We need to protect the taxpayer, but that has not overridden our determination to provide support and we will continue to think about how we can improve the way the schemes that I have mentioned are targeted.
We have adapted already. We extended the cut-off point by which workers needed to be on their company’s payroll to be eligible to be furloughed, allowing more workers to receive those payments, and that potentially includes freelancers paid through PAYE. Some workers may be able to benefit from the recent changes that allow employers to re-furlough workers who left their jobs between 23 September and 30 October. And since July, employers have been able to bring back previously furloughed workers while still claiming from the Government for any hours not worked. We have adapted the self-employment income support scheme to help new parents who have taken time out of work, along with self-employed armed forces reservists, who were previously not covered.
I would like to add that people who are ineligible for one scheme may still be able to get support from one of the many other sources that I mentioned earlier, and that was not an exhaustive list.
I recognise that many people in the groups that we have talked about today fully intend to continue in their current jobs. However, we are investing to help those who decide to seek new opportunities. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced a £2.9 billion restart programme, which will provide intensive and tailored support to help people to find work.
I listened to the range of contributions from constituents across the country. It is very, very challenging for us to provide support for every single group that is struggling at this time, but I reiterate our willingness to continue to work with groups, including IPSE, the relevant APPG, the FSB and others, that bring forward proposals. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is engaged in many of those conversations. As we move through into the new year, we will continue to look at the new schemes.
Our overriding goal has been to provide as much support as we can to people and businesses, and as rapidly as possible. We acknowledge that we have not been able to help everyone in the way that we would ideally want to, but that has not been a wilful disregard for their situation; it is based on the challenges of verifying. It is not attributing any blame to them either. We have succeeded in supporting millions of people and businesses through this intensely difficult time, and we will continue to do our very best until we have beaten coronavirus.
Munira Wilson
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed so powerfully to the debate. We have heard so many stories and about so many sectors, many of which, such as the live events industry and the weddings industry, will be among the last to return because of the nature of coronavirus.
I gently say to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) that, yes, undoubtedly some of the 3 million are high earners, but the stories we have heard today, and a lot of the surveys, show that a many of those people are struggling to get by. Believe me, I know some of the freelancers who work in the creative industries and who now live from hand to mouth. I know that the Minister and, indeed, Conservative Members, are keen to recognise what the Government have done—I am sorry if that did not come through strongly enough in my speech. I said the coronavirus job retention scheme and self-employment income support scheme are very welcome, and they have been important lifelines for millions of people, but we are asking for parity for those who have been left out.
I will pick up a couple of points of detail that the Minister gave us about the £50,000 threshold and the average for people over that threshold. If the Government are worried about that, why not look at a taper? If they were worried about people who do not necessarily need support and who are high earners, why did they not put a similar threshold in place for the furlough scheme? It is quite possible that two employees earning £100,000 got furlough payments, but somebody who earned £51,000 through self-employment got no support. How is that fair? The Treasury Committee actually pointed out that example.
The Minister also talked about people who get less than 50% of their income from self-employment—they get a minimal amount through that source. As I and others have said, they often earn through PAYE, but some of those are short-term contracts. All that data is with HMRC, and, as we have heard, it is not beyond the wit of some of the very intelligent officials to work through those solutions.
I am grateful that the Minister confirmed that he will look at some of the solutions, and I am very grateful that, finally, after months of asking, a Minister—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—is meeting officers of the APPG and representatives of the various excluded groups. Hopefully, they will look at some of the really detailed solutions that have been put forward, beyond those that the Minister referred to. I also welcome the great campaign of the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on supermarkets. If some of that money can be ploughed in to fill the gaps, that would be fantastic.
If Conservative Members will not listen to Opposition Members, there are many other Conservative Members who have made the case. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) that many affected people are Tory voters. In fact, Iain Dale said to me on LBC a few months ago, “Munira, I don’t understand; these are Tory supporters. Why isn’t this Government helping them?” I said, “I don’t know. Go and ask your friends in the Tory party.”
If the points that I made about mental health are too emotive, and if the arguments around fairness do not cut through with Ministers, they should look at what makes economic sense, as the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), said.
If the Minister will indulge me, I will return to my fantastic storybook in the 40 seconds I have left. After the storm ended and Bear recognised the talents of all the hard-working mice who were left out, he apologised to all the mice and promised that they will never be ignored again: “Mouse was so happy that she painted a special picture and when it was sold, Mouse made not one, not two, but three piles of food—one for her, one for Bear and this time a much, much bigger one for all the mice to share.”
That is an allegory about the economic benefits of helping those who have been excluded. I look forward to hearing a slightly different response the next time we come back to this debate. Hopefully, there will not be a next time—the Minister will solve it before Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for people ineligible for Government covid-19 support schemes.
Written Statements
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Companies House: Reform
(3 years, 4 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 (Paul Scully)
My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Climate Change and Corporate Responsibility (Lord Callanan) has today made the following statement:
The Government have today published three further consultations to take forward their plans to reform the UK’s register of company information and give businesses greater confidence in who they are doing business with.
These consultations follow the Government’s response to the 2019 consultation to enhance the role of Companies House and increase the transparency of companies and other legal entities, which was published on 18 September 2020.
The key proposals of the consultations are:
Querying power consultation: Companies House will have new powers to query information, which will be exercised on a risk-based approach. The consultation also explores how its powers will be strengthened in a range of areas, including to close various loopholes and remove information from the companies register.
Accounts filing consultation: This consultation invites views on how companies might in future be able to file accounts once with Government, instead of providing separate filings to Companies House, HMRC and other agencies. We are also reviewing the way small companies submit accounts to get the balance right between minimising burdens whilst ensuring the information provided is actually informative. We are also proposing to require all companies to file accounts to Companies House in digital formats, and to give Companies House more powers to check information in those accounts.
Corporate directors’ consultation: To tackle opaque corporate structures, we propose that corporate directors will be prohibited unless their own boards comprise all natural persons, and those natural persons have their identities verified.
These consultations are another important step in the developing the detail of our package of reforms and will have a negligible impact on the speed at which incorporation and other filings are completed: we still expect the vast majority of companies to be able to incorporate easily within 24 hours.
A copy of the consultations will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS634]
Lifetime Skills Guarantee
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
In his announcement about the Lifetime Skills Guarantee in September, the Prime Minister set out his vision to transform the training and skills system for the 21st century economy and help the country to build back better from the coronavirus pandemic. As a country, and as a Government, we believe passionately that everyone should be helped to reach their potential, and that opportunities to do so, across a lifetime, must be increased. Today I am pleased to be able to update both Houses on key steps we are taking to deliver the Lifetime Skills Guarantee through a major extension to the level 3 entitlement for adults, which will be funded from the National Skills Fund.
Now more than ever we need to ensure adults can upskill and retrain, to support the immediate economic recovery and to boost the nation’s skills with the expertise employers need, which is a key part of the Government’s plan for jobs. It is also vital that we deliver for the large number of adults who do not go straight from school to university.
The National Skills Fund is a long-term, substantial investment of £2.5 billion—£3 billion including devolved Administrations—which will drive adult retraining and support our ambitious agenda for reform of further education. It is essential that adults reap the benefits of our reform through a skills system that meets their needs along with the needs of employers across the nation.
Starting from April 2021, any adult looking to achieve their first full level 3— which is equivalent to a technical certificate or diploma, or two full A-levels—will be able to access a fully funded course. This will give them new skills and greater prospects in the labour market. We will ensure that if they choose to study a short course this will not prevent them from taking a further course. We plan to spend £95 million on this important new commitment in year one. This will include a funding uplift for qualifications included in this offer, to support providers to scale up their level 3 provision for adults and meet the needs of learners as we build back better from the pandemic.
It is important that this is a truly national offer, and we must ensure that all learners can access this valuable training regardless of where they live. We are working closely with providers and local areas, including the mayoral combined authorities and Greater London Authority, to ensure this national offer is delivered effectively across the nation and that funding is targeted at valuable subjects that are a key priority for the nation.
We have identified a range of qualifications that will meet current and future skills needs across the nation, and have engaged with business representatives, local areas and education and training providers on the development of the qualifications list. We have focused on provision that ensures good returns for individuals, employers and the economy, as well as those most critical skill areas.
We will keep the course list under regular review to ensure it adapts to the changing needs of the economy. Adults accessing this new level 3 adult offer can do so in the confidence that they will be gaining skills that are valued by employers and will help them secure a better job that may have previously been out of reach. There will be a facility for awarding organisations and local areas to suggest additions to the list.
The courses on offer will deliver a wide range of skills that will open the door to many jobs and sectors. Qualifications in these sector subject areas will help individuals access new jobs and, in many cases, earn higher wages too. From April we will be offering access to qualifications to support the following areas:
Engineering
Building and Construction
Manufacturing Technologies
Transportation Operations and Maintenance
Business Management
Public Services
Accounting and Finance
Medicine and Dentistry
Horticulture and Forestry
Health and Social Care
ICT Practitioners
ICT for Users
Mathematics and Statistics
Science
Agriculture
Nursing and Vocations and Subjects Allied to Medicine
Child Development and Wellbeing
Environmental conservation
Teaching and lecturing
Warehousing and distribution
We will continue to build on our wider plans for adult skills and I will update the House on our progress in due course. In the meantime, we will continue to engage closely with stakeholders as we progress and develop detailed plans for the National Skills Fund, including our consultation planned for spring next year.
[HCWS632]
High Streets: Rent Arrears Moratorium
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
I have today laid a statutory instrument that will extend the moratorium on commercial landlords’ right to forfeit a lease due to the non-payment of rent until 31 March 2021.
This will also automatically amend the commercial rent arrears recovery measures led by the Ministry of Justice, through which landlords can seize goods in lieu of unpaid rent. To ensure alignment between this measure and the moratorium, from the next quarter date on 25 December the total number of days’ outstanding rent required for this tool to be used will be increased to 366 days, and this will be in place until 31 March. Accompanying restrictions on the service of statutory demands and winding-up petitions, currently in place until 31 December, are also being extended until 31 March 2021. This means formal demands for the repayment of debt and requests to the courts to liquidate a business owing rent, cannot be made until after the final moratorium comes to an end.
The moratorium was established via section 82 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and was due to expire on 31 December 2020. It has now been extended for a final time by three months and will expire on 31 March 2021.
The objective of this extension is to protect businesses unable to pay their full rent from eviction until March 2021, taking the length of these measures to one year. This will give them time to start to recover from the impact of the pandemic, plan for the future and protect jobs. The Government have brought forward this measure to support the businesses struggling the most during the pandemic, such as those in hospitality. We are clear that those able to pay their rent, must do so.
We recognise the impact that this extension has on landlords and lenders, therefore Government are being clear that this is the final extension to this temporary measure. We expect both sides of the sector to use this time to negotiate and the Government will issue further guidance to facilitate constructive discussions.
We are aware of concerns that some tenants who could pay rent are refusing to do so. The Government are clear that this measure is not a rent holiday: where a tenant is unable to pay in full, landlords and tenants should be coming together to negotiate in good faith, using the principles set out in the voluntary code of practice we published in June. This recommends that those tenants who can pay in full should do so, those who cannot should pay what they can and those landlords who are able to grant concessions should do so. This code of practice and approach was supported by a wide range of sector bodies representing tenants and landlords.
While we have seen many constructive discussions happening between landlords and tenants, I am aware there are growing concerns that the current commercial leasehold legislation has not kept pace with the commercial realities of the sector.
I am therefore also announcing we will be launching a review of the commercial landlord and tenant relationship in the new year. The review will make recommendations to the Government on how to ensure a flexible and fit-for-purpose legislative framework that enables sustainable occupation of thriving high streets/town centres in the future. It will consider a broad range of issues including the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 part II, different models of rent payment, and the impact of coronavirus on the market; for example if we can improve the experience of UK businesses by ensuring that foreign-based landlords have an agent operating in the UK. Both landlords and tenants have previously called for such a review and I will make further announcements on the detail, including a timeline and full scope, in due course.
England, Northern Ireland and Wales are covered by the protection from forfeiture in the Coronavirus Act. Section 82 relates to England and Wales, and the Welsh Government are currently considering an extension to their equivalent moratorium. Section 83 relates to Northern Ireland, who are also considering a similar extension. The Scottish Government passed separate emergency legislation to implement similar measures.
[HCWS633]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person respecting social distancing while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Your microphone 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 so, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same.
The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Ozone-Depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the Grand Committee do consider the Ozone-Depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 32nd 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)
My Lords, there are three instruments in this group before the Committee today. Two are concerned with the regulation of chemicals and chemical products, and the third concerns the regulation of fluorinated gases and ozone-depleting substances. A common thread is that each one contains provisions necessary to implement the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland.
We have worked with the devolved Administrations on all three instruments and they have given consent. I confirm that all three instruments will be able to function with or without a deal with the European Union. I also confirm that all three instruments have been considered by the JCSI and that no issues have been drawn to the attention of the House.
The first instrument that I will cover is the Ozone-Depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The EU’s ODS regulation and F-gas regulation implement the Montreal protocol by controlling and reducing the use of ODS and HFCs, which are the main types of F-gas. Registration, licensing of production, imports and exports and quota limits underpin these controls.
The instrument will enable the UK to meet the requirements of the Northern Ireland protocol regarding restricting the use of ozone-depleting substances and fluorinated greenhouse gases, which I will refer to as ODS and F-gases from hereon. This will be done by making changes to existing EU exit legislation. The instrument also amends dates to prevent errors of law.
The Northern Ireland protocol requires that the EU F-gas and ODS regulations remain applicable to and in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will remain part of the EU’s systems. This means establishing quota systems for Great Britain that are separate from the EU systems. Producers or importers will require GB quota to place on the GB market, with businesses selling into Northern Ireland needing EU quota.
This instrument also introduces provisions to control the movement of F-gases and ODS between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This movement will be deemed as imports or exports. Controlling such movement is vital to maintain the integrity of the GB F-gas and ODS systems, meet the Northern Ireland protocol requirements, and ensure UK compliance with its Montreal protocol obligations.
The instrument meets two key principles: first, to continue our contribution to UK climate ambition through complying with our Montreal protocol obligations; and, secondly, to impose the most light-touch measures that we can on the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain while adhering to the Northern Ireland protocol and meeting our international obligations.
The previous SI, the Ozone-Depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, as amended by this instrument, will transfer powers and functions previously held by European institutions to appropriate bodies in England, Scotland and Wales. The Scottish and Welsh devolved Administrations will have the competence to establish their own ODS and F-gas systems if they choose to do so in the future. They have also agreed in principle to the operation of GB-wide ODS and F-gas systems. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted this instrument given its impact on movement of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
I now move on to the Control of Mercury (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. This instrument makes amendments to the retained EU law to ensure that legislation which 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. This instrument revokes and replaces the Control of Mercury (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, as well as Regulation 8 of the Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. These provisions are now included in this instrument. Revoking the two SIs made 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 legislation.
This instrument also amends the Control of Mercury (Enforcement) Regulations 2017. In addition, 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. There are currently no controls on the movement of these specified products containing mercury or elemental mercury between EU member states. These new requirements should prevent the uncontrolled flow of elemental mercury and the specified products containing mercury from the EU into Great Britain via Northern Ireland.
This instrument provides for the exercise, by the appropriate GB Minister, of a number of legislative functions currently carried out by the European Commission. These legislative functions were previously included in Regulation 8 of the Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. That instrument was debated in the House of Lords and House of Commons on 12 and 14 February 2019 respectively and agreed by both Committees.
Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the retained EU legislation, as amended by this instrument, will continue to implement the UK’s obligations as a party to the Minamata convention and provide a regulatory framework for the management of mercury. Northern Ireland will continue to apply EU regulation 2017/852 to manage mercury in the environment.
This SI meets the Government’s commitment to the Northern Ireland protocol and ensures continued levels of protection for human health and the environment, as well as providing stability and continuity for business.
I turn to the third and final instrument, the Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, whose primary aim 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. This has been done by amending the existing EU exit regulations on detergents, which are already in place.
I will highlight the key amendments that this instrument makes to the existing EU exit regulations. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that they are merely technical in nature. This instrument 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 to the Great Britain market, while maintaining standards of protection for the environment and human health. The technical changes made by this 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.
Trade from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK should continue to take place as it does now—that is, 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 these changes made to the existing EU exit regulations on detergents, this instrument amends the Detergents Regulations 2010—the domestic enforcement regulations on detergents—ensuring that the Northern Ireland enforcement authorities can continue to enforce the EU detergents regulation as it has effect in EU law, while the retained version of the EU detergents regulation can continue to be enforced in Great Britain. 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.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has considered and cleared this SI from scrutiny without comment. I assure Members of the Committee that the overarching aim of this 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. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I will focus on mercury today, not because ozone-depleting substances, fluorinated greenhouse gases and indeed detergents are not extremely important but because mercury is so toxic and is in use for quite a number of developmental practices. I am quite concerned that it should be taken very seriously.
Exposure to mercury is a huge problem. There is a sort of global pool that moves around between air, water, sediment, soil and, of course, organisms, including ourselves. It is a highly toxic metal which causes significant harm to human health and to ecosystems. Of particular concern are the levels of mercury in seas and oceans, where mercury accumulates up the food chain and reaches humans in concentrated mass through the consumption of seafood—it has certainly put me off seafood. The most damaging human health impact is exposure of pregnant women and unborn children, with permanent impacts on brain function, so we absolutely have to take it seriously and make sure that we are doing as much as we can to render it safe.
The EU has taken the problem of mercury very seriously. It has implemented the legislation that we are discussing today and set Europe the goal of becoming mercury-free, which is quite an ambition. Is it the Government’s intention to continue to reduce our use of mercury to zero? When will the UK eliminate mercury usage entirely? Also, will the Government do something about it internationally? We have all read newspaper stories about children looking for gold and using mercury to separate the gold out, which is absolutely horrific. Perhaps it is done already—I do not know—but there is an argument for labelling all gold from that sort of production process “mercury gold” and explaining to people why perhaps they should not buy it. It is part of our role as an engaged nation to deal with this problem internationally. It is not something that we can turn our back on. Also, mercury-polluted sites can wash out into watercourses, where mercury is released into the air. What are the Government going to do to decontaminate mercury from the environment and remediate damaged ecosystems?
I hope that the Minister can answer my questions. If not, perhaps he will write to me.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clarity of his introduction of these three sets of regulations and for outlining their intent. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for asking a number of important questions about the mercury regulations.
In many ways, these are technical amendments to ensure that our law continues to comply with the international obligations that we have signed up to, particularly the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the Minamata Convention on Mercury. I hope that we can all agree on the importance of upholding our international obligations now that the Government have stepped back from the idea of breaking international law in the internal market Bill. I hope that this episode proves a one-off aberration rather than a pattern of behaviour—although I should note that it has already caused us huge damage around the world and fundamentally undermined our ability to hold others to their international obligations. Nevertheless, at least we have stepped back from the brink.
Whether or not we disagree on that point, I think that we can certainly agree on the need to control the substances under discussion today. To that extent, I have no argument with the technical provisions included in the three sets of regulations, which are clearly necessary. However, the regulations give rise to questions about restrictions on the movement of goods within the United Kingdom, and fundamental questions about the application of the law of a foreign entity to the citizens of a part of the United Kingdom. The regulations confirm that Northern Ireland will remain within the EU market for fluorinated gases and ozone-depleting substances. Defra has confirmed that the controls would apply to the movement of all ODS gas, goods and trade between Northern Ireland and GB, including household fridges, air-conditioning products and aerosol sprays. This means that there would be checks at the GB/NI boundary—
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, the regulations confirm that Northern Ireland will remain within the EU market for fluorinated gases and ozone-depleting substances. Defra has confirmed that controls will apply to the movement of all ODS and F-gas goods and trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, including household fridges, air-conditioning products and aerosol sprays, and that this will mean checks at what it describes as the GB/Northern Ireland boundary. Can the Minister expand on the nature of the checks that will be required at the GB/NI boundary and say whether these will apply to both NI to GB and GB to NI movement, and whether export declarations will be required?
The Explanatory Memorandum also states that the regulations will provide for
“unfettered access of detergents and surfactants … from Northern Ireland into Great Britain.”
Can the Minister tell us whether there will be unfettered access of detergents from Great Britain to Northern Ireland? Will there be checks required, or any other limitations on the free movement of detergents within the customs territory of the United Kingdom?
The regulations also underline the fact that EU law will continue to apply in Northern Ireland in respect of the control of ozone-depleting substances and fluorinated gases and of detergents. Can the Minister tell us what role Parliament, and the Northern Ireland Assembly in particular, will have in scrutinising the EU law that will apply to our citizens? Should EU law change in these areas, is it the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to follow such changes in GB law, or will we diverge from the law in Northern Ireland? Given the Minister’s commitment to Brexit, I am sure that he will have considered the ramifications of the law of a foreign entity being applied to the citizens of a part of our country and will have given appropriate thought to how effective scrutiny of such law can be applied.
The Minister may be aware that this issue has been a cause of serious concern to Members of the House of Lords European Union Select Committee since the withdrawal agreement was signed. As recently as Friday 4 December, the chairman of that committee, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised this issue once again in a letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In this letter he said:
“I want to stress that, with now less than a month to go until the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland becomes operational, the urgency of agreeing mechanisms for the scrutiny of the EU laws that will apply to Northern Ireland under the protocol is acute.”
Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister could cast some light on when the Government intend to address these issues and why the people of Northern Ireland are being treated so disrespectfully by them leaving it so late to put in place the necessary mechanisms to do so.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these SIs this afternoon and for the helpful discussion that we were able to have beforehand.
I will look first at the ozone-depleting substances and fluorinated greenhouse gases regulations. The Minister has explained that their purpose is to implement the Northern Ireland protocol, specifically in relation to restrictions on the use of ozone-depleting substances and fluorinated greenhouse gases. As a result of the changes proposed by this instrument, as we have heard, two separate systems will operate in Northern Ireland and Great Britain after the end of the transition period, with controls on the movement of relevant gases, substances and equipment requiring checks between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked a number of questions in this area, and I am interested to hear the Minister’s response.
The department says that this approach is necessary to implement the protocol and to ensure that the UK remains compliant with its international obligations and can deliver its wider climate change commitments. What work has been carried out by the department on the potential practical impacts on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain?
This instrument amends a previous EU exit SI, rather than revoking and replacing it. There is an inconsistency in Defra’s approach to this legislation. Some instruments have provided an element of consolidation, but others have slightly muddied the waters. Look at the SIs in front of us today. Paragraph 3.1 in the EM for the new regulations for the control of mercury states that it is completely replacing the previous SI, whereas others are just adding to them. It would be interesting to get some clarification of the department’s thinking on the latest instruments we have been looking at.
Looking in more detail at the ozone-depleting substances regulations, we see that paragraph 2.8 of the EM notes that current Commission competences will be transferred to England, Scotland and Wales. Can the Minister confirm whether this will be a complete and like-for-like transfer of powers, or whether there are some areas which have been deemed surplus to requirements?
Paragraph 2.10 notes that the devolved Administrations can establish and operate their own systems if they want to, and the Minister referred to this in his introduction. What consultation was carried out with them and has the Minister had any indication of whether this is the direction they would like to take? If so, what kind of timescales are we looking at?
Paragraphs 10.1 and 11.1 mention the detailed technical guidance on how the ODS and F-gas systems will operate in GB after the end of the implementation period. Paragraph 11.1 explicitly states that this was due to be published in October. Can the Minister confirm whether this has actually happened, and, if so, when it was published? Has the promised engagement with industry now also been undertaken?
Finally on this SI, paragraph 14.1 confirms that the EU requirement for a review of the regulation by 2022 will be retained, with the Secretary of State and devolved Administrations to carry out this task, either together or separately. Does the Minister have any idea how long this process is expected to take and when it is likely to commence?
I turn to the control of mercury regulations. We have recently considered a number of SIs to implement the Northern Ireland protocol which have not raised any concerns in relation to trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, drew attention to the extreme toxicity of mercury. Paragraph 2.7 of the EM outlines the new procedural requirements for products containing mercury to move between the two, including a prohibition on the movement of mercury-added products in both directions. I draw attention to this because it is a major departure from the current system, where products can move freely between EU members. Can the Minister give further detail about the department’s thinking in drawing up this new system?
Paragraph 10.2 states that the market for such goods is
“small and decreasing in size”
and that data indicates it will affect only a
“small number of imports per year.”
The Minister referenced in his introduction paragraph 10.3, which states that industry engagement suggests
“there is very little movement of any elemental mercury or mercury added products”
between Northern Ireland and Great Britain or between Great Britain and the EU. Does the Minister have an estimate of how many movements we are looking at? Does he see any practical problems that could arise from the approach being taken?
Finally, I turn to the detergents amendment. The Minister has already explained that, among other things, this instrument will allow the continued movement of detergents and surfactants from Northern Ireland to Great Britain after the end of the transition period. Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that while movement will be maintained, so will safeguard measures within Great Britain to protect human health and the environment. The SI also amends a couple of EU-derived regulations, as well as making minor amendments to previous exit SIs to ensure compatibility with the Northern Ireland protocol. We have no real concerns on this SI and are pleased to note that the devolved Administrations were given the opportunity to comment during the drafting of the proposals.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to my earlier questions.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, as I said at the start of the debate, these instruments are necessary to make sure that the Northern Ireland protocol is implemented properly. They correct operability deficiencies necessary for the implementation of the protocol. They also respond to the Government’s commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods and help to make sure that we are fully prepared for the end of the transition period on 31 December. These instruments will also ensure that the UK continues to meet its international obligations for mercury as a party to the Minamata convention, and for fluorinated gases and ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal protocol. They will also ensure that we continue to maintain the high standards of biodegradability for detergents and surfactants. The contents of all three are low key and technical, but they are all essential to fulfil our obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol and 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 noble Lords for their contributions and questions. I will endeavour to answer as many of them as I can, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Oates. With his permission, I will not engage on the issue of the UK internal market Bill, as it is slightly off-topic, but I heard his comments and very much note them.
The noble Lord made a number of interesting and useful points. Broadly, on our intentions in relation to the Government’s application and maintenance of high standards in future, we have been clear that we will maintain the existing regulation of mercury and will continue to fulfil the UK’s commitments under the Minamata convention. This is an answer to a number of contributions: we will not look to diverge for the sake of it. In relation to detergents, the decisions we make will reflect what is best for the UK and the environment. In future, there may be some divergence over time between the GB and EU regimes, but that will be based on what is in our interest and on independent decision-making, and in the context of wanting to maintain the highest possible standards. Having the freedom to make our own decisions based on the science that we have and tailored to the needs of our businesses categorically does not mean reducing standards in any meaningful sense at all, as we have made clear.
In relation to our global obligations, the UK in its entirety is obliged to comply with the obligations set out under the UN Montreal protocol. Those obligations relate primarily to consumption controls. From 1 January, compliance will be achieved by controlling consumption within Great Britain through licensing and quotas, and by maintaining oversight of consumption in Northern Ireland, which will be controlled through the EU F-gas and ODS regulation. The UK will report to the UN Ozone Secretariat on UK annual consumption.
The noble Lord asked about the border and how movements and transactions will be monitored and how enforcement will take place. As he would expect, there will be close co-operation between the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments in the operation of the GB system, and continuous dialogue of course with Northern Ireland. Officials of the Administrations, including Northern Ireland for UK-level matters, are working on the UK common framework for F-gas and ODS, which will set out the arrangements for co-operation, including the governance arrangements, decision-making and dispute resolution procedures.
In no particular order, because I have managed to write the questions down in no particular order, I will address some of the important points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. She raises the issue of the toxicity of mercury, and mentioned a story that I do not think I have read about children in Ghana. There are many such examples, and the problem is not limited to Ghana. Illegal mining takes place throughout parts of the Amazon, particularly Colombia, where the effects on the water systems and the health of people, including young children, are abhorrent. It is a really toxic, destructive and dangerous substance. She rightly said that the EU had taken the issue of mercury seriously, and the UK has absolutely been part of that; indeed, the UK has been a leading voice in maintaining standards at the appropriate level. We will remain strongly committed to the effective and safe management of chemicals to protect both the environment and the public, and that will not change after the transition period. We will continue to implement decisions made internationally under the Minamata convention, on which this legislation is based.
The noble Baroness asked when the UK will eliminate mercury usage entirely. Use of mercury in dental amalgam is an issue that often comes up; that will continue to be the main use of mercury in the UK. I am told that the UK Chief Dental Officers are considering how to reduce the use of dental amalgam, as laid out in the national plan to phase down the use of dental amalgam, published in June last year. I admit that this is not an area that I have followed closely in terms of their plans for the future but, like her, I hope that they take a very enthusiastic and bullish approach to minimising, and eventually eliminating, exposure to mercury.
The noble Baroness asked what the Government are doing internationally to end the use of mercury. The UK is a party in its own right to the Minamata convention and will continue to uphold and fulfil our obligations under it, which includes reducing man-made emissions to the environment. Existing legislation has driven down the use of mercury significantly. We have seen emissions of mercury to air decline by 90% in the last 30 years. A commitment to further reduce land-based emissions of mercury to air and water by 50% by 2030 is set out in the Government’s 25-year environment plan, to which we are very much committed.
The last point the noble Baroness raised was on mercury-polluted sites and what we can do to clear them up. I point out that, technically, it is the responsibility of the local authorities to identify and prioritise contaminated land remediation where there is an unacceptable risk to health and the environment as under Part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act, but Part 2 also outlines the “polluter pays” principle regarding contaminated land remediation. This is very much a central theme in the Environment Bill, which will shortly come to the House. Applied rigorously and properly, and robustly enforced, the “polluter pays” principle would create a strong lever to prevent those responsible for mercury releases from doing so. The only way to ensure that in future we will see less of this kind of pollution will be through turning that pollution into a very serious financial liability. That is what the “polluter pays” principle does, and for as long as I am Minister, I want to enforce and press it very firmly.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I thank her for her time earlier, when we chatted through some of these issues and she raised some of her concerns. I will have to whizz through this, but I will try to get through it.
This SI amends the previous EU SI, but the noble Baroness asked whether there are any surplus elements—is it amended, revoked or revised? The previous exit SI will remain in place, but it is amended by this SI to implement the protocol on Northern Ireland/Ireland. The SI also amends dates in the previous EU SI that fell before the end of the implementation period to prevent errors of law. The noble Baroness asked whether the transferral was like for like or whether there are any changes in relation to paragraph 2.8. The transfer of functions is, as she asks, like for like, or at least it is as like for like as is feasibly possible. There will be some changes to account for differences in the UK and EU processes—for example, EU references to “implementing acts” have been replaced with references to “regulations”—but it is effectively like for like.
The noble Baroness asked whether the devolved Administrations are likely to set up their own systems. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have agreed in principle to GB-wide systems administered by the Environment Agency. This will involve devolved Ministers consenting to various functions being administered on their behalf by the Secretary of State and directing the Environment Agency to administer certain regulatory functions. At this stage, the DAs have not expressed any plans to establish and operate their own systems, but they will have the power to do so, if they so choose.
The noble Baroness referenced paragraphs 10.1 and 11.1 on technical guidance and asked when it will be published, or indeed if it has. It was published on 15 October and was shared with stakeholders, and it can be found on the government website.
In reference to paragraph 14.1, the noble Baroness asked how long the process will take and when it is likely to start. We plan to formally launch the review process early in 2021 and we envisage that it could take between 12 and 18 months. However, in any case, we have to publish a report following the review no later than by the end of 2022.
I am out of time—my apologies. I will write to the noble Baroness with answers to the remaining questions.
Control of Mercury (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the Grand Committee do consider the Control of Mercury (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the Grand Committee do consider the Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.45 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, in order to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same.
Hazardous Substances and Packaging (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the Grand Committee do consider the Hazardous Substances and Packaging (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 32nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, the Hazardous Substances and Packaging (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 make small but important changes to ensure that our existing domestic legislation reflects that the UK is no longer part of the EU. Both instruments take power back from the European Commission, which will allow the UK to maintain its high environmental standards. The instruments require the Government to carry out a public consultation before using these powers.
I will take each instrument in turn. The Hazardous Substances and Packaging (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 cover two different subject areas: first, regulation of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, or EEE; and, secondly, regulation of essential requirements for packaging—that is, the requirements producers need to fulfil if they place packaging on the market, such as manufacturing and composition requirements.
Hazardous substances in EEE are regulated by the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012—the so-called RoHS regulations, which implement an EU directive, the RoHS directive. This instrument transfers to the Secretary of State powers currently held by the European Commission under the RoHS directive. After the end of the transition period, these powers will allow the Secretary of State to grant, renew or revoke exemptions to the restriction of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment as specified in the RoHS regulations. Exemptions allow the use of restricted hazardous substances above threshold limits for specific uses, such as solders in medical equipment. The Secretary of State will also be allowed to amend the list of restricted substances and maximum concentration values, and to prescribe detailed rules for complying with maximum concentration values.
These powers will apply in England, Wales and Scotland, but not in Northern Ireland. This is because the RoHS directive will continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period due to the Northern Ireland protocol. These changes are vital, as the instrument will allow the Secretary of State to make important decisions on RoHS.
The instrument also amends the RoHS regulations and the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2015. It amends both those regulations separately for Great Britain and for Northern Ireland.
The amendments to the RoHS regulations for Great Britain introduce key measures to ensure a smooth end to the transition period for businesses placing manufactured goods on the GB market. These include transitional provisions for importer labelling to provide a 24-month period in which importer details can be provided on accompanying documentation, and a similar transitional provision for the application of the new UK marking, which will replace the European Union’s CE marking. This will provide businesses with more time before undertaking relabelling.
The instrument also ensures that, except for qualifying Northern Ireland goods, the automatic recognition in Great Britain of EEE meeting EU requirements will expire 12 months after the end of the transition period. It amends both the RoHS regulations and the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations to make provision for access for “qualifying Northern Ireland goods” to the GB market.
Finally, the instrument amends the RoHS regulations and the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations separately for Northern Ireland. The amendments applying in Northern Ireland are more limited. They are to reflect that the RoHS directive and the packaging directive will continue to apply in Northern Ireland, though not the rest of the United Kingdom, by virtue of the Northern Ireland protocol. They will allow the UK to meet its obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol relating to packaging and RoHS.
We have ensured that the changes for Northern Ireland are as minimal as possible, while also allowing the UK to fulfil its obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. However, there are some unavoidable costs for businesses as a result of the amendments to the RoHS regulations, including familiarisation and new labelling costs.
No impact assessment was prepared for the instrument as any costs to, or benefits for, businesses, charities and voluntary bodies were predicted to fall below £5 million in one year.
This instrument is reserved as it covers specific technical standards and requirements on all businesses in relation to products, which is a reserved matter under all three devolution settlements.
I turn to the second instrument, the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. This instrument includes a mixture of devolved and reserved content. We have worked with the devolved Administrations on this instrument and it has received consent from Scottish and Welsh Ministers, but DAERA Ministers have decided not to provide consent on this SI. However, given that time to make this 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 this SI without consent. We will continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive in the coming days to resolve outstanding concerns in advance of making this SI.
This 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.
The instrument also makes some small technical amendments to provisions of earlier EU exit SIs that amend domestic legislation relating to batteries, and it changes the extent of amendments in an earlier EU exit SI to the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances regulations and the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations so that they do not extend to Northern Ireland. These changes are needed to reflect 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 NI requirements exactly the same for batteries on the ground that there will be no changes to 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. This power will allow the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations to establish their own lists of waste or to 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 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—for example, because 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. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear explanation. I will focus primarily on the first of these two instruments, although I express concern that, as he has just told us, there is not full devolved consent to the second one. I hope that can be resolved very quickly.
I begin with the department’s response to the submission from ClientEarth to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, specifically on the point about the transferring of the competent national authority position in England. The departmental response says that the Environment Agency will continue to act as the competent authority.
I note that in October this year, just a couple of months ago, the chair of the Environment Agency called for greater funding from the Government to help the enforcement body to better prevent pollution—the issue that this SI addresses. In response to an article published in the Times on 24 October which reported that there had been a sharp rise in serious breaches of pollution rules designed to protect people and wildlife, the chair of the Environment Agency said in a Defra blog:
“We constantly innovate to do more with less. But ultimately we will get the environment we pay for. A core part of that is funding the Environment Agency properly. The government has an opportunity to do that in this year’s spending review. We hope it will.”
I have checked the spending review documents and, so far as I can see, there is none of the extra funding that has been asked for—you might say begged for—but I would be delighted if the Minister could tell me I had missed something. It would have to be a very big offering in the spending review, given that in March a report on Greenpeace’s Unearthed blog revealed that a surge in pollution incidents driven by climate change was “overwhelming” the staff. That came on top of data showing that teams tasked with responding to pollution incidents have seen their numbers decline by 15% since 2015.
All the SIs that we are debating now seem to create extra responsibilities and extra work, so the question is where the resources are going to come from, given that we have a huge regulatory gap already. I note the invaluable report in 2019 by the Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment, in coalition with 19 other organisations. It revealed that funding for 10 environmental and social regulators fell by 50% on average between 2009 and 2017 in real terms, with the Environment Agency budget down by 62%. The total number of full-time staff working at these regulators was down by 30% over the period, with spending by local authorities and fire authorities down by 35%. Before these regulations and before the end of the transition period, we had, however limited it may have been, oversight through the EU and, as ClientEarth has successfully used, the legal mechanisms through that.
The departmental response said that once the office for environmental protection is established and functioning, it will take over these roles. That is a debate for another day, but it highlights the importance of the independence and funding of that body, as a crucial body in maintaining our environmental health in the UK. In the meantime, as ClientEarth put it, we will have the Government regulating themselves. We have a period of uncertainty—a hiatus, rather like we have in your Lordships’ House’s Forthcoming Business at the moment.
Since we have just had a report from the Environmental Audit Committee, I want to turn to the broader issue of electronic waste in general. In this very Committee last week I referred to a need for a right to repair, as the committee in the other place has done. The report notes that the UK creates the second highest level of electronic waste in the world after Norway—we are almost world-leading, but not, I hope, in a way that the Government would intend. A lot of the electronic waste that these regulations refer to currently goes to landfill or incineration, and some 40% of it is dumped overseas. The MPs on the committee noted that the Environment Agency was again not doing nearly enough to monitor where that waste was going and how often it was going abroad illegally.
The committee also noted the fact that we have online retailers making massive profits but not taking responsibility for the products they get those profits from. I have so many things to mention that I am going to run out of time.
Finally, if we are to be practical, let us bring this down to earth. Here in Sheffield, where I am talking to noble Lords from, there are no bins in local areas for electronic waste. There are no bins that you can walk to and put electronic waste in. There is no range of bins in supermarkets and hardware stores, as there is in many parts of the continent, where electronic waste, such as light bulbs, can be deposited. Here, we are dealing with the detail, but I ask the Minister to make sure that the Government consider the huge and wide-ranging problem—the tsunami, as the Commons committee described it—of electronic waste, which we must deal with and get a grip on very soon.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I agree with much of what she said. My understanding is that the changes introduced by my noble friend in these two welcome SIs are part of the circular economy; obviously, that rationalises waste disposal, so it would be a good thing.
I want to make a general comment to my noble friend in thanking him for introducing these regulations. We are coming to the end of multiple statutory instruments over a period of two or three months. His department has borne the brunt of them, so I thank him and our noble friends Lord Gardiner and Lady Bloomfield for all their work. I also thank the team of officials at Defra for preparing for these measures and bringing us to this place.
I have a couple of questions. One is a general question relating to both sets of regulations. My noble friend said that a period of consultation would be held before the powers laid out in the regulations came into effect. Can he explain what form that consultation will take? Will it be a proper consultation period of at least two months? Also, will he undertake to publish all responses to the consultation in full so that those of us with an interest can see whether there are any issues pertaining to it?
In paragraph 62 of its 32nd report, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee mentioned that it
“received a submission from ClientEarth which raises concerns about a potential lessening of consultation requirements and a weakening of the objective to protect human health and the environment.”
Against that background, in what circumstances would the protections be changed? Can my noble friend give the Committee an undertaking that the objective would not in any way seek to compromise the protection of human health and the environment? I know how much he cares passionately for the environment so I am sure that he will confirm that that is not the case, but ClientEarth raised this issue during the committee’s scrutiny so it is worthy of a response.
On the waste and environmental permitting regulations, my noble friend said that DAERA had not given its consent. He went on to say that, when the amendments are brought forward under the powers set out in these regulations, the department would need the consent of the devolved Administrations to bring these powers into effect. If DAERA continued to withhold its consent, what would happen? Could it simply not bring these regulations into effect in Northern Ireland? Finally, can he share with us the reason why DAERA has been unable to give its consent to date?
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I shall restrict my comments to the changes in the waste and environmental permitting regulations. I have questions for the Minister relating to assurances—even guarantees—on crossover and legacy issues.
I have spent a disproportionate amount of my life over the past five years dealing with orphan waste sites and the inability of the British state at every level to get on top of the problem. It is a nationwide problem. It manifests in public when orphan waste sites are set alight, with spectacular fires and consequential dangerous pollution leading to the evacuation of commercial and domestic premises for rational safety purposes. I have looked at this issue in detail; there is nobody at any level in the Environment Agency whom I have not had visit at least one orphan waste site, including one that I am very familiar with and live not too far from.
I note that, in most parts of the country, five authorities are responsible: district councils, county councils, the Environment Agency, HMRC—because of the landfill tax—and the Crown Estate, which, if a site is orphaned, then owns it. That is five arms of governance dealing with one problem.
The problem is not straightforward to deal with but straightforward to understand. Hazardous waste is moved around sites, usually at night. The sites are permitted but no one is sure what exactly is on them. When the authorities catch up with it, the hazardous waste moves to another site; or, when it reaches the culmination of the cycle of illegal movement, the owners of the site—the permit holders—disappear. They vanish. The site becomes orphaned and, by law, ends up in the ownership of the Crown Estate, which sees it not as an asset but as a liability and waits on others to find a way to sort out its liability.
The waste therefore remains with no one agency able to have total power of responsibility for removing it; it is a shared responsibility. If two-tier authorities, with district councils and county councils plus the Environment Agency, manage to negotiate with HMRC an important agreement that landfill tax could be removed—that is 85% of the cost of the removal of hazardous waste—that itself does not bring a site back into productive use for waste or other purposes.
At some stage, the Minister needs to crack this problem. Perhaps he could crack a few heads together and simplify the system, for better or for worse, and ensure a clear designation of ownership of the problem. There will never be a resolution with it split between five arms of the state. The roundabout will carry on going on.
Specifically and importantly on the regulations before us, and this is a key reason for my speaking, I have noted how the law has been carefully manipulated over the past few years in many parts of the country to avoid problems and to allow re-permitting. Are there any legacy or crossover issues in relation to this change that would allow an operator to have ongoing investigations ignored when it comes to application of the new legislation, which itself might be a rationale given to allow re-permitting, and therefore the continuation of the cycle, even of the same operators whose practices have appeared incredibly dubious in the past but were not criminally prosecuted? How will those legacy crossover issues be dealt with? Are they an issue? If they are not, that would be reassuring to know, because many investigations go back many years—I could cite some that go back more than two decades in terms of the evidence base required. Is there any risk therefore in this change of unforeseen circumstances that could give the illegal or inappropriate operator powers that the Government would not wish them to have?
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this SI has been prepared by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It transfers legislative functions currently conferred on the European Commission by directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment to be exercisable instead by the Secretary of State in relation to England, Wales and Scotland after the end of the EU exit transition period. The directive requires member states to ensure that electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market does not contain certain hazardous substances.
The legislative powers conferred on the Commission by the RoHS directive are transferred into domestic law so that the list of restricted substances in EEE may be amended following reviews, and exemptions may be granted, renewed or revoked by secondary legislation. The SI transfers powers under the RoHS directive currently held by the European Commission to the Secretary of State in relation to England, Wales and Scotland. There is bound to be an impact on businesses. Can the Minister explain whether those who breach the guidelines will be fined and, if so, up to what level?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
I thank the Minister for his introduction in setting out these two statutory instruments. As he said, they make minor adjustments to enable the Secretary of State to carry out functions relating to packaging and restriction of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment.
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Hazardous Substances and Packaging (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations is bland and reassuring. However, the instrument is full of detail and percentages relating to some very hazardous substances such as cadmium, mercury and lead, and the uses to which they are put. While this is alarming, there is no change to the use to which the substances are put; it is only to who will be responsible for licensing.
Paragraph 12.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that minimal costs are involved in changing labelling and packaging for business, charities and voluntary bodies—these are stated to be below £5 million, which I am sure is the case. However, given the severe impact of the Covid epidemic, particularly on charities and voluntary bodies, I wonder whether this might be the last straw for some that have suffered severe loss of income during the past year. Taking this into account, will the Government consider covering the cost of repackaging and relabelling to comply with the law for those who are not businesses but who would find the cost unsustainable?
The Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 also deal with classification of what is deemed hazardous waste material. It will be important for the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations to be able to make legislation that is appropriate for each authority once power has passed from the EU to the United Kingdom. Consultation between the devolved Administrations and the Secretary of State on any proposed modifications to the directives will be essential, otherwise confusion will ensue.
Paragraph 6.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the list of EU directives on waste management in Statutory Instrument 2019/188. Having looked this up, it all came flooding back to me, as we debated this last year. I remember particularly the issue of end-of-life vehicles.
As we begin the transfer to wholly electric vehicles, a significant number of petrol and diesel-driven vehicles will need to be disposed of. All will have components classed as waste, including batteries, which are classed as hazardous waste. The volume of these vehicles is such that scrap yards are likely to be extremely busy. Much of their business is around reclaiming parts that are then sold on to owners looking to repair their vehicles. As the number of petrol and diesel vehicles diminishes, this trade in spare parts is also likely to diminish. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to the volume of electronic device waste. It would be somewhat unfair of me to ask the Minister whether the Government have made any plans to deal with the sheer volume of vehicles needing to be scrapped as we move to electric, but perhaps he could write to me with an answer.
Apart from that, I am content with this statutory instrument, which merely replicates current EU legislation and makes only minor amendments, such as replacing “exit day” with “IP completion day”. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this short debate.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these SIs this afternoon and for our helpful conversations this morning. I shall speak first to the hazardous substances and packaging regulations 2020. As we have heard, these draft regulations propose to transfer the legislative functions from the European Commission to the Secretary of State in relation to England, Scotland and Wales after the end of the transition period. The instrument also proposes changes to help ensure that the UK meets its obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol.
The Minister referred to paragraph 12.3 of the EM, which states:
“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because no significant impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies is foreseen”.
But this is an important transfer of powers. Paragraph 12.1 of the EM states:
“There will be an impact on business.”
So there is an impact on business, but there is no impact assessment because no impact is foreseen. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify what assessment has been done of an impact and how severe it is.
Paragraph 2.4 of the EM states that allowing future changes to the list of restricted substances, exemptions and so on by secondary legislation is appropriate because it will enable changes,
“of a technical nature, to be made in a timely and proportionate manner.”
While it may be appropriate for most technical changes to be made in this way, will the Minister commit to ensure that there is appropriate scrutiny of any future SI that may make more substantive changes?
Paragraphs 10.1 and 10.2 of the EM mention “regular discussions” between the relevant departments and agencies. How regular have such discussions been? Is there a need for ongoing discussions beyond the end of the transition period and, if so, would they take place regularly or just on an ad hoc basis where necessary?
The department has also stated that it is “the Government’s intention” to carry out public consultation. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady McIntosh, both mentioned ClientEarth’s concerns about a potential lessening of consultation requirements and a weakening of the objective to protect human health and the environment. Can the Minister confirm that a public consultation—including seeking the views of environmental groups—will be carried out when the list of substances is amended? Can he provide any information as to when this may start and the length of consultation we are looking at? As others have asked, can he also confirm that the power to amend the list of substances will not be used to weaken environmental protection?
The EM also outlines the cost implications of these changes, which the Minister and others have mentioned, particularly of new labelling requirements. What kind of window will there be for adjustment to the new requirements? In the case of GIs on food products, an earlier SI said that the UK label and logo would not become fully operational for three years. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned the fact that the Covid-19 pandemic has caused many businesses financial difficulties. Could the Minister see whether the Government can provide support to businesses during this transition period to the new system?
The second instrument, the waste and environmental permitting regulations, is much lengthier and amends a variety of existing EU exit SIs, both to correct deficiencies and to bring legislation up to date following recent developments in EU law, and again to implement the Northern Ireland protocol. The Schedule is a lengthy list of revocations—14 in total. These are briefly referenced in the Explanatory Memorandum, but there is no justification or explanation for them. I know that the Minister gave some clarification of the reasons behind these revocations during his introduction, but it would be useful to have more detail in the document as to the reasons. Is it because the measures being revoked are unnecessary in the context of us having left the EU, or, if they are necessary, are provisions being found elsewhere? That is just so we have a proper understanding of the reasoning behind this.
As a final piece of clarification, the third bullet point in paragraph 7.1 of the EM notes that some legislation that provides for EU directives has been superseded by the circular economy package, meaning that
“The opportunity has also been taken, in a few places, to simplify provisions”.
Can the Minister confirm what practical changes, if any, will come through from those changes?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. As we look forward to the transition period ending, it is essential that our legislation reflects this new future. I will do my best in the time allowed to address the questions put to me. I will do so in no particular order.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, raised the important issue of legacy or cross-over issues. He wanted reassurance that no issues can arise where prosecutions have been ongoing regarding orphan sites. I reassure him that nothing in the SI will lead to investigations or prosecutions related to orphaned waste sites, or any other type of waste crime, being paused, discontinued or otherwise disrupted. I hope that answers his question. I am happy to continue that discussion afterwards if it does not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised a number of issues relating to the influx of old cars that will need to be dealt with following the new rules coming into play in 2030. On end-of-life vehicles, regulations already exist that place the financial cost of proper disposal in the hands of manufacturers. Currently, more than 90% of an average vehicle by weight is recovered or recycled. However, we plan to review the existing requirements, and in doing so will take into account the impact of the move to electric vehicles.
The noble Baroness also talked about the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations. We are reviewing those regulations with a view to driving up reuse and recycling, and to encourage better ecodesign to ensure that manufacturers and retailers, including online marketplaces and distance sellers, take full responsibility for the waste that they generate. That is a theme that runs through the Environment Bill: putting the onus, wherever possible, on producers not consumers.
I will briefly address some issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She referenced in particular the concerns raised by ClientEarth. I will say absolutely confidently and clearly on the record that the Government will not seek to lessen or weaken the protection of the environment through any future amendments to the RoHS regulations. Incidentally, if there were any changes, they would be subject to public consultation. When exercising powers under Regulation 5 of the Hazardous Substances and Packaging (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, the Secretary of State is bound by Regulation 8(1) to undertake a consultation before making regulations.
The noble Baroness mentioned the importance of the new OEP, which will come to life following the successful passage, one hopes, of the Environment Bill. She is absolutely right that the OEP has an extraordinarily important job to do. It needs to retain its independence, to be free from ministerial interference and to be sufficiently resourced. That is very much my view and that of the Government.
I scribbled down “producer responsibility”, but I think that I have already covered that. I will make the general point that that is probably the single most effective way we have to minimise waste generally, both in electrical goods and outside of them.
The noble Baroness also asked about maintaining current standards to protect consumer health, but also to protect the environment. The Government remain completely committed to ensuring that the level of protection afforded to consumers against unsafe or non-compliant goods is not in any way diminished now that the UK has left the European Union. Through our own regulatory regime, we will continue to seek to ensure that products are safe for consumers, compliant with Great Britain and Northern Ireland rules, and environmentally sustainable, with the smallest possible impact.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised a number of issues, and I thank her for calling me earlier to discuss some of them. Incidentally, I am grateful to her for her support. She cited paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum, where, she says, she has spotted a contradiction as to whether this will have an impact on business. To be clear, the withdrawal agreement Bill set out an impact assessment on the provisions governing the UK’s exit from the EU, including the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol. This SI is the detailed implementation of that policy, which has already been assessed by that impact assessment. Therefore, no new burdens need to be assessed in that regard.
The noble Baroness asked how the SI will be enforced for restricted substances and how we are making sure that any changes to the list of restricted substances are properly scrutinised. The SI will be enforced by the Office for Product Safety and Standards on behalf of the Secretary of State. Any changes to the list of restrictions will be subject to a public consultation. The noble Baroness asked whether I will commit, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to a public consultation before making any changes to the list of restricted substances. The Government will not seek to lessen or weaken the protection of the environment through any future amendments to the RoHS regulations. However, any changes would absolutely be subject to consultation —that would happen.
The noble Baroness asked about a number of other issues. She asked what transitional measures we are putting in place. New regulatory regimes will be ready to come into force immediately after the end of the transition period. However, under exceptional circumstances as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, we are now giving businesses more time to get ready to operate new UK rules, including a 24-month transition period for the application of the new UK marking, which will replace the European Union’s CE marking. During this period, importer details can be provided on accompanying documentation.
A number of noble Lords have raised the issue of supporting business through this process. As well as providing certainty for businesses about requirements, this SI provides transitional measures to help minimise the costs arising from uncertainty and to give businesses additional time, as I mentioned earlier. Additionally, this SI will ensure unfettered access for Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK, which means no new regulatory checks, customs checks or additional approvals for Northern Ireland businesses to place qualifying goods on the GB market.
The noble Baroness asked me to clarify—I hope I am getting the right Peer—how the EU circular economy package is relevant to this SI and what practical changes it involves and so on. We have had to amend our previous EU exit SIs from 2019 as the underlying EU and domestic legislation to which they related has since been amended by the EU circular economy package. In order to become up to date, we have had to revisit some of those SIs. That means that the technical references in the previous SIs are no longer relevant and no longer work. This SI rectifies that problem, as other SIs have, and ensures that our legislation will be fully operable at the end of the transition period. I was going to give examples of that, but in the interests of time, I shall move on.
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, talked about the importance of safeguarding environmental and health standards and the importance of minimising waste generally. I think I have covered most of those issues in previous answers, and I hope he is satisfied by that. If not, again, I am very happy to continue that discussion after this debate.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked a number of questions about the consultation. She asked whether any consultation would be published in full. She mentioned the EAC inquiry, and I can tell her that we will be responding in full to the EAC. I am afraid that I do not have a date, but I am assured that it will be early next year. She also spoke of the concerns raised by ClientEarth. Just to reiterate, Regulation 8(1) requires the Secretary of State to carry out consultation before making the kinds of changes that have been cited by ClientEarth as areas of concern. I hope that reassures my noble friend.
My noble friend also asked what kind of consultation had been carried out and with whom. Industry and local authorities were not consulted during the development of both SIs because of sensitivities surrounding the protocol. However, discussions were held with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the Scottish Government, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, the Environment Agency and the Office for Product Safety and Standards. Those discussions led to the approach implemented in this SI. The changes to the RoHS regulations implemented by these SIs are consistent with the Government’s approach to implementing the Northern Ireland protocol.
I am seconds away from being out of time and I am pretty sure that I have not answered all questions. My noble friend asked in what circumstances would objectives be changed—the implication being, in what circumstances would we be willing to lower environmental health standards? The answer is that we are not willing to compromise on environmental health. That is a rule and a principle to which we are absolutely committed.
I hope that I have covered most of the questions. To conclude, I trust that noble Lords understand and accept the need for these instruments—I think that is the message that we have received. They make small but important changes to existing legislation and make amendments to the legislation relating to RoHS, packaging and batteries so that the UK complies with the Northern Ireland protocol. We have tried to minimise the impact of this on business where possible. Once again, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and support today.
Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the Grand Committee do consider the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The Grand Committee now stands adjourned until 5 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desk before they leave.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person respecting social distancing while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Your microphone 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 so, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same.
The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee do consider the Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, this draft statutory instrument was laid before Parliament on 15 October. Through this instrument, we are making the necessary arrangements to implement the terms of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol in law for chemicals regulations. This will ensure that these regulations function effectively from the end of the transition period and that the existing high standard of protection for human health and the environment will be maintained.
In preparation for our exit from the European Union, a statutory instrument was made last year to ensure that the regulatory framework for chemicals remained functional after exit and to provide certainty for businesses and the public. It achieved that by making technical amendments to the retained EU law, such as changing EU-specific references and transferring functions and powers currently held by the European Commission to the appropriate authorities in each of the UK’s constituent nations.
Since the 2019 regulations were made, the withdrawal agreement, including the Northern Ireland protocol, has been agreed. The protocol requires that EU legislation will continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period. The existing EU exit legislation therefore needs to be amended to reflect the fact that retained EU law will be substantively applicable in Great Britain only.
If approved, these draft regulations will make the necessary amendments to three retained EU regulations as well as to EU-derived domestic legislation. I appreciate that the technical and composite nature of the regulations makes this particularly complex; the decision to present these proposals as a single instrument was for the benefit of the House, to reduce pressure on parliamentary time and to ensure that we are able to deliver an orderly transition. As this is such a technical instrument, I shall provide a concise summary of the regulations and the changes that we are making for noble Lords.
Of the three retained EU regulations to be amended, the first is the biocidal products regulation. This governs the placing on the market and use of products that contain chemicals which protect humans, animals, materials or articles from harmful organisms like pests or bacteria. This market covers a wide range of products such as wood preservatives, insecticides such as wasp spray, or anti-fouling paint to remove barnacles from boats.
Secondly, the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures regulation ensures that the hazardous intrinsic properties of chemicals are properly identified and effectively communicated to those throughout the supply chain, including to the point of use. The current classification laws are sophisticated and incorporate a detailed technical system of classification criteria. This classification is partly done through standardised hazard pictograms and symbols and warning phrases associated with specific hazards, such as explosivity, acute toxicity, or carcinogenicity.
Lastly, the export and import of hazardous chemicals regulations require the export of listed chemicals to be notified to the importing country and, for some chemicals, the consent of the importing country must be obtained before export can proceed.
This instrument makes three main changes, which I shall summarise. First, we are updating some transitional provisions in the 2019 regulations so that they apply from the end of the transition period, when the retained law comes into force, rather than from exit day. It should be noted that while this instrument’s title references genetically modified organisms, the only amendments to the relevant legislation are to update two references to “exit day”.
Secondly, it removes Northern Ireland from the scope of the 2019 regulations by omitting references to Northern Ireland and changing UK-specific references to read “Great Britain”. The instrument also revokes changes made to domestic legislation in Northern Ireland in the 2019 regulations, which are no longer required due to the protocol. Lastly, this instrument legislates for the Government’s commitment on unfettered access for these chemical regulations as well as the need to ensure that UK authorities have the appropriate information and regulatory safeguards in respect of chemicals placed on the market in Great Britain.
The Health and Safety Executive currently acts as a UK competent authority within the EU regimes for chemicals regulation. Under this instrument, it will become the GB regulatory authority. The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland will be the regulatory authority with responsibility for Northern Ireland, and we are working closely with Northern Irish colleagues to prepare for the end of the transition period and support them afterwards. Both organisations have demonstrated their resilience through the pandemic, and I am confident that they have the capacity to undertake any new responsibilities brought about by EU exit.
This instrument was not subject to consultation as it does not alter existing policy. Published guidance has been followed and, in line with it, a full impact assessment has not been conducted as the instrument does not meet the de minimis threshold. However, I assure noble Lords that the changes brought about by it have been communicated through a series of stakeholder events throughout autumn and guidance published on the HSE website in October.
The devolved Administrations have also been fully engaged in the development of this instrument and have provided consent for the elements that relate to them. We are also in the process of agreeing a provisional common framework for chemicals that aims to maintain existing standards and promote common approaches to chemicals policy in the future.
In conclusion, this instrument will provide important continuity and clarity to the chemicals industry, ensuring that the legal requirements that apply to chemicals regulation are clear following the end of the transition period. I hope that colleagues of all parties will join me in supporting the draft regulations, and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her excellent explanation of the statutory instrument before us. As she mentioned, there are three issues in one. They have some complexities attached, but in my view the aim of the statutory instrument is important and welcome. I hope all noble Lords will be content with it.
All three issues, although separate, are important from the point of view of public health and safety. When we are dealing with biocidal products or the classification and labelling of potentially hazardous products, as well as imports and exports of hazardous chemicals and pesticides, it is only right that the Government make sure that they address the various issues that will need to be taken care of as we leave the EU.
I welcome the Northern Ireland protocol and recognise the need to separate GB from Northern Ireland, which is entailed in these instruments. I also welcome the fact that small businesses are not exempt because, when we are dealing with products and issues of this nature, it is really important that we and the public can be confident that all kinds of hazards are being considered.
I want to ask my noble friend the Minister about a particular issue. I also, by the way, put on record my thanks to her for arranging for interested Peers a very helpful briefing, attended by her and ministerial and official colleagues; it was very much appreciated. The issue concerns the resourcing of our hugely well respected HSE. The Health and Safety Executive will need to assess these various issues. I welcome the fact that the Government are introducing time limits; Article 37(5) of the CLP regulation, for example, currently states “without undue delay”. Providing a timeframe for approval is most helpful. How confident are the Government that the HSE is equipped to do this in the timescale required and with the resourcing implications of these timescales?
I also understand that the GB MCL list must be updated. I would like some clarification on the readiness of that list and the capacity both to identify the various potential problems and to notify those who will be affected.
I do not have much else to add on this matter. I welcome the instruments and thank my noble friend for her explanation of them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I share her concerns about the Health and Safety Executive’s resourcing—something that there has been considerable public concern about in the context of Covid-19 and the many other threats that we see, particularly to workplace and public safety.
I feel that I should warn the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who will follow me in this debate—as she did in the debate on the previous statutory instrument, where she made a particularly excellent contribution—that I plan to be brief. I have two brief sets of questions.
My first question relates to the Explanatory Memorandum to the statutory instrument that this statutory instrument amends. It states:
“Each Administration of GB will continue to be able to make its own decisions about the release of GMOs in its territory. The existing processes for each Administration reaching its own decisions at national level will continue as now.”
I am aware that, as we speak, the internal market Bill is still the subject of debate and negotiation, we might say, in the Chamber, but I wonder whether the Minister can tell me how the rights to control the release of genetically modified organisms and the sale of products containing genetically modified organisms will relate to that Bill and the rules being made around it. Also, of course, there is the inevitable complication of how this will affect products going between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Also, that Explanatory Memorandum talks about the release of genetically modified organisms. Of course, no one can control the spread of genetically modified organisms and the genes that they contain; it is worth highlighting that point given that we share extensive borders. No Administration on these islands can control the spread of those genes or, potentially, those organisms.
Briefly, my second point addresses the biocidal products side of this statutory instrument. I note in particular research published last month in the peer-reviewed Science of the Total Environment journal that refers to the insecticides part of this statutory instrument. This research showed that two products—fipronil and imidacloprid—widely used in flea treatments for domestic animals, particularly dogs and cats, were showing up in very high levels in our rivers. Fipronil showed up in 99% of samples in 20 rivers, and in one case it was measured at 38 times the safe level. Are the Government looking at this issue, and indeed many other broader issues, as a matter of urgency?
One issue that is increasingly being thrown up by the science is what is known as the cocktail effect: the potential impact that the mixing of different chemicals, and interactions between antimicrobial resistance and different chemicals, might have on antimicrobial resistance, on human bodies and on the environment in general. It is very much rising up the agenda.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome the regulations before us and thank my noble friend for moving them so eloquently. If she would permit me, I will put a couple of questions to her.
My noble friend explained the role of the Health and Safety Executive in becoming the regulatory authority for Great Britain under these regulations. We heard this week from my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, in connection with the REACH regulations that we considered in a similar statutory instrument Committee, that the department has recruited only 30 of the 300 staff needed to act to bring in GB REACH under this new regime, albeit that is a separate statutory instrument. Given the enhanced role that the HSE will play in setting up GB REACH, will my noble friend confirm that there will be sufficient staff in the Health and Safety Executive and that it will have sufficient resources to take on this additional role? Presumably it will already have been involved in liaising with ECHA or whichever EU body is concerned with this, but I have grave concerns that we will overtask the Health and Safety Executive with new responsibilities and find that it is understaffed and underresourced. I would be very grateful to have an assurance in that regard.
My next concern relates to paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which refers specifically to the fact that the biocidal products regulation
“sets timelines for Member State evaluations, opinion-forming and decision-making.”
It goes on to say that it
“promotes the reduction of animal testing by establishing mandatory data sharing obligations and encouraging the use of alternative testing methods.”
I am fully signed up to and very much support the mandatory data-sharing obligations and the use of alternative testing methods. What checks does my noble friend envisage there will be on these mandatory data-sharing obligations? I presume she will reassure me that we have come a long way from certain shops, which I will not name, that claimed that none of their products were tested on animals, only for us to find out after we had all bought them that in fact they had been. How do we know this data is tested and accurate?
Secondly, I am fully signed up to and would encourage the use of alternative testing methods, but can my noble friend explain what these alternative testing methods are and what regime is in place, and how these are monitored to ensure that they are fit for purpose? Again, this is an area that captures the public mood. The public want to buy products—cosmetics or whatever—that have not been tested on animals. This is something that captures the public imagination, so what alternative testing regime is in place?
Finally, paragraph 2.5 on page 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum to these regulations, to which my noble friend referred in her introduction, talks of
“measures for the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms with a view to protecting human health and the environment.”
I feel that we still need to know a lot more about, and understand better, the use of GMOs. My question to my noble friend is a simple one. We were covered by the EU regime in this regard, and are now transitioning out and will, after 31 December, have left the European protections that we have previously enjoyed. Will my noble friend give a commitment today that any future use beyond the contained use which we currently understand will be brought forward by legislation—most likely, I presume, secondary legislation? Will she give a commitment that there will be no change to the current contained use, as set out today, without a further chance to have scrutiny of the necessary regulations ?
Having put forward my concerns, I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me the reassurance I am seeking.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
Like my colleagues, I thank the Minister and the civil servants for organising the briefing meeting and for so patiently taking those of us who were there through this complex statutory instrument.
I certainly do not oppose the statutory instrument. I accept that there are no policy changes and that it is about operationalising existing legislation and implementing the Northern Ireland protocol. However, it is another SI that brings home the reality of Brexit and the loss of co-operation with the European Chemicals Agency, which, over decades, has built up its reputation as a centre of knowledge on the safe management of chemicals for the benefit of both humans and the environment.
We all share, I am sure, the hope that there is still a possibility of co-operation between the UK and the ECHA if there were to be a deal between the UK and the EU. Irrespective of that, the UK is now creating its own regulatory process, which will be a major headache for our businesses, with two time-consuming, separate processes if they want to sell products in both the UK and the EU, obstacles around data sharing and data rights, and indeed more expense.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, rightly highlighted, there is the risk of divergence, as the rules can be interpreted in different ways, with two different legal regimes. Clearly, that will mean divergence not just between the EU and the UK but, as this SI makes clear, between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
One issue that I would like to touch on that other colleagues have not—I do not wish to repeat the excellent points that they have already made—is the fact that this SI specifies, for the first time, timeframes for the decision-making by the HSE and UK Ministers to approve substances after 31 December. Currently, the legislation states “without undue delay”. I contend that it could be seen as pre-emptive to batten down the hatches so firmly in this legislation by setting timeframes for those decisions.
Why? As the Minister made clear in her opening remarks, there has been no consultation on this statutory instrument. While of course businesses will always say that they want more certainty, we do not know that that is something that the business community really felt was an imperative. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and others have made clear, the HSE has yet to have the capacity, and indeed the certainty of resources, to be able to deliver all those duties. So there is a real question mark about whether sufficient time is being given to undertake all the necessary tests, and to consult appropriately with affected stakeholders, so that the HSE and Ministers can form a judgment.
It is disappointing that in the Explanatory Memorandum there is no mention of undertaking environmental assessments, whereas it does mention working with economists to produce a proportionate impact estimate. That is particularly worrying, given that once the Environment Bill comes on to the statute book, all departments and agencies, including the HSE, will be obliged to apply the Government’s policy statement on environmental principles, including interpreting the precautionary principle. Therefore, like other colleagues, I hope the Minister can reassure us that there will be sufficient time and resources to undertake all the necessary tests so that business and the British public have continued confidence in the safety of the chemicals that will be used in our country.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of these regulations and all noble Lords who have spoken for their contributions. I too am grateful for the briefing that we received from the officials, which transformed these rather complicated regulations into something that I could at least wrestle with in a fairly basic manner.
If I have understood them correctly, I think the Government’s intention is that, from the end of the transition period, the existing EU regimes at that point in time will be saved into national law through the provisions of the withdrawal Act, and that the primary point of these regulations is to correct deficiencies arising from Brexit beyond what was provided for in the 2019 regulations. Then, of course, there is the issue of Northern Ireland, where the protocol means that some areas of law in Northern Ireland will remain aligned with the EU.
I have questions about two areas on which I would like to get more information. First, on the question of Northern Ireland, the Minister mentioned unfettered access. Paragraph 17(1) of the Command Paper The UK’s Approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol says, about trade going from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK, that
“this should take place as it does now. There should be no additional process or paperwork and there will be no restrictions on Northern Ireland goods arriving in the rest of the UK—that is, there will be unfettered access, as provided for by the Protocol.”
The thing is that, on the face of it, these regulations stop totally unfettered access for some goods, or at least they place a barrier to be overcome before a product can be marketed from Northern Ireland into GB. I am not saying that is a bad thing, just that it is different.
For instance, the regulations provide that for the BPR, where a Northern Ireland-based business has obtained an authorisation or permit for a biocidal product and wants to market that product in GB, the HSE will treat the product as authorised in the whole of the UK but only as long as certain conditions are met, including that the active substance is on the GB approved list and that the business notifies the HSE by submitting the same information that was submitted in support of the original authorisation. Once that authorisation has been submitted, the product can be sold in GB after 90 days, provided that the HSE does not raise any objections. If the HSE has any concerns about its safety or efficacy, it can request further information—another 90-day delay.
The HSE also has a safety valve. A product can be prohibited, or its sale or use restricted, if that can be justified on certain grounds, including environmental, the protection of health or life, the protection of vulnerable groups or animals or plants, and various other things, including artistic, historic or archaeological values.
I want to understand what is happening here. Is the HSE conducting an independent assessment of the safety and efficacy of a product, or is it simply checking that the product has met the regulatory requirements of the EU and then noting the information? If it is the former, then it is obviously possible that the HSE will reach a different view from that of the EU regulators. Indeed, because there is no dynamic alignment with EU standards after transition, it is entirely possible that our regimes will diverge over time. If so, how does that sit with the statement in the Command Paper that there will be no restrictions on Northern Ireland goods being marketed into the rest of the UK?
The second area I want to explore, as did most other noble Lords, is the role of the HSE in relation to these provisions and indeed Brexit. That was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bennett, and other noble Lords. Essentially, the organisation is having to establish a new, independent regulatory regime for GB and have a regime aligned with the EU for Northern Ireland, all the while dealing with the huge challenge of helping to make workplaces Covid-secure during the pandemic, and in the context of having had its budget pretty much halved over the last decade.
I will ask the Minister some questions. First, on staffing, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned a commitment to recruit 300 staff, I think to cover the REACH business, of which only 50 had been hired. We were told in briefing that the HSE had plans to recruit 100 more staff by the end of January and up to 130 by the end of the financial year. Can the Minister clarify whether these are two separate figures? Is the figure I mentioned of 100 and 130 just for the DWP-funded activity? If so, can she tell us how many of those staff have been recruited?
Secondly, how much additional money has the HSE been given specifically to cope with its new role in a post-Brexit world, separate from extra Covid funding, and what is that as a percentage of its budget? It is quite clear that the Committee wants to hear a categorical assurance from the Minister that Ministers have satisfied themselves that the resources available to the HSE are adequate to enable it to deal not just with Covid, but with its new regulatory and inspection regime. On a related point to that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I would like to know specifically on the BPR authorisations what assessment has been made as to the capacity of the HSE to make all the necessary evaluations within 90 days of receiving the submissions specified in the regulations.
I have asked enough questions and other noble Lords have asked good ones too. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I too add my thanks to the officials, who have helped us understand the detail of this SI and whose support has proved invaluable.
In winding up, I will address some of the important points raised during the discussions. First, my noble friend Lady Altmann mentioned the CLP and the MCL list. This will copy all existing harmonised EU classifications on 1 January, and HSE will be able to carry out its responsibilities to update.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about the chemical cocktail effect. I will ensure that the Health and Safety Executive writes directly to her and that a record is sent to all Members in the Committee and placed in the Library. The noble Baroness also talked about REACH. The REACH regulation is not included in this SI. Defra has the policy responsibility for the REACH regulation and has brought forward separate legislation on it, which I understand was debated yesterday.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh talked about GMOs. The responsibility for aspects of GMO policy is spread throughout government. However, regarding contained usage, there will be no reduction in standards, and existing protections covering human health and the environment are maintained and will continue to work in the same way post EU exit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh talked about resourcing and recruitment. The Health and Safety Executive has identified a total of 147 posts to be filled by the end of the financial year. We have made good progress and at present we have filled 108 of the 147 posts—73%—and are confident that this means we will be ready for the end of the transition period. Of the 73% of posts we have filled to date, we expect the vast majority to start in January, with the remainder taking up post before April. Several campaigns are still ongoing and due for completion in January 2021. We will continue to seek recruitment into our outstanding posts as a priority until the end of March. In total, we are recruiting an additional 117 brand new posts into the Chemicals Regulation Division relating specifically to EU exit. This represents a 45% increase in our baseline staffing number—260—from January 2020, and demonstrates our significant commitment to take on the new functions required.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised the issue of animal testing and asked whether, if we cannot access animal testing data, that would require applicants to do more tests. The Health and Safety Executive will apply the principle in the biocidal products regulation that vertebrate tests “shall not be repeated” and may be undertaken
“only as a last resort.”
Therefore, if the data owner has not submitted the study to the HSE, we would expect the applicant to make every effort to obtain access to it. Should the applicant not be able to reach agreement on data access with the data owner, decisions would need to be made on a case-by-case basis and we would need to discuss options with the applicant. We would accept a vertebrate study only if all options had been exhausted; I understand that this is the “last resort” principle.
My noble friend also talked about GMOs and contained use. We will not reduce standards and changes to legislation will follow the usual scrutiny and consultation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, talked about timescale changes and Article 37 of the CLP. This instrument amends the timescales put in place by the SI made in 2019 due to operational concerns raised since then. These amendments will ensure that the HSE has sufficient time to carry out its operational responsibilities. In addition, the current wording of the EU regulation states that decisions are taken “without undue delay”. However, those affected by regulatory decisions should be clear about when those decisions will take place. Therefore, our amendments specify that a decision is required within three months of a recommendation being made to Ministers and that, within one month of the decision, the HSE must update the GB MCL list.
The noble Baroness also asked about certainty for business. The decision to amend the timescales so that they are operationally deliverable was made under the advice of and after consultation with the specialist regulatory scientists in the HSE and the devolved Administrations. The system mirrors the EU system as much as possible so that the industry will be familiar with the assessment process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also mentioned environmental assessment as part of the process. As part of the technical assessment, the HSE must look at the impact that a substance’s intrinsic hazards may have on environmental end-points. The HSE is supported by the Environment Agency in undertaking this work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and my noble friend Lady Altmann referred to unfettered access. The Government’s approach to unfettered access and the Northern Ireland protocol was set out in the main Command Paper and subsequent business guidance. This outlines that there will be some specific requirements for movements from Northern Ireland to GB for items categorised as highly regulated goods. Chemicals are highly regulated goods because they can pose a significant risk to human health and the environment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether the Health and Safety Executive undertakes assessments for biocidal products during the 90-day period. All chemicals are highly regulated goods because they can pose a significant risk to human health and the environment. There is a transparency requirement for a Northern Ireland business to notify the Health and Safety Executive with information that it would submit to the EU before the biocidal product is placed on the market.
On the noble Baroness’s question about finances, I can confirm that, for the 2020-21 financial year, an additional £6.1 million was made available, with £1.6 million for the DWP and £4.5 million to help Defra to prepare for delivering the new chemicals framework. This represents a 60% increase on the 2019-20 financial year.
As many noble Lords will attest to, our chemicals sector is world-leading and vital for other key industries, such as the pharmaceutical, automotive and aerospace industries. We want to make sure that this continues. We also need to provide certainty for businesses in Northern Ireland to ensure both that the statute book is fully functional for the end of the year and that those businesses have unfettered access to the market in Great Britain. This instrument seeks to do that and meet our obligations under the protocol.
I am sure that noble Lords are all with me on the fact that we need to provide continuity and clarity to the chemicals industry following the end of the transition period. I want to ensure that legal requirements that apply in relation to chemicals regulations are clear and provide certainty to all. We must maintain our high level of protection in the workplace and for others, which this instrument will do.
I hope that I have covered all the points that were made. I will look at Hansard and, if there any points that I have not covered, I will make sure that noble Lords are written to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, that completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
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. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. Please will those asking supplementary questions keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Public Service Broadcasting Online
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the report by Ofcom Review of prominence for public service broadcasting: Recommendations to Government for a new framework to keep PSB TV prominent in an online world, published on 4 July 2019, what plans they have to introduce legislation to ensure the prominence of public service broadcasting online.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have engaged with industry to understand fully the impact of Ofcom’s proposals. The Government remain committed to acting on Ofcom’s prominence recommendations, including through legislation. It is important to ensure that prominence and the balance of benefits and obligations support a sustainable future for PSBs. These issues will be considered as part of the Government’s strategic review of PSBs, where we will set out the next steps next year.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister as usual for her response. As stated in the Ofcom report published yesterday on the future of PSBs, viewers of all ages and backgrounds value PSBs. The pandemic has highlighted their importance as trusted sources of information, and they will be equally important going forward into a vaccine phase. Does the Minister agree that for viewers to continue to be able to find them across the many connected, ever-changing devices that now exist, they must be kept prominent? Otherwise, what we watch will be dictated by the interests of global tech giants, not the interests of our society. Can the Minister reassure the House that this Government are committed to public service broadcasting, that they recognise that introducing this long overdue—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I am afraid that the noble Baroness has been asking for far too long. Can we please keep questions short to give everybody a chance to ask their question?
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD) [V]
Introducing this long-overdue legislation is urgent, and can the Government say when they will do so?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will reiterate briefly what I have already said. Of course, the Government have always supported public service broadcasting and continue to do so. We are conducting a wide-ranging review but remain committed to legislation in relation to prominence.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
[Inaudible]—of high-quality content made for UK viewers, including current affairs. Does the Minister agree that this is more important than ever, given the amount of dangerous propaganda that those with malign intent pump out on social media all the time?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I apologise for missing the beginning of the noble Baroness’s question, but I think I got the gist of it. The Government take the importance of impartial and reliable information very seriously and, conversely, are clamping down on both misinformation and disinformation. We have made good progress with social media platforms in this regard.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am absolutely delighted by the Minister’s answers. Does she share with me a sense that us all having access to a truthful public service broadcaster is an essential component of keeping a coherent and happier society?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is right to raise these points. Indeed, it is vital also for practical reasons. Given that just over half of the country have access to a video-on-demand service, the role of public service broadcasting continues to be crucial.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB) [V]
I declare my interests as noted in the register. Can the Minister confirm that there will be a special focus, in the strategic review that she mentioned was coming next year, on the relationship between young people, public service broadcasting and information? With just two minutes a day of news being consumed by people under 24, as other noble Lords have said, the case for the veracity of news and the authenticity of information is so important at the moment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Obviously, I do not want to pre-empt the conclusions of that committee, but across our legislative programme, the importance of children and young people is pre-eminent.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab) [V]
I raise the issue of urgency about this Bill. There are two circumstances: first, as has already been said, the increasing abundance of fake news on the internet, with its damaging effect on public trust; and, secondly, the renewed sense of civic responsibility engendered by the pandemic. Will the Minister press the Government to seize the moment and give a date when they will introduce this timely legislation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are actively working with all the key stakeholders in this area—the TV manufacturers, the platform gatekeepers and the PSBs—but I am afraid I cannot give the noble Baroness a firm date.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister explain to some of the Neanderthals on her own Benches in both Houses that support for public service broadcasting includes giving stimulation to our creative industries and giving voice to our national and regional identities in ways that the big international providers never will?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I have to say that I do not recognise the description the noble Lord gives of either my noble friends behind me or those in the other place. We absolutely recognise the importance of the investment in our creative industries of more than £2.5 billion a year, and we welcome that and the ecosystem it creates.
Lord Moylan (Con)
In my Neanderthal fashion, I have found that BBC Radio 3 has been the mainstay of my life for nearly 50 years, and it is a fine example of public service broadcasting—but in recent years, it has been infected by a sort of relentless “wokeness”, which is a tendency of public service broadcasting. So, while my noble friend is correctly promoting the prominence of PSB, will she also tell us what she will do to try to ensure that it meets a broader spectrum of cultural views across the country?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think that the new director-general, and the most recent comments from Ofcom, support my noble friend’s final comments about breadth of views and voices—but, as he will know, the BBC is editorially independent, so decisions in relation to Radio 3 rest with it.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, British broadcasting relies to a significant extent on keeping the funding of public service broadcasters separate. What response do the Government have to the decline of mass advertising revenue referred to in the Small Screen: Big Debate consultation recently issued?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think that the Government are concerned, and my colleagues in the department are working closely with the industry to understand what a sustainable funding model looks like.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
The Ofcom report on prominence recommends that there may need to be new obligations to ensure the continued availability of PSB on-demand content to viewers equivalent to the existing “must offer” and “must carry” rules for PSBs’ traditional channels. What plans are there for the PSBs to be available on a wide range of platforms?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Viscount raises an important point. Our view is that this is a commercial issue between the platforms and the PSBs. We will continue to keep it under review as part of our review of the future of PSBs, but in the meantime, we hope that they will achieve a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
Will the Minister give an assurance that the Welsh language channel S4C will be defended? We depend on the licence fee and are supported by up to £70 million a year in that way. If there is any change, Welsh language broadcasting will be in danger.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I can reassure the noble Lord that this will be part of the review that we will be undertaking.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I would be deeply comforted by the noble Baroness’s answers this afternoon if it were not for the fact that the Secretary of State has established an advisory panel whose membership, it has to be said, is imbalanced in terms of their experience, history and known views. What is the role of the advisory panel in sustaining PSB when so many members are clearly against it?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Obviously, all members of the panel are expected to operate in an independent capacity. Their role is in relation t advising the Government on some of the complex policy issues, with which the noble Lord is very familiar.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we will now move to the next Oral Question.
Covid-19: Community Resilience Development Framework
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the Community Resilience Development Framework in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The ongoing response to the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrates the value of a whole-community approach when responding to emergencies. As envisaged in this framework, we have seen how collaboration between local and central government, statutory responders, businesses and the voluntary and community sector, community networks and individuals have been critical to our response. While there are no current plans to review the 2019 framework, we continue to learn lessons and evolve processes and guidance as appropriate.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I declare my interest as chairman of the Reserve Forces 2030 review. One of the few silver linings of the pandemic has been the response from more than 200,000 members of the public to be an NHS volunteer. The challenge, though, has been utilising them, partly because of a federated NHS and partly because of a relatively frail national resilience structure. With that in mind, what plans do the Government have to harness this latent appetite to volunteer, perhaps with the creation of a civilian or NHS reserve—a reserve that right now could be used to help vaccinate the general public?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, our reservists, particularly in the military, have been playing a key role in the Covid-19 response. They form an exceptional group of people with specialist skills and expertise. Veterans from the Armed Forces have also played an active role in their communities and their skills have been used to really good and practical effect during the pandemic. As we have said before, including Army volunteers and others who have been working with the NHS, some 500,000 people signed up and by early April, over 750,000 had done so and started undertaking tasks such as delivering medications from pharmacies, driving patients to appointments and making regular phone calls to isolated individuals. The Government continue to review the learning from the emergency and the ways to improve these arrangements.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while many local authorities have done a very good job, some will really need to revisit their own resilience plans? It may be that once the pandemic is over, the Government could consider whether all local authorities should revisit their resilience plans and look at how they interacted with all the other stakeholders to see where the gaps were. Perhaps my noble friend could then give guidance to local authorities on what is expected of them during any future pandemic or crisis.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is right. The Community Resilience Development Framework is only that—a framework of things. We need to take the learnings from the pandemic, so far, and to work with local government representatives to ensure that they have learned the lessons.
Lord Walney (Non-Afl)
My Lords, volunteers give their time for free, but the act of organising volunteers is often a considerable expense. Will the Government look at a windfall tax on those few companies which have done exceptionally well through the crisis to help to unleash and support the goodwill of the British people in this regard?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Government have no plans for a windfall tax, but I can say that we have pledged £750,000 to help those in the voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors so that they could continue their work to support the country during the coronavirus outbreak.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister has said, the relationship between the centre, local government and communities before, during and after a crisis event is absolutely essential. This has been reinforced during the Covid problem. Does she agree that true resilience means learning from crises and moving forward far more than the engineering definition of resilience, which comes back to the status quo ante? How will she implement learning the lessons of the Covid crisis as regards moving forward?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
In June this year, the Prime Minister asked Danny Kruger MP to set out proposals to sustain exactly this: the community spirit and high levels of voluntary action undertaken during the Covid crisis. The report was published in September as Levelling Up Our Communities: Proposals for a New Social Covenant. The Government are looking at the recommendations made in that report.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, in reviewing the work of various community resilience development forums in my region, there seems to be a considerable variety of activities and information being made available to the public; it is likewise for the approaches followed by the different forums. What does the Minister expect them to achieve and is she content that they are all operating as anticipated?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I cannot comment on the particular area of the noble Baroness, but I think that the framework this document provides should be used by the whole of the voluntary sector. There is a key role for local government in this area to hold the ring around local groups and organisations to make sure that they all work to the same end.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, during the pandemic, many faith groups have played a key role in supporting not just their own members but their local communities. They can also be key conduits for information. I declare an interest as an Anglican priest. I read recently that the London Resilience Forum is the only one to have a faith panel. Does the noble Baroness know of any others? If not, would the Minister like to meet the London chair of the panel to learn from that experience?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I know about London, but I do not know of any others that have faith from outside the capital. It is an important area, and I would be very willing to meet the noble Baroness to talk further about this issue.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, following on the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Reid, have the Government made an assessment of outstanding examples of the implementation of the Community Resilience Development Framework during the Covid-19 pandemic, and will they publish examples of best practice as learning tools? I note the recommendations made in the Kruger report, but will they also publish the best examples as a learning tool for others?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We have many examples of really good practice. At the moment, the Covid pandemic is taking up so much time but I am sure that, at the end of it, the relevant department will make known all the good practice that is happening and which can be learned from.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
Presumably, the framework will need some bolstering after Covid, and perhaps some extra resources. I am thinking in particular of things such as broadband. I heard the noble Baroness say that there would be an extra £750,000, but quite honestly that does not sound very much when we look at the whole framework and the valuable work being done. Are the Government thinking about improving the provision of resources for the framework?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
There are no plans to improve resources for the framework at the moment. The noble Baroness will understand that a lot of government money has gone into all of our communities through the pandemic, but we keep everything under review.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Minister referred to gaining information from the best practice that has been deployed during the pandemic. Will she take on board the best practice in volunteering from the devolved Administrations as part of any review into the Community Resilience Development Framework?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I should say to the noble Baroness that we certainly will do that. In fact, I have here information that Monkstown Boxing Club in Northern Ireland has delivered a wide range of programmes to those young people who are the hardest to reach, aiming to help them through the difficult times due to the coronavirus.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thought that I would not get my question in. We have witnessed examples of immense heroism among individuals and groups who have shown courage in the face of this harsh pandemic. Given that that is selfless kindness towards the well-being of others, will the Government commit to ensuring that sufficient funds are made available, as raised by other noble Lords, for the third sector to ensure that groups are financially strengthened to match the ambition of the Community Resilience Development Framework? In the process, will they empower and promote women’s leadership in its delivery?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Baroness is right. We hope that come the end of this spring and over the summer, a lot of people involved in the community and charity sectors will be out working again and getting their money as they normally do. In the meantime, we are keeping all of this under review.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Gambling Legislation
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Belmont
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review gambling legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, yesterday, we launched the first part of our comprehensive review of the Gambling Act with a call for evidence. This is an opportunity to take stock of the significant changes in gambling over the last 15 years. We want to make sure we have the right protections and balance between protecting freedom of choice and preventing harm. I take this opportunity to thank all of your Lordships who served on the Select Committee for your work.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the reply from the Minister. She will be well aware of the significant concern in this House and wider society about the extent of gambling advertising. As was pointed out by the excellent Select Committee report on the social and economic impact of the gambling industry, the industry currently spends around £1.5 billion a year on advertising. This budget has substantially increased since 2014. Will the Minister first confirm that, in the review promised by the Government, strong consideration will be given to implementing restrictions on gambling advertising to protect individuals who are vulnerable to gambling-related harm? Secondly, will the noble Baroness confirm that the needs of Northern Ireland will be considered, as many forms of advertising are UK-wide rather than solely regional? Finally, can I ask the noble Baroness—
Baroness Barran (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that progress is being made on advertising. We are calling for evidence on gambling advertising but obviously, we cannot prejudge the findings. The Advertising Standards Authority’s strict rules on gambling advertising apply across the UK.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the review, but have concerns about the process. The overreliance on written evidence will inevitably favour gambling companies and marginalise their victims. I urge the Government to establish a truth commission or Leveson-type inquiry, so that victims of the industry and their families can speak and corporate executives who have failed to honour their promises can be examined under oath.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point: that the voices of those who have been harmed by gambling should be heard. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State’s first meeting on this issue was with a group of experts with lived experience of gambling harm. I encourage the noble Lord to submit evidence to this review.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I am disappointed that significant parts of this statement read as if they were written by the gambling industry. They pointedly ignore the facts with which we began the Select Committee report: there are nearly 400,000 problem gamblers, plus 60,000 teenage gamblers, materially affecting the lives of 2 million people. Just last night, I spent an hour with yet another family who had lost their 25 year-old son to gambling. As most of the recommendations in the Select Committee report do not require legislation, why will Her Majesty’s Government not implement them now to save lives? Why will they not make this a public health issue?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am genuinely surprised and disappointed that the right reverend Prelate reads the response in that light, because we felt that the report of the committee on which he sat was extremely helpful and constructive, and it has informed much of our thinking. There is no way that we are waiting for the outcome of the review to make gambling safer, and we have announced significant progress in the last 12 months, in particular the ban on gambling with credit cards.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. Does the Minister agree that part of this welcome review should consider the benefits of the gambling industry in terms of employment, revenue to the Exchequer and social cohesion—for example, racecourses and lotteries? A measured, regulated industry, as proposed in recommendations by the Lords Select Committee, would avoid the increase in black market activity that has been so prevalent in, for example, Sweden.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government absolutely recognise the contribution of the industry, both in fiscal terms and in employing some 100,000 people in this country. We also acknowledge that a gap exists between what the industry says it is doing and what some people experience, and we are keen to close that.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, it is well established that loot boxes are a form of gambling disguised within innocent online games played by children. This is a huge concern to parents and child protection organisations, including the Children’s Commissioner, who want loot boxes to be defined by gambling legislation as a form of gambling. What plans do the Government have to regulate loot boxes within any new legislation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. We are delivering on our manifesto commitment to tackle issues around loot boxes. We had a bespoke call for evidence, which closed on 22 November. We plan to publish our response early in 2021.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I share the late Lady Thatcher’s discomfort with gambling, which encourages addictive behaviour. I am keen to know what key issues the Government intend to focus on in the forthcoming review of gambling legislation.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. The scope of the review is intentionally very broad, because we aim for it to be as comprehensive as possible. The three big priorities are the safety of children and whether we are doing everything we can to keep them safe; whether advertising and promotion are carried out responsibly; and whether the regulatory framework is working. Within that, are the voices of those with lived experience being heard?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, for his dogged and unwavering determination, which led to the creation of GAMSTOP and 173,000 people availing themselves of online exclusion. But this does not extend to unlicensed websites. Will the Government therefore consider further action to deal with this, specifically IP blocking, which would protect British people from unlicensed illegal sites? They could at least include this in the review the Minister mentioned.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Smith of Hindhead that unlicensed sites are within the scope of the review. Again, we very much encourage your Lordships and those in your networks to submit evidence.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, following up on the question of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I welcome the review, although we point out that it is much delayed. I particularly like the Secretary of State’s description of it as a review of
“analogue law in a digital age”.
As has been said, most of the egregious behaviour is caused by companies that, in this digital age, operate outwith our boundaries and so evade UK statute. We will surely need digital solutions in a digital world. Will the review really consider this issue?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am slightly puzzled by the noble Lord’s question, because the location of the gambler is where our laws prevail, irrespective of the location of the operator.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, what further evidence do the Government need to establish a gambling ombudsman?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government continue to have an open mind about the role of an ombudsman. We are gathering evidence on the effectiveness of the regulatory regime and whether the Gambling Commission needs additional powers. We are already considering commission proposals for a fees uplift.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my role as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harm. Do the Government recognise the link across addictions, which means that we need an alcohol strategy linked to a gambling strategy? Almost a quarter of gamblers drink as a coping mechanism while gambling, but the incidence is much higher among veterans. When they drink they also use gambling to enhance the adrenaline buzz, which fuels both addictions.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government absolutely understand that different addictions are interrelated and interconnected. The Department of Health is leading on a cross-issue addiction strategy.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Criminal Justice: Imprisonment for Public Protection
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to implement the reforms proposed in the report by the Prison Reform Trust No life, no freedom, no future, published on 3 December.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government will carefully consider the recommendations in this report. However, it is not the case that those serving an IPP sentence have no life, future or freedom. Many have been released and not been recalled. When it has been necessary on public protection grounds to recall offenders, HM Prison and Probation Service works closely with them so that the Parole Board may direct their re-release as early as it is safe to do so.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB) [V]
My Lords, I confess that I am disappointed in that response. Surely it is obvious that the recall provisions are causing real problems and injustices and need radical change. How many IPP prisoners following release have completed 10 years on licence? Of these, how many have applied for the cancellation of their licence and how many have been successful?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The latest published figures show that the unreleased IPP population now stands at 1,895. It has reduced from 2,223 at the end of September. This is good progress, especially as, at its highest in 2012, it was 6,000. I do not have time to give the other figures, but I will make sure the noble and learned Lord gets them in writing.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is much neighbouring European evidence of successful rehabilitation of all prisoners? They do far better than we do on recidivism. Not only do they do better, but they do it in a more humane way and, in many instances, much more cost-effectively than in this country. In those circumstances, would the Minister be prepared to invite some of our more successful present European partners, such as the Danes, to come here to help us look at what is happening with our prison system and help us to improve it to the kind of standards they have?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will take the noble Lord’s ideas back to the service. However, we have to remember that an offender serving an IPP sentence may only be recalled when they have breached their licence conditions in such a way as to indicate that they are a risk, and that risk has escalated to a level where they can no longer be safely managed in the community.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord German, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Farmer.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the report recognises the importance of good family and other relationships in stabilising the inherently unstable IPP situation. It particularly mentions how meaningful activities such as caring responsibilities provide positive structure. The report also frequently refers to released IPP prisoners becoming resettled into good family and other relationships, only for these to be re-ruptured when they are recalled. How is the protective factor against reoffending, that is rehabilitative relationships, taken into account in recall decisions?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, when considering recalling an offender whose escalating behaviour is increasing their risk, offender managers will look at all protective factors in place, especially where there is a positive, family support network, and ensure that any safe alternatives to recall are explored in the first instance.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register, in particular my position as a joint life president of the Prison Reform Trust. Does the Minister accept the contents of that report and, if so, does she agree that, unfortunately, the method of getting rid of this category of prisoners is being too long delayed?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As I have previously answered, the Government are carefully considering the recommendations in the report—it came out only on 3 December—and we will look at those recommendations for the future.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister seems to be defending the recall of prisoners when they breach their licensing conditions. As the report has shown, this is a source of an increasing number of prisoners on IPP sentences being recalled for breaching their licence conditions. Is the Minister satisfied that there needs to be a positive review of this way back into the prison sentence, given that the offenders who are recalled are very often mentally unstable and need protection as much as they are offending criminals?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, public protection has to be the Government’s priority. We recall only those IPP offenders who are assessed by those managing them to present an unacceptably high risk of harm to the general public. However, of course, we need to look after them, support them, and try to help them to stay out in our communities safely.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
With recalls in the last five years up 187%, at this rate some IPP prisoners will never be released, under a sentence that has now been discredited and abolished. Does the Minister agree that we need to give them a date after which they cannot be recalled, as well as proper resources, planning and support to help redress the injustice they face every day and to help them make a success of life on the outside?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As I have said before, public protection has to be our priority. We recall only those assessed as posing an unacceptably high risk of harm to the general public. But of course we need to keep this under review, and each of those cases and offenders is under constant review.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey of Didcot.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, imprisonment for public protection is a controversial sentence, but it has been seen to be effective in some high-profile cases. Has the European Court of Human Rights looked at these sentences and, if so, what conclusions has it drawn?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court looked at the IPP issue and found that detention post-tariff for such sentences could become arbitrary and thus unlawful where no opportunity for progress was provided by the state, but the state does provide opportunity for progression.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the number of IPP prisoners who have mental health issues, especially recall prisoners? Were they suffering from mental health issues before or because of their prolonged incarceration? Also, what specialist mental health provision, tailored to their specific, individual needs, are the Government providing for IPP prisoners before and after release?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, every prisoner has a key worker, who is dedicated to providing support for individual prisoners at any one time and to understanding any mental health issues they might have. We are also working very closely with the Samaritans in our prisons and are supporting the excellent Listener scheme, in which prisoners help other prisoners with emotional support. Last but not least are the four key priorities for prison managers’ training. This includes an awareness training module for staff to identify and recognise mental health issues and substance misuse.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Malaria Vaccine
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Norwood Green
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to reports on the development of a vaccine for malaria, what plans they have to continue to meet their commitment to spend £500 million a year on addressing that disease.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord and your Lordships’ House that fighting malaria remains a priority for this Government. There are very encouraging reports, and I congratulate all scientists in the UK who are working towards the creation of a malaria vaccine, which would be a game-changer in our vital work to protect the world’s most vulnerable people. While my department does not directly fund malaria vaccine development, our investments in multilateral organisations, including the WHO, UNITAID and Gavi, have recently contributed to a malaria vaccine candidate being piloted in three African countries.
In relation to the spending review, as communicated only last week, we are working through our priorities and will be able to provide more information in the new year. That said, we are very much concerned that the knock-on effect of the Covid-19 pandemic poses additional threats to progress on malaria and other causes of preventable death. We cannot stand by and let that happen.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply; I am sure that he agrees with me that the impact of malaria, which kills hundreds of millions of people a year, is probably even worse than the Covid epidemic. Can the Minister confirm that the proposed reduction in the overseas aid budget will not impact the funding of this vital vaccine, which will do so much to enhance the reputation of the United Kingdom overseas?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I agree with him on the important work being done to fight malaria. I have been involved in some of the direct campaigns, and we have seen some real benefits. In relation to the ODA reduction, as I said during the repeat of the Statement in your Lordships’ House, there will of course be reductions across the budgets. We are currently working through that exercise, and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is overseeing that programme directly. At this point, as I have said previously in your Lordships’ House, I cannot give the specific commitment that the noble Lord desires, but we hope to have more details of our planned priorities and spend, including important projects that we will be protecting, in the new year.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is very good news. My question to the Minister is on the cost of a vaccine. The Government have signed up to COVAX to allow for the procurement of vaccines at a negotiated price from vaccine manufacturers on behalf of low and middle-income countries. Will this apply to the malaria vaccine we have been discussing, and will costs to the countries involved—mainly in sub-Saharan Africa—be kept as low as possible?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord—the leadership that the United Kingdom has shown on equitable access in relation to the Covid-19 vaccine certainly underlines our commitment to ensuring that the most vulnerable receive the vaccines required. On the malaria vaccine, we are working closely through multilateral organisations that fund the continued research into and testing of those vaccines. I agree with the noble Lord that, as these vaccines come online, it is important that they are game-changers on the ground, particularly in the most vulnerable parts of the world. We should ensure the lowest cost for and equitable access to those vaccines.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his opening Answer. Whenever there are cuts in public expenditure, the first things to suffer are projects connected with research and training. I read very carefully the letter circulated yesterday by the Foreign Secretary, where he stated his hopes to provide £10 billion, which takes into account funds to fight coronavirus, Ebola and malaria. Can the Minister indicate what proportion of funds would be available for tackling malaria and ensuring that the valuable work that has already been done is not lost? What is the likely impact of cuts on projects related to malaria in future years?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I cannot provide the noble Lord with specific numbers at this time, as I said earlier. However, we should not only bank but look to strengthen the successes we have seen in fighting malaria. We have provided extensive support, particularly through multilateral organisations, and there are programmes that work well, but some perhaps not as well as was intended. In the ODA scoping exercise, we want to ensure that we get the maximum return from the important steps forward and progress made in relation to malaria so that we can continue to provide the most vulnerable in the world with the support that they need—particularly because, as the noble Lord knows, those impacted by malaria are primarily in the developing world and are often mothers, pregnant women and young children.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to hear of Her Majesty’s Government’s ongoing commitment in this area. If or—let us hope—when this breakthrough comes, can my noble friend assure me, as best he can, that our commitment will even include delivering the vaccine to make sure that it gets to all those countries? Will we work with other European countries to ensure that it goes to those sub-Saharan countries?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right to raise the issue of distribution—I must admit that, with the current pandemic, I have been on a journey in relation to learning about the distribution of vaccines. I have also been heartened to hear that some of the areas I cover, such as Pakistan, have been able to take what they have learned from polio eradication and vaccine distribution and apply that to the Covid-19 challenge. It is that kind of positive engagement and learning that we need to ensure that, in the hardest parts of the world, including sub-Saharan Africa, where it is difficult to reach the most vulnerable, we can apply what we have learned and work with key partners to deliver that vaccine, as my noble friend said.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answers, but I am concerned that he cannot give a specific commitment that the cut in development aid funding will not affect the development of this vaccine. Does the Minister accept that now is not the time to slacken our efforts in the search for a malaria vaccine? We have heard of hopeful improvements before, but history has shown that complacency and slacking off will lead to resurgence. Does the Minister also accept that it has taken us more than four decades to recover the ground lost since the 1970s, when anti-malaria funding dried up, and that we must not allow that to happen again?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate raises an important element and I share her concern about ensuring that we can sustain the wins that have been gained in fighting malaria. As I said in an earlier answer, one primary area where we have seen success is in our work through multilateral organisations. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will have seen our recent support for the World Health Organization, for example, and the strength, political capital and money that we have put behind the COVAX Facility. Only this morning, I was talking to a Caribbean Foreign Minister about ensuring equitable development of the vaccine—we of course support that, but we also support equitable access and distribution, which will remain priorities. I have been very open about not being able to give specific figures for our support for fighting malaria because we are still going through that process at the FCDO, but we do provide support through various funds that will continue to support the important development of the vaccine, I am sure.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this is a success story. The UK is the second largest international donor to the fight against malaria: 7.6 million lives have been saved, and 1.5 billion cases prevented. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, in her recent letter to Boris Johnson, emphasised that cutting the UK aid budget from 0.7%,
“will diminish our power to influence other nations to do what’s right.”
In 2021 we have the UK-hosted G7, and CHOGM in Rwanda—an opportunity for this country to give a clear lead. Will the Minister at least say that we will continue to give such a lead, and to encourage other countries to step up in the fight against malaria?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, when the noble Lord started, calling this a success story and talking about facts and figures, I thought he had stolen a bit of my brief. I certainly welcome his strong support and recognition. Equally, he is right to challenge the Government to ensure that, with the major conferences and other events happening next year, we continue to show leadership, through our chairing of the G7, through CHOGM—as Commonwealth Minister, that is very much at the top of my mind—and, of course, as we lead into COP 26. I assure the noble Lord that, although there is a reduction in the financial spend, we should, and will, continue to leverage all our diplomatic capability to ensure that these important priorities are understood, not just by our development partners but by other member states, in their support for various campaigns around the world. As the noble Lord knows, we remain among the most generous of G7 donors in such development support and leadership.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an officer of the APPG for Africa and a member of the APPG on Malaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases. I commend to the House the work of Jeremy Lefroy and his leadership in persisting with these causes. I welcome the progress that the Oxford team is making in leading on the vaccine, and in proposing to test nearly 5,000 children in Africa. Every two minutes a child dies of malaria in Africa. Is the Minister aware of the concerns expressed publicly by some African leaders who have said that they will co-operate fully on the basis of there being the highest standards of compliance and consent, to safeguard any such trials? I thank the Minister for his assurance to the House. Will he continue to assure our partners across Africa, to address any scepticism?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, it is important that, although we have taken difficult decisions on the ODA budget, we continue to leverage to the utmost our diplomatic efforts to ensure that the priorities remain, through our multilateral partners and other member states, and to provide the level of reassurance that she described in Africa, and also compliance within countries. I have been proud of the leadership we have shown, particularly in supporting multilateral funds such as the Global Fund, which, as she knows, has helped to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, particularly in Africa. We are proud of that relationship. As we look at revising our ODA spend, I assure the noble Baroness that, when we face challenges on finance, we will look to bridge those gaps through extensive diplomatic engagement and leadership in that area.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We will now pause for a minute before the next piece of business.
Covid-19 Vaccine Rollout
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the update today, and for the all-Peer Zoom this morning. Yesterday was indeed a happy day. Like many—including, it has to be said, the Secretary of State—I was very moved watching 90 year-old Margaret Keenan get her jab. However, the challenges of the next period are as acute as, if different from, those of the period we have been through. What is the timeline for the vaccine for people who are housebound or shielded and cannot attend a surgery, whether in a hospital or anywhere else? It seems that the easy distribution of the vaccine will depend on the new vaccines coming down the track: communications will be vital. So what communications will people receive, from whom? Will that be centrally controlled or will it be done locally—through primary care networks, for example?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the JCVI has laid out a clear prioritisation, putting great emphasis on those who are older—the over-80s—and those in social care. The vaccine will come to those who are shielded and living alone in due time. There are some practical issues with getting the current Pfizer vaccine: as the noble Baroness undoubtedly knows, it has to be kept in cold storage and comes in substantial batches, which are difficult to break up. The initial cohort consists of 6 million people—those over 80, and the health and social care workers who support them. As for future vaccines, those looking forward to being vaccinated should wait for a letter. Those letters are being organised through their doctors, who have access to a central database to ensure that the right prioritisation takes place.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for the update, and join others in celebrating the good news about the first vaccines, administered yesterday. There are several different vaccines in the pipeline. Can the Minister update us on where they all are in terms of MHRA approval, and therefore of uptake? How many doses will be available, and by when?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the precise status of each vaccine in the pipeline is a subject for dialogue between the vaccine manufacturers and the MHRA. I can tell the noble Baroness that we are extremely encouraged by the substantial number of vaccines in the pipeline. The safety data for all those for which we know the response is also extremely encouraging. AstraZeneca—the one that most eyes are on—is making good progress, but I am afraid that I cannot give a clear or confirmed time for when, or if, it will be authorised. As for doses, as the noble Baroness probably knows, we have committed to more than 320 million doses overall. The precise details of those are published on the Vaccine Taskforce website, and I would be glad to send her a link to that, so that she can get all the details.
Lord Bates (Con)
I thank my noble friend for this very good news, and for his tireless work in keeping us informed. Throughout this crisis, we have been given an object lesson in who are truly the key workers in our society, such as those working on farms and in supermarkets, and those servicing utilities, cleaning streets, organising deliveries and keeping us safe. Will he ensure that this lesson is remembered when ordering the front of the queue for the rollout of the vaccine?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his kind comments, and endorse his tribute to all those who have worked hard on the front line of healthcare during this pandemic, at times putting themselves at risk, and all of them under great stress. We owe them enormous gratitude. The JCVI has made a clear priority list and advised that the first priorities for any vaccination programme should be the prevention of mortality and protection of healthcare staff and systems. Therefore the vaccine is being rolled out to the priority groups, including care home residents and staff, people over 80, and healthcare workers. They are the ones who will be at the top of the list, and that seems to me proportionate, fair and right. As we work through the later prioritisations, others in the population will have access to the vaccine.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, many congratulations to the Minister, the Government, Kate Bingham and the Vaccine Taskforce on V-day, yesterday. Does the Minister agree that this has been possible only because of the collaboration, in just six months, between the private sector, the Government, the NHS, universities, including Oxford, and the pharmaceutical sector, including AstraZeneca? In due course, could business help to roll out the vaccines, through inoculations taking place in offices, factories and business premises, thus causing less disruption? The CBI, of which I am president, stands by, ready to help.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord for his clear and heartfelt offer of help, and I completely endorse his comments. The collaboration between the NHS, the Government and business has been at the heart of our entire response to the pandemic. This collaboration has been termed the “triple helix”—a phrase that I like very much indeed. It is going to be at the heart of our building back of the healthcare system in the years ahead. On the noble Lord’s kind offer, I remind him that when someone takes any medical treatment, including a vaccine, they have to have the space to take stock and recover from the excitement of the vaccine, and they have to be supervised in that space by someone with some kind of clinical experience. So, while his offer is kind, it is likely that vaccine distribution will be in locations where we can put clinical supervision.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, do the Government intend to create some kind of vaccination passport, which will allow people to attend events across the UK and to travel to and from the UK without quarantine, if they have been vaccinated?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an extremely intriguing prospect. If it is indeed the case that those who have been vaccinated are not themselves contagious and cannot transmit the disease, there is the possibility that the vaccination will enable them to do things that might not be open to other members of the public. However, it is too early to call that one. We do not have the scientific evidence to demonstrate that the vaccine stops any infectiousness. We are working hard to try to understand that better. If it can be proved, we will look at an enable strategy.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, there have been many bleak days since the early part of this year, but yesterday was a day in which we can take great pride in the MHRA and all the people who were involved in bringing this vaccine quickly to the public in this country—the first in the world. In the past, a lot of criticism has been made of Kate Bingham. She has done a remarkable job in the way she has helped secure these vaccines from across the world. Will the Government be sure to learn the lessons of involving both private and public sectors in this remarkable venture?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I join my noble friend in paying tribute to the MHRA. We have all seen Dr June Raine in her flawless presentation and authoritative explanation of the authorisation of the vaccine. I am sure that, if she were here today, she would want to pay tribute to her incredibly impressive team at the MHRA. I also pay tribute to Kate Bingham and the very many people from the private sector who have stepped forward during the pandemic to take on onerous, sometimes high-profile and sometimes quite controversial roles in the battle with the pandemic. We owe them a huge tribute. They have often given up their time and put themselves in the firing line in order to do this work. Kate Bingham has massively delivered for this country and I am grateful to all those, either at the top of the task force or in local community work, who have stepped forward and made a contribution to our battle against Covid.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a danger that this whole programme could be undermined by crazy anti-vaxxers, particularly on social media? What are the Government going to do to counteract this?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord speaks truth, as always, in this matter. We are naturally concerned by those who deliberately seek to undermine the integrity of the vaccine. However, we are also considerate of those who might have quite reasonable questions about it or might even have what we think are completely unreasonable ones but who have concerns about, or an emotional response to, vaccines. Our approach is to handle those doubts and questions in a dialogue and a spirit of partnership, trying to answer them as considerately as we possibly can. Yes, we should battle those who seek to profit commercially or are acting in their own narrow, national interest to undermine the vaccine in this country. But we want to answer those in our community who have questions about the vaccine with transparency, reassurance and science.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the time allowed for this question has now elapsed. We will pause for a minute before the next item of business.
Social Security Co-ordination (Revocation of Retained Direct EU Legislation and Related Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 November be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.
Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 October be approved.
Relevant document: 32nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 1 December.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Wednesday 9th December 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 View all United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 156-I Marshalled list for consideration of Commons reasons and amendments - (8 Dec 2020)
14:18 - Division conducted remotely on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 320 / Noes: 215 - Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) agreed.
14:53 - Division conducted remotely on Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B) - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 250 - Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B) agreed.
16:39 - Division conducted remotely on Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K) - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 236 - Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K) agreed.
17:42 - Division conducted remotely on Motion L2 (as an amendment to Motion L) - Ayes: 313 / Noes: 236 - Motion L2 (as an amendment to Motion L) agreed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Proceedings on consideration of Commons reasons and amendments on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill will follow guidance issued by the Procedure and Privileges Committee. When there are counterpropositions, any Member in the Chamber may speak, subject to the usual seating arrangements and the capacity of the Chamber. Any intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. Members not intending to speak on a group should make room for Members who are. All speakers will be called by the chair. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.
The groupings are binding. Leave should be given to withdraw. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. Where there is no counterproposition, the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. If a Member speaking remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. Noble Lords following proceedings remotely, but not speaking, may submit their voice, content or not content, to the collection of the voices, by emailing the clerk during the debate. Members cannot vote by email. The way to vote will be via the remote voting system. We will now begin.
Motion A
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I think I was on mute for a minute there.
Lord True (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, says, “Keep it up,” which I know is a sentiment widely shared.
Noble Lords have been clear throughout this debate on the UKIM Bill about their support for the common frameworks programme. I and the Government concur with those sentiments, and I reiterate the Government’s continued commitment to this programme. I am pleased to update your Lordships’ House that common frameworks are developing well, with three common frameworks currently undergoing scrutiny, including in this House’s committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews—and I pay tribute to the work of that committee.
Out of 33 active frameworks that we have assessed are needed, we expect 30 to be agreed by the end of 2020, mostly on a provisional basis, pending scrutiny by Parliament and the devolved legislatures. The common frameworks programme embodies the value of strong intergovernmental relations. The UK Government and the devolved Administrations are working together, on a voluntary basis, in support of cohesive policy-making and the maintenance of high standards in respect of the specific needs of each part of the United Kingdom. While recognising this positive collaboration, we also need to acknowledge that the common frameworks were always intended to cover only a specific set of issues where powers are returning from the EU. Common frameworks support the functioning of the internal market but cannot by themselves ensure regulatory coherence across the whole UK internal market—the key objective of this Bill.
As the Government have noted previously, we regret that the Scottish Government walked away from the joint internal market workstream in spring 2019. Detailed engagement has been ongoing with the Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive on this Bill, and the door remains open to the Scottish Government to join similar discussions. The strength of common frameworks lies in the fact that they provide a forum for discussion and collaboration, with a clear process in defined, but limited, areas of economic activity.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his thoughtful participation in these debates and his considered amendments to the Bill, which he has now partly revised. I welcome also the willingness of the noble and learned Lord to continue engaging in discussions on his amendment with my officials, and those discussions may continue. I also thank noble Lords opposite for their own positive and practical engagement on these matters. Discussions are not exhausted on this topic.
On the amendment before us, I have cautioned your Lordships’ House before, regarding the previous amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that this would lead to the automatic disapplication of the market access principles, creating a very broad exclusions regime, with the attendant risk of legal uncertainty for businesses and consumers over whether or not market access principles apply. It is the Government’s view that these revised amendments carry similar risks, both in terms of the breadth of the exclusions regime created and in terms of uncertainty. As to the latter, there is no safeguard against different Administrations attempting to implement different interpretations of an agreement into law, potentially leaving the courts in the unenviable position of adjudicating on these different interpretations. That would potentially invite the courts into the common frameworks process, which is inherently undesirable. Any such litigation would create great uncertainty for businesses. This is clearly not in keeping with the need to provide certainty and a stable trading environment for citizens across our United Kingdom.
Moreover, Amendments 1B and 1C prevent the introduction by a UK Government Minister of any new regulations in any area where discussions under the common frameworks process are ongoing. This could mean Ministers would be unable to act, even if there were an urgent need to do so.
Furthermore, the common frameworks programme was established in 2017 to manage the powers returning from the EU in devolved policy areas. In line with its voluntary nature, the programme has not been put into legislation, although I recognise that it is alluded to, in very high-level terms, in Schedule 3 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.
While it is a key objective of common frameworks to agree consistent regulatory standards, in practice there may be cases where divergent approaches could be agreed through a common framework. If this were to occur, and if any such divergence were to fall within the scope of the market access principles, we should be in no doubt that the market access principles set out in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill would apply. That means that even if divergence is agreed in a particular case, it would not prevent businesses from other parts of the United Kingdom being able to sell their products into the relevant place. This would ensure that barriers to trade are not erected through the introduction of divergent policy.
We must also bear in mind that common frameworks are jointly owned by the devolved Administrations. Any proposal to legislate them into this Bill would need to take into account their involvement in the programme. While we have carefully reflected on the arguments made in both Houses, I respectfully suggest that the approach put forward in these amendments brings significant drawbacks to the Government’s ability to provide businesses with the certainty they need to operate across the United Kingdom.
I and colleagues across government look forward to discussing further with our partners in the devolved Administrations and devolved legislatures to consider how we can capitalise on the ways of working agreed through common frameworks. We are also working towards concluding a joint review of intergovernmental relations with the devolved Administrations. These future intergovernmental structures will create a system that secures strategic co-operation and proactive discussions on shared areas of interest, including on common frameworks. The aim of any reform will be to establish an adaptable and effective system of governance that facilitates building long-term trust between the Governments.
We are, of course, open to considering how to put these areas of co-operation on a sustainable footing for the longer term, complementing the IGR review and the market access principles to the benefit of citizens and businesses. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Hope of Craighead
At end insert “and do propose Amendments 1B, 1C and 1D in lieu—
“Common frameworks process
(1) The United Kingdom market access principles shall not apply to any statutory provision or requirement that gives effect to a decision to diverge from harmonised rules that has been agreed through the common frameworks process and states that its purpose is to give effect to that agreement.
(2) No regulations may be made by a Minister of the Crown with regard to a matter that is under consideration under the common frameworks process while that process in relation to that matter is still in progress.
(3) The common frameworks process is a means, established by the Joint Committee on European Negotiations, by which a measure of regulatory consistency to enable a functioning internal market within the United Kingdom may be mutually agreed between the United Kingdom and the devolved governments.”
“Common frameworks process
(1) The mutual recognition of authorisation requirements shall not apply to any regulatory requirement that gives effect to a decision to diverge from harmonised rules that has been agreed through the common frameworks process and states that its purpose is to give effect to that agreement.
(2) No regulations may be made by a Minister of the Crown with regard to a matter that is under consideration under the common frameworks process while that process in relation to that matter is still in progress.”
“( ) Section 22(2) does not apply if the provision has been agreed through the common frameworks process and it states that its purpose is to give effect to that agreement.””
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 1B, 1C and 1D in lieu, which are in my name. The fact that the Commons have disagreed with your Lordships’ amendments about the common frameworks process is a matter for regret, but they were good enough to give us a clear and simple reason. They told us that these amendments
“will create legal uncertainty, which would be disruptive to business.”
I took this to be a reference to what the noble Lord, Lord True, said when we were considering these amendments on Report:
“No one could know for sure, until the question was determined in court, whether a regulation or requirement, or a combination of regulations or requirements, was giving effect to an agreement reached within a common framework. There would be uncertainty as to whether or not the market access principles applied”.—[Official Report, 18/11/20; col. 1466.]
I can well understand the point that he and the other House are making, but I do not believe that it is incapable of being met, so I have added some words of my own to each of my proposed amendments to suggest how this could be done.
To be given the benefit of exemption from the market access principles, the regulation or exemption would need to state that it was their purpose to give effect to an agreement that had been reached through the common frameworks process. It seems to me that, if this were to be stated in the relevant instrument, the problem that the noble Lord referred to on Report would be overcome: everyone would know what it was and why it was there. No doubt there are other and better ways of achieving this, but my point is that, if there really is a will on the Government’s part to make this system work, a solution can be found. There is surely room for further discussion on this issue; the door must be kept open—and I am encouraged by some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord True, made in opening this debate. I ask your Lordships to invite the Commons to think again, and I will be seeking the opinion of the House as to whether we should do so.
Of course, I appreciate that it is not as simple as that; there are important issues of principle too. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Paul Scully, said in the other place that to legislate the common frameworks into the Bill would,
“not sit well with the flexible and voluntary nature of the common frameworks programme.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/20; col. 601.]
I appreciate, as has been stressed many times in your Lordships’ House, that the whole purpose of the market access principles is to enable traders to do business without internal barriers to trade across the UK. It is about
“a job, someone’s pay packet at the end of the week”,
as the Minister, Chloe Smith, said in evidence to the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee last week. But it all depends on how this is done.
It has to be said, too, that the issues about market access and the problems it may create are not all one way. Spare a thought for the trader in one of the devolved nations who has to have regard to the relevant requirements of all the other parts of the UK when considering whether a good which does not meet his own area’s requirements is something that he can properly market in his own area. It is not sunshine and roses for everyone.
Simply to say that the market access principles do not apply to an agreed decision, which is all that my amendments seek to do, does not seem to me to justify the concern that this would deprive the common frameworks process of its flexible and voluntary nature. Whether a given policy divergence really does create what amounts to a barrier, given its purpose, nature and effect, should be a matter for examination and assessment: that is what the common frameworks process is designed for. It is not about creating barriers, but about allowing for policy divergence in ways that are found, by agreement, to be consistent with the internal market.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Naseby. I call the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and many other noble Lords who have spoken on this subject burn with a passion for their interpretation of the rule of law, but I ask them to reflect that statute needs to have more than principle; it needs to have practicality in its application as well. The effect of these clauses resubmitted in lieu would be to tie the Government’s hands completely in response to any emergency that might arise in Northern Ireland which might need to be addressed. I look in vain in these clauses for any exception that says, for example, “in an emergency”, “if the food in the supermarkets runs out” or “if there is a shortage in supply of medicines”. In such cases, those matters, as I understand these clauses, would need to be addressed through the joint committee, and if the European Union was not willing to accept them, it would need to go through a lengthy process of arbitration. I do not believe that that is acceptable.
My second point relates to devolution and democracy in Northern Ireland. The effect of these clauses is to privilege a particular interpretation of a particular international treaty, the withdrawal agreement.
Lord Moylan (Con)
This is very much how I read the clauses, but if noble Lords generally feel that I have got the wrong bit of the Bill, then I shall subside at that point.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, the news that my noble friend from the Front Bench gave us this afternoon is encouraging. Clearly, discussions have been taking place and issues have evolved from them. I do not think that any of us in your Lordships’ House expected every single one of the agreements necessarily to be in a state to be written in and accepted in toto. To hear that 30 agreements have been agreed in broad principle is very encouraging news.
As someone who had a commercial life before coming into the political world, I wonder sometimes whether all your Lordships really understand. A chief executive—such as I was for a division of Reckitt and Colman Group—needs to know, as a certainty, what is happening. They cannot call in the company lawyer and say, “Well, it’s no good, George, you telling me on the one hand this and on the other hand that.” They have spent 15 months producing a new product—or whatever it may be. I sat as MP for an industrial town, Northampton, and I know the industrialists there. I spoke to them on Zoom only yesterday morning, and they are deeply concerned. I then read that the reason why the Commons have disagreed with our Amendments 1, 19 and 34 is
“Because they will create legal uncertainty, which will be disruptive to business.”
I also reflect that I had the privilege—as some of my noble friends in the Chamber did—of being in the other place. They are elected by the people. They have close contact with industry and commerce. When I am told, in writing, that it will be disruptive to business and that is why these Motions A and A1 are before us, I accept it. We have done our part. We are a Chamber that asks people to reflect. We have done that bit and we have done it well. The time comes, at a certain point, when you have to decide one way or the other. In my judgment, Her Majesty’s Government have got it right at this point.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Two other Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak—the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Foulkes, and I will call them in that order. I call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, in respect of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that because the Commons has given a view we should therefore immediately defer, the proposition is shown to be totally absurd by what is happening with amendments we will consider later. Between the Commons itself expressing a view on Monday and your Lordships meeting today, the Government have changed their mind. We have the unprecedented situation where a Minister of the Crown will move from the Dispatch Box in this House—maybe it will be the noble Lord, Lord True; I cannot wait to watch this performance take place—that this House do insist on its amendments when, 48 hours ago, a Minister of the Crown in the other House moved that the Commons should disagree with the House of Lords. If the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is concerned that we should respect the will of the House of Commons, since its will appears to change every day at the moment—in response to the invitation of Her Majesty’s Government to take stock of negotiations in Brussels—I think our duty to the Government is to send back everything at the moment. This will give them maximum flexibility to disagree with themselves over the remaining four days of this week. Then let us see how the cards fall next Monday.
These are not trivial matters; they go to the fundamental integrity of the United Kingdom and our relationship with the European Union. I strongly urge your Lordships, in respect of all these amendments, that we obey the precautionary principle. If we are not sure whether there is an impediment to the proper conduct of negotiations or the flexibility that we wish to give the Minister and his colleagues in these negotiations with the President of the European Commission, we should send everything back so that the Government have the maximum opportunity to disagree with themselves over the next week. Let us see where we are thereafter.
The House holds the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in extremely high regard—there is nobody who has a greater grasp of the technicalities of the issues we are addressing. We pay huge tribute to him and his colleagues, and the assiduous attention that they have given to the Bill’s passage in this House. He made a very good technical response to the Minister. In his Amendment 1B, the words at the end of his proposed new subsection (1),
“and states that its purpose is to give effect to that agreement”
make it absolutely clear that any divergence will be within the framework of the common frameworks process. Therefore, it cannot be outside it under the terms of the noble Lord’s own amendments. The only issue—which I think the Minister raised; we are all very fair-minded on this side of the House and give full credit to the noble Lord where he makes persuasive arguments—is what happens if the discussions, during the conduct of which it is not possible to make regulations under the terms of the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, do not come to a conclusion. The noble and learned Lord’s proposed new subsection (2) says that:
“No regulations may be made by a Minister of the Crown with regard to a matter that is under consideration”.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord can respond to that point when he replies. As a non-lawyer—I fear to tread in this territory—my reading of this is that all parties to these discussions would have to behave reasonably. It would not be open to a devolved Government to keep these discussions going interminably purely for the purposes of avoiding a Minister of the Crown making a regulation. I say that with some trepidation, because I am surrounded by former Supreme Court judges and Lord Chief Justices who will no doubt correct me on that, but if that is the case, then I think that would give a response to the Minister.
I make no apology for speaking on this as a non-lawyer, because behind all this is a very important political point, which comes shining through the words of the Minister. The basic, fundamental political point is whether devolution is a reality or a sham. If it is a reality, then it is absolutely right that the devolved Governments exercising powers conferred by Parliament—these are no small matters—should have the right to engage in discussions about a proper level of divergence that meets the market access principles and common frameworks process. Indeed, I am amazed at how restrained these amendments are because, under their terms, it is not the case that devolved Governments can simply diverge, even if their opinion of the law is that they have the power to diverge. They can only do so with the consent of the United Kingdom Government, because there has to be consensus between them. The amendment from the noble and learned, Lord Hope, in fact gives a very narrow scope—but proper scope, it seems to me—for the devolved Governments to engage in discussion with the United Kingdom Government to meet the United Kingdom market access principle on a level of divergence that would meet their judgment of what is appropriate for their own territories. The noble and learned Lord gave the example of higher food standards. This seems be the absolute minimum, consistent with the proper operation of devolution.
The big underlying point, which we might as well flush out, because it is right to be frank about this, is that the Prime Minister believes—he has told us this—that devolution was Blair’s biggest mistake. He does not believe in these devolved institutions at all; we know that because he has told us. It is always a good idea when people tell you what they think that you take them at their word. He has said that setting up the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly was Blair’s biggest mistake. If we take the view that the establishment of the institutions was itself a fundamental mistake, then of course we would not want to give them any power—even to discuss divergence—because we would think it was a mistake. If on the other hand we take the view that devolution is a beneficial part of the arrangements for the governance of the United Kingdom—which I take to be the official policy of the Government as opposed to the unofficial view of the Prime Minister—without which that governance might well collapse, then it seems to me that the provision that noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, sets out, for a proper level of divergence to reflect the judgment of devolved governments on what is appropriate for their territories, is absolutely right. We should therefore insist on these amendments.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I fear I will not match the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Adonis. I want to say a few words in support of the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who, like me, is a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee. In his introduction, the noble Lord, Lord True, praised my noble friend Lady Andrews and the work she and that committee are doing. If the Minister thinks that method is so good, why does he not accept these amendments, since that is exactly what we are suggesting—that it should be done through the kind of procedure that the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee is operating? He argued that case, perhaps without realising it, from the Dispatch Box.
Yesterday, I heard a very interesting debate. On one side of the argument was the importance of a level playing field for an internal market—I thought the United Kingdom Government were arguing that case in relation to what we are discussing—and on the other was sovereignty. I thought it might have been the Scottish or Welsh Governments arguing that case. Ironically, it was not. It was the European Union arguing the case for a level playing field for a common internal market and the United Kingdom Government arguing the case in relation to sovereignty. The tables were turned; the UK Government were arguing entirely the opposite case in relation to Europe that they argue in their dealings with the devolved authorities. It is about time they got their arguments right on this and accepted these amendments.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, throughout the many stages of this debate the common frameworks have been given a great airing, and many of your Lordships have had a chance to vent their respective spleens on the subject. The Minister may be assured that my spleen will remain in its correct place, because enough has been said on this issue. Indeed, he observed that noble Lords have made their position on common frameworks very clear.
However, the Government have shown great and steadfast reticence on writing the common frameworks into this Bill. The Minister set out two reasons for this: first, in stressing the word “voluntary” on several occasions, and, secondly, in pointing out the joint ownership of the common frameworks between the devolved authorities and the UK Government. On that second point, have any of the devolved authorities objected to the idea that common frameworks might be a central part of this Bill? I have seen no such objections; on the contrary, I have seen enthusiasm from devolved authorities that this might happen.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has drafted elegant solutions in his amendments, which I hope will help the Minister to get to the point of developing the market access principles and legal certainties—the Minister is right to say that we need them—but, at the same time, respecting the devolution settlement. A key part of the noble and learned Lord’s speech was about the respect that this Bill needs to show the devolved authorities and the settlement that has developed so well there.
I was impressed by the tone of conciliation and consultation in the Minister’s speech, which came through in his “willingness to continue to engage in discussion”, “discussions have not been exhausted” and “open to discussions.” The door is clearly open. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, there is time; I have also worked in commercial life and while the idea of “give me certainty” works within a correct framework, if it is “give me certainty” in a terrible framework then I would rather wait a little and get it right. We can spend a few days more getting this right. A vote for the amendments set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, would help keep the door open for those discussions with the Minister. That is why we on these Benches will vote in favour of them.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is not in his place, will recall how the notion of common frameworks evolved. When we were doing the first EU withdrawal Bill, it became clear that some of the powers returning from Brussels clearly fell within devolved competences. It was therefore widely understood that, to facilitate trade throughout the UK—as otherwise the rules affecting trade could vary across internal borders—a coming together of the four authorities would be needed to balance the desire for, and attraction of, diversity on some issues with a UK-wide approach to help consumers buy and manufacturers trade throughout the UK.
From the start, it was agreed that such frameworks would be established where needed—this is from the communiqué of October 2017—to
“enable the functioning of the UK internal market, while acknowledging policy divergence”
and that they would
“respect the devolution settlements … based on established conventions … including that the competence of the devolved institutions will not normally be adjusted without their consent”.
That was how they started. At that point, a list of 24 such topics was identified and, with a lot of good faith and hard work—as the Minister has acknowledged—the initial three Governments, along with Northern Ireland officials, set to work developing frameworks to enable that UK-wide market to flourish while recognising where devolved authorities might want variations for whatever reason. The basis was, to quote again from that document signed by the Government, to
“maintain, as a minimum, equivalent flexibility for tailoring policies to the specific needs of each territory”.
Until this Bill arrived, everyone thought the system was working well and would accomplish the aims set for it. This should have been something for the Government to celebrate, as they have today, and build on. In fact, it has never been necessary for the Government to use their powers to freeze any devolved authority’s power—a provision set into the EU withdrawal Act, as the Minister has acknowledged.
While this Bill was anticipated, the expectation was that it would help build a new, in some ways unique, internal market across our four nations, which have different cultural, linguistic, agricultural, geographical and industrial histories and realities. Above all, our nations have different democratic governance structures from when we ceded rule-making to the EU in 1973. We thought the Bill would respect the devolution realities while helping to ensure the UK market could prosper for the sake of business, consumers, workers, our agriculture and the environment. As we now know, in addition to throwing the quite unnecessary Part 5 grenade into the Bill, the Government pulled the pin on another grenade by writing into the Bill market access rules which trumped, rather than solidified, the common frameworks programme, which is an approach built on consensus rather than top-down diktat.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is not a revolutionary. He is not trying to rewrite the Bill. He is seeking—rather like the Minister himself through the Government’s welcome amendments on regulation-making, for which we will give thanks when we come to them later—to start the process on the basis of consent across the four devolved authorities, and, where that is not possible, leaving it to the UK Parliament, rightly, to legislate. We support a union, and therefore we support Parliament’s right at that point to have its proper role. But we start with consent, and then move to Parliament. What we do not support is starting here in Parliament and government, rather than with the four-party common frameworks. So, we welcome the noble and learned Lord’s upending of the procedure, starting with common frameworks and, where or if those do not work, using the market access approach of the Bill in areas obviously otherwise within devolved competencies.
I think we would all warn the Government to be very careful about clawing back decisions from our now quite long-established devolved settlements. I find today’s vote in the Senedd, by 36 to 15, to deny legislative consent to this Bill extraordinarily regrettable. It is an important Bill; it is not a small one. That was denied because of the message sent to Wales and the other devolveds by the rejection in the Commons last night of this approach. So we need a backstop for any failure to agree, but we fail to understand that what should be a backstop has become the starting gun.
The amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, build on the devolution settlements and would support and strengthen the union, as well as creating what we all want: a successful, growing internal market, which is in the interest of all our citizens. We are right, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, to ask the Government very genuinely to think again about the mechanisms—because that is what we are discussing—to achieve what I think we all want.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said that if there was a will on the Government’s part to make the common frameworks system work, a solution could be found. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, we concur with that view, and we welcome the Minister’s saying that “discussions are not exhausted”—I think I have his words right. Whether we do that by recognising the framework system in some way, extending the freeze provisions when they expire or pausing market access for a period of time while the four Governments talk—as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Adonis—there is surely a way forward. But I believe we need this amendment to get the Government to continue to discuss, so that we can get that way forward. That is why we will support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, when he calls for a vote shortly.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this short debate and for the general tone of the interventions made. I was of course intrigued by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who emerged as a tribune of the people in this august senatorial assembly with his powerful oratory—a latter-day Gaius Gracchus, who said that your Lordships should reject everything sent to us by another place as a constructive contribution to law-making. I would respectfully give to the noble Lord, and indeed to any others who may share his views, the advice I would give to an overweight gentleman like myself: rejecting some of what is set before you, whether it is legislation or food, may well be desirable from time to time, but to reject everything is not conducive to the health of the legislature or of an individual. I hope that rather “Radical Jack” approach will not carry too much weight on the Opposition Benches.
I preferred the broader tone of the debate, which, as I heard it, actually reflected this Government’s resolve and the resolve of the parties represented in this place, at least—I cannot speak for down the Corridor: that all of us are committed to the security and future of this great union, to the common frameworks process and, as part of that, to hopefully developing further the next stage of inter-governmental relations, as I have explained to the House during the course of this Bill.
This Bill, however, works in tandem with the common frameworks programme by providing a broad safety net and additional protections to maintain the status quo of seamless intra-UK trade across all sectors of the economy, and there ought to be agreement on that in your Lordships’ House. It will ensure maximum certainty for businesses and investors, both domestic and overseas. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Naseby said from his perspective and experience in business. I am sure all noble Lords at heart support that objective and understand the need for a coherent internal market.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I must say that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, that we need to create and indeed preserve a coherent internal market. I do not think anything I said in my presentation, or anything in the aims I am seeking to achieve through my amendments, is in any way in conflict with that overriding aim. It is all a matter of finding a solution that is consistent with that and with the devolution system to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, spoke so movingly this afternoon.
I think the noble Lord, Lord True, will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, did raise an interesting point about subsections (2) of my Amendments 1B and 1C. All I can say to the noble Lord is that I would rather not go into the details at this stage in the debate. It is, among all the things I have raised in my amendments, a subject for further consideration and discussion—if, as I hope, discussions will continue. It was with that aim that my amendment was framed for debate this afternoon.
I think we all know what the issues are; they have been thoroughly debated several times. It is time for a decision. With reference to Amendments 1B, 1C and 1D, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Callanan
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 56 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 8A, 10A and 15A, but do propose the following amendments in lieu—
Commons Reasons
“(7A) If consent to the making of the regulations is not given by any of those authorities within the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is sought from that authority, the Secretary of State may make the regulations without that consent.
(7B) If regulations are made in reliance on subsection (7A), the Secretary of State must publish a statement explaining why the Secretary of State decided to make the regulations without the consent of the authority or authorities concerned.”
“(8A) Before making regulations under subsection (7), the Secretary of State must seek the consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.
(8B) If consent to the making of the regulations is not given by any of those authorities within the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is sought from that authority, the Secretary of State may make the regulations without that consent.
(8C) If regulations are made in reliance on subsection (8A), the Secretary of State must publish a statement explaining why the Secretary of State decided to make the regulations without the consent of the authority or authorities concerned.”
“(4) Before making regulations under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must seek the consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.
(5) If consent to the making of the regulations is not given by any of those authorities within the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is sought from that authority, the Secretary of State may make the regulations without that consent.
(6) If regulations are made in reliance on subsection (4), the Secretary of State must publish a statement explaining why the Secretary of State decided to make the regulations without the consent of the authority or authorities concerned.”
“(4A) Before issuing, revising or withdrawing guidance under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.”
“Duty to review the use of Part 1 amendment powers
(1) In this section “the Part 1 amendment powers” are the powers conferred by sections 6(5), 8(7) and 10(2) (powers to amend certain provisions of Part 1).
(2) The Secretary of State must, during the permitted period—
(a) carry out a review of any use that has been made of the Part 1 amendment powers,
(b) prepare a report of the review, and(c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(3) In carrying out the review the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland,
(b) consider any relevant reports made, or advice given, by the Competition and Markets Authority under Part 4, and(c) assess the impact and effectiveness of any changes made under the Part 1 amendment powers.(4) The permitted period is the period beginning with the third anniversary of the passing of this Act and ending with the fifth anniversary.
(5) If any Part 1 amendment power has not been used by the time the review is carried out, this section has effect—
(a) as if the report required by subsection (2), so far as relating to that power, is a report containing—
(i) a statement to the effect that the power has not been used since it came into force, and
(ii) such other information relating to that statement as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to give, and(b) as if the requirements of subsection (3) did not apply in relation to that power.”
“(4) Before making regulations under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must seek the consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.
(5) If consent to the making of the regulations is not given by any of those authorities within the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is sought from that authority, the Secretary of State may make the regulations without that consent.
(6) If regulations are made in reliance on subsection (5), the Secretary of State must publish a statement explaining why the Secretary of State decided to make the regulations without the consent of the authority or authorities concerned.”
“(8A) Before making regulations under subsection (7), the Secretary of State must seek the consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.
(8B) If consent to the making of the regulations is not given by any of those authorities within the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is sought from that authority, the Secretary of State may make the regulations without that consent.
(8C) If regulations are made in reliance on subsection (8A), the Secretary of State must publish a statement explaining why the Secretary of State decided to make the regulations without the consent of the authority or authorities concerned.”
“Duty to review the use of Part 2 amendment powers
(1) In this section “the Part 2 amendment powers” are the powers conferred by sections 17(2) and 20(7) (powers to amend certain provisions of Part 2).
(2) The Secretary of State must, during the permitted period—
(a) carry out a review of any use that has been made of the Part 2 amendment powers,
(b) prepare a report of the review, and
(c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(3) In carrying out the review the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland,
(b) consider any relevant reports made, or advice given, by the Competition and Markets Authority under Part 4, and
(c) assess the impact and effectiveness of any changes made under the Part 2 amendment powers.
(4) The permitted period is the period beginning with the third anniversary of the passing of this Act and ending with the fifth anniversary.
(5) If either of the Part 2 amendment powers has not been used by the time the review is carried out, this section has effect—
(a) as if the report required by subsection (2), so far as relating to that power, is a report containing—
(i) a statement to the effect that the power has not been used since it came into force, and
(ii) such other information relating to that statement as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to give, and
(b) as if the requirements of subsection (3) did not apply in relation to that power.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, this group covers the exclusions to the market access principles and delegated powers-.
I turn first to Amendment 8L and other consequential amendments relating to the exclusions from the market access principles. These amendments, to which the other place have already disagreed, would replace the current Clause 10 with an expansive list of aims, which could be used to justify creating trade barriers for goods in the United Kingdom. The exclusions approach, as originally drafted, achieves a careful balance. It sits within the fundamental framework of the market access principles which protect the UK’s highly integrated internal market, but allows the Government to remove very targeted and specific policy areas from scope so that they continue to operate for the particular conditions where they are needed under the bespoke constraints relevant to those circumstances. This targeted approach provides certainty to businesses while ensuring that important or high-risk policy areas, such as chemicals, pesticides or sanitary and phytosanitary measures, can operate effectively.
However, the protections and benefits of the internal market proposals would quickly begin to fade with an expansive list of exclusions for part 1. This would allow unnecessary trade barriers and unjustifiable costs to businesses and consumers. The Government’s view is that a targeted list of exclusions in the Bill, combined with how the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination interact, is the best way in which to allow each part of the United Kingdom to meet its respective goals while avoiding unnecessary damage to the UK’s internal market.
The noble Lord’s amendment would not achieve that balance. Although the new list of exclusions that he has presented is slightly changed from his earlier amendment, the list remains very wide. It captures almost all kinds of public policy objectives, and only requires a new regulation “to make a contribution” to any of the aims in the list. This means that almost any regulation proposed by the UK Government or the devolved Administrations in future could be excluded from the scope of the market access principles. The Government reject the idea that a large list of exclusions is needed to preserve standards. The UK Government share with the devolved Administrations commitments to maintaining our existing high standards, whether environmental protection, animal welfare or consumer standards. We will continue to work together on these as a united kingdom as we leave the transition period. We should not forget that the Bill’s design will continue to allow all Governments to innovate, so that new ideas can emerge—as they did with plastic bag charges, for instance—to build better and higher standards for us all, including in the many social policy areas that the noble Lord clearly is concerned about.
I turn to the amendments relating to delegated powers, which underpin the realisation of these market access principles and make sure that they continue to function as effectively as possible. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government’s view remains that these key delegated powers are necessary. My colleague, Minister Scully, successfully argued in the other place that the amendments to remove these powers should be rejected. These powers will ensure that the system continues to evolve, facilitating frictionless trade across the United Kingdom. This will be necessary to react to developments in technology and regulation that cannot be foreseen at present. They also allow the Government to respond rapidly to business and wider stakeholder feedback—for example, to amend the list of exclusions, if implementation shows the need for adjustment.
It is important to note that any of these powers would require an affirmative procedure statutory instrument to be made in Parliament. This will ensure that there is full transparency on any changes and that MPs from all parts of the UK can scrutinise and vote on any changes. Furthermore, these powers are now supplemented by the comprehensive and reasonable package of amendments that we have proposed. This includes new amendments tabled ahead of this debate, giving more certainty on the role of the devolved Administrations in developing changes. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for their constructive engagement on this matter.
We have listened to your Lordships’ House carefully. Indeed, at Report, we removed the power for the Secretary of State to amend the list of statutory requirements which are in scope of the mutual recognition principle for goods. In this case, having looked again after hearing from your Lordships, we changed our position, having assessed that the removal of the power will not substantially undermine the operation and flexibility of the internal market system.
We have also retabled the Government’s amendment from Report, removing the main affirmative power in relation to the exclusions to part 2. When the other place disagreed with this House’s amendment, removing the main affirmative power and the draft affirmative power, both parts of that power were restored to the Bill. I am happy to make the change that I proposed in my amendment at Report once again. We have also proposed new amendments that give an enhanced role to devolved Administrations in relation to these powers, building on the model proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, at Report and ensuring that agreement across all Administrations to the use of the power is achieved whenever possible. The Secretary of State will be required to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations prior to any use of this power. If consent is not provided within one month, the Secretary of State will be able to proceed without that consent but must publish a statement setting out the reasons for proceeding in this way. As this adapts the model that your Lordships previously supported, I hardly need to stress the merits of this approach, which ensures that the devolved Administrations have a say but not a veto. I am hopeful that this time noble Lords will support it. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is nodding; we are in a good place on this one.
Thanks to government amendments introduced at Report that are retabled today, the impact and effectiveness of any use of these powers will be subject to review within five years. A report setting out the conclusions of that review must then be laid before Parliament. I hope this offers comfort to this House that we are taking seriously the concerns that have been raised, and we are working to address them constructively. The uses of the powers to make delegated legislation contained in parts 1 and 2 of the Bill will be scrutinised, not only when they are being laid before Parliament, but also in a more holistic way, after a suitable period has elapsed. This review will again give an opportunity for the devolved Administrations to provide their views.
I briefly address the power to issue guidance, to which we have deliberately taken a more distinct approach. Clause 12 explains that the Secretary of State may issue explanatory guidance on the practical operation of the market access principles for goods. It is not a power to make or amend legislation and, therefore, it differs from other delegated powers in part 1 of the Bill. As part of this process, we will, of course, engage with all the relevant stakeholders, because we are committed to helping regulators and traders to understand the principles and make the best possible use of them. This includes the devolved Administrations, and we are including a legislative commitment to consult them before issuing, amending or withdrawing that guidance. Guidance will not change the rules themselves, so a requirement to seek the consent of devolved Administrations, as proposed for other powers, is not needed.
I urge your Lordships to support all the amendments to these powers, which I hope noble Lords will agree represent a reasonable approach. Crucially, they also enable the internal market system to remain up to date while ensuring the highest degree of scrutiny and accountability. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Leave out from “12,” to end and insert “15, 16, 17, 18, 30, 31, 32 and 33 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 8A, 10A and 15A, do propose Amendments 8B to 8D and 8F to 8K in lieu, do propose Amendment 8L in lieu of the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Amendment 12 and do insist on its Amendments 13 and 56—
“Exclusions from market access principles: public interest derogations
(1) The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to, and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do not affect the operation of, any requirements which—
(a) pursue a legitimate aim,
(b) are a proportionate means of achieving that aim, and
(c) are not a disguised restriction on trade.
(2) A requirement is considered to pursue a legitimate aim if it makes a contribution to the achievement of—
(a) environmental standards and protection,
(b) animal welfare,
(c) consumer standards, including digital and artificial intelligence privacy rights,
(d) employment rights and protections,
(e) health and life of humans, animals or plants,
(f) protection of public health, or
(g) equality entitlements, rights and protections.
(3) A requirement is considered disproportionate if the legitimate aim being pursued in the destination part of the United Kingdom is already achieved to the same or higher extent by requirements in the originating part of the United Kingdom.””
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and have listened carefully to his views. I will reverse the order in which he spoke and hope he will not mind and is able to follow.
I start with the question about powers, on which he ended. I thank him and his colleagues for the considerable time over the last few months—and increasingly the last few days—that they have provided to discuss this Bill and the wider context with which it engages. I confirm that we are happy to continue to talk in the remaining time. We agree with the stated aims of the Bill to ensure that our internal market works well for consumers in all parts of the United Kingdom for workers and businesses trading here and for importers. But we also support the DPRRC in its criticisms of the delegated powers which were initially included in the Bill. The DPRRC argued that they were not appropriate and were in excess of what was needed to ensure the continued operation of the UK internal market, so we are delighted that the Government said in their letter issued this morning that they have:
“listened closely to and acknowledged the strength of Peers’ concerns regarding the position of the devolved administrations in relation to the application of … delegated powers”.
Your Lordships owe a considerable debt of gratitude of my noble friends Lady Andrews and Lady Hayter for their work on this over the last few weeks. They have been tireless in their pursuit of the issue and it has resulted, as the Minister said, in three major concessions, which we welcome, and some other changes. The concessions require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations before exercising the powers, setting a time limit for that and a process if consent is withheld, and introducing a statutory requirement to consult with the devolved Administrations before issuing, revising or withdrawing guidance. We welcome these, and the statutory requirement for a review of these powers in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Bill within five years. Finally, on this issue, it is good to see the change in tone towards the devolved Administrations, which is reflected in these changes, in the speech today, and in the letter to which I have already referred.
I turn to Amendment B1 in my name, and the amendment in lieu, and look forward to the debate. I give notice as requested that I intend to test the opinion of the House at the end of that debate. We agree with the Government that, at the core of any approach to setting the rules for the UK internal market, there should be harmonised rules underpinned by a strong consultative process. We seek a combination of common frameworks on the one hand and market access principles on the other.
In the debate that has just occurred on the amendment in lieu offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the House has confirmed its position on the common frameworks process, which, as my noble friend Lady Hayter said and the Minister agreed, builds on substantial progress made to date. The Government’s main objection continues to be that as the common frameworks are, at heart, a voluntary and co-operative system, with all the strengths and benefits that brings to the devolution settlement, it could bring unnecessary uncertainty into the system. We acknowledge that, but we think that there are ways in which that could be tackled, some of which are based on powers that the Government already have in place. We remain willing to explore a possible solution to the Government’s concerns over the next few days—perhaps over dinner, if that is how things are done these days.
However, there is also a need for statutory underpinning of the internal market. The purpose of our amendment is to preserve the potential for managed policy divergence that is central to the devolution settlement. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said on the first day of Report:
“That potential is squeezed out for the future, save in limited and inconsistent respects, by the non-discrimination and mutual recognition principles as they appear in the Bill.”—[Official Report, 18/11/20; col. 1508.]
My amendment provides the derogations to the market access principles. They are commonly available in devolved, federal and confederal states all over the world. Their purpose is more a safety valve than a threat to market integrity, and their use would remain subject to strict statutory controls. As currently drafted, the structure is unbalanced. The common frameworks incentivise co-operation and consensus, and my amendment would diminish in a strictly controlled fashion the crudely centralising force of the market access principles, provide balance and encourage innovation.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Does any noble Lord in the Chamber wish to speak on this amendment? If not, I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I will take the amendments in the opposite order to the Minister, if the House is happy with that.
The delegated powers issue has almost become a ritual in your Lordships’ House. A Bill is published and in it are many very draconian powers, which seek to change almost everything the Bill can do at the will of the Minister. There is then a report from the DPRRC which condemns it, and then there is a debate and we start to move towards a more reasonable situation. I hope, perhaps, that we can learn from this and maybe cut out a few of the steps, so that we can get to the reasonable situation. The Government have given considerable ground on this, and for that we should all be accepting and reasonable and, I suppose, grateful, although perhaps gratitude is the wrong word.
With respect to Clause 12, I think we will all be watching quite closely to see how those powers are exercised, because advice can come in many forms and we will be seeking to observe that.
The characterisation that these delegated powers are required in order for the Government to react and act with speed has been absolutely confounded by the way in which the Covid crisis has been addressed by the Government. There has been very rapid legislation and very rapid reaction. Looking forward, we have got to a better place than we were in when we started. I still do not think that we would call it perfect, but we have taken a long time to get there.
My reading of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is that it is the return of Amendment 21, or at least most of it. Listening to his very reasonable presentation of the amendment and having listened to the debates on Report, I am somewhat surprised that the Government continue to dig their heels in. I can understand that the list in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause might have raised some concerns, and it can of course be subject to negotiation, but as the list now stands—with environmental standards and protection; animal welfare; consumer standards, including digital; employment rights and protections; the health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of public health; or equality entitlements—it seems that the Government could not possibly object to it, so I am surprised. The Minister has set out his concerns about an ordered market, but it is very clear that any market that did not observe these things would not be one that we wanted anyway.
With that response, I suggest that we will be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, when this Motion is put to a vote. We hope that the Government will be able to have discussions with the noble Lord and others, so that next time they can come back with something much closer to what we have seen today.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for a good, albeit brief, debate. To summarise, earlier I expressed my concerns about Amendment 8L and the expansive list of exclusions from the market access principles that it introduces. The list that we have included has been carefully drafted to strike what is, in our view, a measured balance. It protects the ability of the devolved Administrations and the UK Government to deliver policy, while avoiding harmful or costly barriers to trade within the UK internal market. The Bill does nothing to stop all nations working together to achieve mutual goals and build on our shared high standards.
On the delegated powers in the Bill, it is not proportionate to remove the Government’s ability to ensure that the list of exclusions and legitimate aims remains appropriate. The Government have already set out a comprehensive package of changes to the delegated powers in the Bill, including for the removal of certain powers and for reviews and reporting to Parliament, and new amendments on the role of the devolved Administrations. This provides for effective transparency and scrutiny of the remaining powers.
We believe that there is a reasonable middle ground here. Many noble Lords tabled and supported amendments to alter, but not remove, the powers in the Bill. We agree with those colleagues. These powers are necessary, and we believe that the changes we have proposed should address their concerns. I therefore hope that noble Lords will be able to support the Government’s approach to reinstating these powers in the Bill.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank both speakers in this short debate. We have not had much buy-in from others, but that just shows that the issues are very clear, and I think that people may well have already made up their minds.
I was interested that the noble Lord did not really come back on the points that I made. His concern seems to be that the list is too expansive, although he does not seem to attack the principle on which it is based. I signal again, and reaffirm, that we would be very happy to discuss how such a list should be configured better to suit his interests and meet his concerns. I hope that I am not misreading the willingness to do that over the next few days—we would certainly be available to talk if he wanted to do so.
I think that we have covered the ground very carefully. We support and welcome the Government’s amendments in the area of delegated powers, but I would like to test the opinion of the House on my Motion B1.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it seems that I am muted again, but I will find my way to the right spot. I turn now to Part 5 of the Bill. These clauses, as your Lordships may be aware, have been the subject of much debate here and in the other place.
Noble Lords will have seen that the Government announced yesterday that they have reached agreement, in principle, on all of the issues in the UK-EU withdrawal agreement Joint Committee. The Government have been clear throughout that they are committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. We said that when the Bill was introduced to Parliament and have done so at every stage of its passage. We are also clear that, as a responsible Government, we could not allow the economic integrity of the United Kingdom’s internal market to be compromised inadvertently by unintended consequences of the protocol. That is why, through clauses in this Bill, we have sought limited and reasonable steps to create a legal safety net by taking powers in reserve whereby Ministers could guarantee the integrity of our United Kingdom and ensure that the Government are always able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.
We sought these measures to guard against the possibility of not reaching agreement with the EU in the Joint Committee. As we have now reached agreement with the EU, I am pleased to say that the clauses which provided for the safety net are no longer needed and the Government are content for them to be removed from the Bill. I refer to Clauses 44, 45 and 47.
Lord True (Con)
However, as I said in Committee, the clauses that provide for the safety net are not the only ones that make up this part of the Bill. It is vital that the other clauses are passed so that we can deliver on our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland. The protocol is clear that Northern Ireland is part of the UK customs territory, while our manifesto is clear that we would maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market. Clause 42 delivers on that commitment by ensuring that all authorities must have special regard to the following fundamental matters when exercising functions that relate to the implementation of the protocol on the movement of goods within the United Kingdom.
The first is the need to maintain the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom’s internal market. The second is the need to respect Northern Ireland’s place as a part of the United Kingdom’s customs territory, while the third is the need to facilitate the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The clause is also entirely in line with the protocol. Indeed, Article 4 states
“Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom.”
Article 6 goes on to state
“Nothing in this Protocol shall prevent the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom’s internal market.”
In the recitals it states that the application of the protocol
“should impact as little as possible on the everyday life of communities in both Ireland and Northern Ireland”.
This clause delivers on the commitments made in the Government’s manifesto, in the Command Paper published by the Government in May on the implementation of the protocol and on the protocol itself. These are not controversial aims, and indeed some were surprised that your Lordships feel differently.
Let me be clear that as there was some confusion about this in Committee, this clause is not dependent on any other in the Bill. There is no infection or so-called contamination here; it is merely about a Government fulfilling their commitment to the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, the fact that the Government are seeking to ensure that the clause remains in the Bill, while Clauses 44, 45 and 47 are removed, proves the point. This clause does not provide for or allow for a breach in any way of the withdrawal agreement and is entirely in keeping with the protocol.
I turn now to Clause 43. As I have said, and as noble Lords will know, the Government have committed to providing unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses on multiple occasions. Clause 43 gives effect to that commitment by prohibiting the introduction of new checks and controls on Northern Ireland goods, with some very limited exceptions. This is in keeping with what the Government have said constantly and with what was promised in our manifesto. That commitment is critically important to the businesses and people of Northern Ireland. By including Clause 43 in the Bill, we will protect the vast majority of the £8.1 billion-worth of goods sales from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, and guarantee Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom’s internal market. I hope all of us can now agree on the importance of providing unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods to the rest of the United Kingdom. This clause delivers on that.
As with Clause 42, this clause is not dependent on any other in the Bill. I of course recognise that Clause 43(3)(b) refers to Clause 47, but that is only part of spelling out that it in fact allows checks where applicable international obligations require them. That subsection is being removed. This clause does not provide for or allow for a breach in any way of the withdrawal agreement and it is entirely in keeping with the protocol.
Given the broad support there is for unfettered access, the Government’s repeated commitments to legislate for unfettered access—including in the New Decade, New Approach Deal to restore the Executive, our May Command Paper on our approach to implementing the protocol and the manifesto that brought this Government to office in the last election—and given how important it is to protect access for Northern Ireland businesses to their most important market, it would be hugely disappointing for them and for business certainty in Northern Ireland if noble Lords were to remove these subsections unduly.
I turn to Clause 46. Under state aid rules, notification is the process through which EU member states inform the Commission about state aid or potential state aid. This process will continue to apply to the United Kingdom from 1 January 2021, but in relation only to the limited circumstances where Article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol applies. This clause simply establishes a statutory requirement that no one besides the Secretary of State may notify the European Commission of state aid or potential state aid. It codifies existing practice in legislation and would not be considered novel or controversial to the Commission, as it is unlikely to accept notification from anyone other than authorised persons.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I am relieved that Clauses 44, 45 and 47 are being removed from the Bill. They were constitutionally improper and a constitutional aberration. They subverted the rule of law. As we have known for centuries, and was summed up by a former Lord Chief Justice in the 17th century, Edward Coke, the rule of law is our “safest shield”.
The way in which the debate over the Bill unfolded perhaps reminded us of something else, something which perhaps noble Lords do not need to be reminded of, but needs occasionally to be drawn to the attention of the Executive: we are a Parliament of two Chambers. The Executive has no sovereignty; Parliament has sovereignty. Of course, the Commons is the first, the prime, the pre-eminent, the most significant and the most important part of the two Houses of Parliament, but that does not mean that this House is without some modest power.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, the noble Lords, Lord Naseby, Lord Cormack and Lord Dodds, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I therefore call the noble Lord, Lord Howard.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I will be brief. I agree with everything that has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I welcome how the Government have seen fit to remove these clauses, which, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, should never have found their way into draft legislation. The Government should never have asked Parliament to agree to the breaking of international law, which these clauses would have provided.
I also welcome how the issues to which this part of the Bill gave rise have been resolved in the way that so many of us asked of the Government: through the procedures for dispute resolution that are set out in the withdrawal agreement. Who knows? Could this conceivably form a precedent for the resolution of other issues yet to be resolved? We must devoutly hope so. For the moment, I rise to welcome the removal of these clauses from the Bill. They should never have been there and it is a great relief that they will not be there any more.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I understand the pleasure that many noble Lords have in the fact that the Government have withdrawn—or want and are likely to withdraw—these clauses. However, it is a pity, in a way, that this House did not have the Statement from the Cabinet Office Secretary, heard already today in the other place, before discussing this. It is very wrong that that Statement will not come to this House before last business tomorrow. If you read it, you will find that much of what has been said is not set in stone. Yes, an agreement in principle was made yesterday—it is important to mention the words “in principle”—by the Secretary of State going over to Brussels. After all this time, he suddenly came back, after a cup of tea or, perhaps, a lunch, with something that was meant to make everything okay. It is important that your Lordships consider today what we are doing about this protocol and are under no illusion about what has now been agreed in principle by the Secretary of State and the European Union, and the co-chairs of the committee.
Noble Lords should look at why these clauses were originally put in. I accept that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has been very clear about the breaking of international law; he talked about the constitutional improperty. I urge your Lordships to think about the constitutional improperty of what is being done to a part of the United Kingdom. Let us be clear: nearly 45% of Northern Ireland people voted to leave the European Union; they voted to leave as the United Kingdom. We are not now in a position where Northern Ireland is leaving with the rest of the United Kingdom. This is important, because of all the safeguards that were being put in by these clauses. For example, the Commons Reason says:
“Because the regulation-making power conferred by clause 44 provides a necessary safety net to ensure Ministers can secure that qualifying Northern Ireland goods have full, unfettered access to the whole of the UK internal market.”
The other clauses were all designed as a safety net. Let us be clear: that safety net has now gone. We are now in a position where Northern Ireland will still be subject to the European Court of Justice, which will still exercise control there. Northern Ireland will be subject to any new European rules to do with trade. Much of the agreement announced by the Secretary of State is only for six months. What happens after six months when we have seen it on the ground? The proof of all this will be in the implementation. For example, we have already seen the very welcome announcement that, now we have left the EU, the Government can ban the export of live animals. That will not apply to Northern Ireland. There are even discussions that, if you move your dog from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, you will need a special permit. So let us not kid ourselves—to use words that are not very House of Lords—that we are not starting down the road of setting up Northern Ireland to be different and a place apart. We were promised that we would leave as a United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is not leaving the European Union in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. In future, noble Lords will look back on this as a very sad day for the unity of our United Kingdom.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I think I am brave enough to suggest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that his ruling or reading that Part 5 was illegal is not shared by those I have consulted since. David Wolfson QC said:
“The mere act of laying a bill before parliament which, if it were passed into statute, would breach a treaty obligation (and would amend domestic legislation bringing that treaty obligation into effect in domestic law) is not itself a breach of the treaty or of international law. Nor would merely laying such a bill be itself a breach of the rule of law”.
The noble Baroness who has just spoken is absolutely right. I had the privilege of being a very junior Minister in Northern Ireland. The safeguards of Part 5 of the Bill were there for a purpose, for a very difficult area of the United Kingdom. We all know that it needs sensitivity, understanding and, as anyone who has served in Northern Ireland will know, patience. Things do not happen quickly there—and against that particularly the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
I welcome the joint statement received from the co-chairs of the EU-UK Joint Committee that:
“Following intensive and constructive work over the past weeks by the EU and the UK, the two co-chairs can now announce their agreement in principle on all issues, in particular with regard to the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland.”
In my judgment, as a practical man, the original procedure has worked, not the threats from a certain section of the upper House. I therefore thank my noble friend on the Front Bench, who I imagine has been in detailed discussion with those who have come to this decision.
As an aside, I am someone who looks at votes and the results of Divisions. Noble Lords may have noticed that, in the first Division this afternoon, the votes of those voting for the Motion and, therefore, against the Government, appear to have dropped by about 100 from last time. On the second Division it dropped to 45. I venture to suggest that the Government have taken action, worked hard and made progress. It would be good if this House now got on and accepted some of the proposals from Her Majesty’s Government.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I do not think this is the occasion for a heated and contentious debate, although I say to my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that 56% of the people of Northern Ireland did vote to remain in the European Union. To assert superiority from a position of inferiority does not really do justice to the noble Baroness, whom I have known for many years, who served on my Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, and whom I admire.
I believe very strongly that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, did this House, and this country, a service when he introduced his Motion at the end of Committee, which deleted the whole of Part 5. I was proud to support him, as I know my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne was. We were devastated at the thought of a British Government—particularly, for the two of us, a Conservative one—putting themselves in a position where they were not destroying but tarnishing their reputation in the wider world.
However, we are we where we are, and I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for what he said this afternoon. Inspired by sitting on the same Bench as a Bishop, I say that there is more joy in heaven—as she well knows—over one sinner that repenteth; and there is more joy in the House of Lords over one Government who see the light than over many that are benighted.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. I listened carefully to the eloquent contributions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and others on these issues of international law, although I am struck that, over the years, there have been examples of Governments backing away from commitments in international treaties. It happened under a Labour Government and during the coalition Government, so it was nothing particularly new. What was new was the stark way in which the Minister outlined it at the Dispatch Box. I only wish that Ministers in the Lib Dem/Conservative coalition and past Labour Governments had been equally free and open and admitted honestly that they had done it.
What was behind the Government’s efforts in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill? It was to deal with the state-aid point, as we heard, but also to guarantee unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is hardly, in itself, terribly contentious, since it is to the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland that business should flow free and unfettered. It is to the economic benefit of business, all communities, employment and the creation of jobs, all of which add to the stability and prosperity of Northern Ireland going forward. It was agreed by the EU itself in the joint report of December 2017, and by the parties in Northern Ireland that signed up to the New Decade, New Approach document. All the parties agreed: nobody reneged from it. It was in the Conservative Party manifesto, as the Minister has mentioned. So, there should not be anything contentious about that principle, which was well outlined, clear and supported—indeed, in amendments put down in the other place—by parties other than unionist parties as well.
Section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, passed by more than 120 votes in the other place, allows for “notwithstanding” arrangements. Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol itself makes it clear that where the protocol would do serious economic, societal or environmental damage to Northern Ireland, the Government have the right to act unilaterally. I can think of nothing more designed to cause serious economic damage than putting extra, multiple costs, restrictions and administrative burdens on businesses in Northern Ireland, the vast bulk of which do their trade with the rest of the United Kingdom, thereby causing economic damage, job losses and the rest of it.
I appeal to noble Lords as they consider these matters to think of the practical consequences of some of the arguments being put forward. Think of the effect on people’s businesses in Northern Ireland, most of which are small or medium-sized. Think of the people working there, who will lose their jobs if unfettered access is not guaranteed or if some of the other restrictions, from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, are not dealt with. The protocol, as noble Lords know and as the Government know all too well, was opposed by these Benches and by many in Northern Ireland for the reasons set out, passionately and rightly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It creates differences within the internal market of the United Kingdom, with economic and constitutional implications.
People have pointed to the Belfast agreement, but I hear very little reference among noble Lords and commentators to the St Andrews agreement, the Stormont House agreement and so on. I urge people to refresh their memories of all those agreements which, taken in the round, are about a consensus in Northern Ireland of unionists and nationalists. If border restrictions, a presence and north-south tariffs on the island of Ireland are utterly unacceptable because they might breach the Belfast agreement, then likewise, it is unacceptable for many people in Northern Ireland that such restrictions—tariffs et cetera—should be imposed between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a simple principle that should not be contentious. We hear people saying that Part 5 of the Bill drives a coach and horses through not just international law but the Belfast agreement, but they have no regard, it seems, to the serious concerns that many people have voiced, including many who were instrumental in drawing up the Belfast agreement.
This does serious damage to the agreement in Northern Ireland and importantly, it destabilises the Executive. I am a believer in devolution and I want to see it succeed, but it will not succeed if we have a one-sided approach to the Belfast agreement. It has to be a rounded approach. The Government have said that they are withdrawing certain clauses in the Bill and standing by others. I welcome the clauses they are putting in and those they are standing by; they are important statements of principle. But we will now have to wait and see how the Statement made in the other place today is actually implemented.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard, talked about matters being resolved. Some have been, perhaps, but others have deliberately been put on hold and are not resolved. It will therefore be important to see how this works out in practice, but the Government must keep under review how these measures, taken under the provision I mentioned at the start of my speech, help to preserve stable government and economic prosperity and uphold the agreements made in Northern Ireland by both unionists and nationalists, and those of neither persuasion.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I would like to remind noble Lords, especially on the Government side, that the clauses being removed were themselves argued for as a necessary legal shield for the internal integrity of the United Kingdom and its sovereignty. I am told now that the Government are content with assurances. I am not sure that many leave voters are content simply to be assured. Goodness knows, he might be surprised when I say this, but the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made a very important point when he said that at the beginning of the week, he did not anticipate this debate. Many in the House did not expect these clauses to be removed, and now we are told to be assured; yet they were crucial clauses only last week. I therefore at least want to raise the question of trust and whether we should be expected simply to trust. It sometimes feels as though some of us have been marched up a hill and marched down it again.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
We know by whom. As an aside, I rather like a heckling atmosphere, but I would prefer it if it happened not just when I am speaking.
With absolute due respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who speaks so eloquently about constitutional and unconstitutional principles—I have listened very carefully to him for many years, not simply in recent weeks—I would be rather disappointed, and I think it would tarnish those principles, if it was thought that the decision was made because of the strength of feeling in this House. I would rather think that it was because the Government were satisfied by the debates, not that this House, rather unconstitutionally, might have got in the way of parliamentary sovereignty. There is a danger that some of the comments being made are self-aggrandising and self-congratulatory.
However, the main point for me—made clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds—is that Northern Ireland is being treated separately, as a different entity. I am afraid that some seem to relish this: in many debates that I have sat through in this House, I have felt as though the 2016 referendum of the whole United Kingdom was being used as an excuse to interpret devolution as some kind of federalisation of the United Kingdom. Interestingly, even today, one noble Lord noted that 56% of Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union—that is of no matter, indeed no interest, if you believe in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Here we go. There will be those who would say that the debate about the unity of the United Kingdom and the status of Northern Ireland might be contentious. That is a different debate; a different referendum would need to be called. In 2016, the United Kingdom was asked whether it wanted to leave the EU; all of it voted to do so, and yet one part of it is now to be held in thrall, to a certain extent, to the EU—a body that I do not entirely trust to respect the integrity of the sovereign rights of the United Kingdom, I am afraid. Therefore, I am not content.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
I am not sure how far I should follow the noble Baroness except by making a few obvious points. First, the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol were warmly welcomed in Northern Ireland; this is not being done to Northern Ireland against its will. These provisions are very warmly welcomed because the people of Northern Ireland see them as a guarantor of peace and stability there; this requires an open border with the Republic of Ireland, so I do not follow the noble Baroness on that point.
I also did not follow the noble Baroness when she said that the House of Lords was standing “in the way” of parliamentary sovereignty. We are part of Parliament and performing our functions as a part of it. In that respect, I pay great tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and—I never thought I would hear myself saying this—the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who have played an absolutely central part in the ability of this House to perform its proper constitutional role to see that the House of Commons is invited to reflect further on provisions that it believes are injurious to the public interest.
We have reached this point in a very convoluted way, because the Government changed their mind mid-way through the parliamentary process. However, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, likened the noble Lord, Lord True, to the prodigal son, and we welcome all those who have seen the error of their ways and repented. The process by which they do so is not significant; what is significant is the opportunity that this House gives to Parliament at large—including the Government, which operate as a part of Parliament—to consider its view on these big and important matters that are of concern to us. We have reached the right decision on this matter.
The only point I want to make is about the consequences because, as we now move forward, they are significant. To understand them, we need to understand why the Government did what they did. It was never my view that they intended these provisions to become law; they knew that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and a whole galaxy of the most heavyweight Members of your Lordships’ House would object to them—they knew that.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Does anyone else in the Chamber wish to speak? No one does, so I shall go to the listed speakers. I call the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, again in his amendments before your Lordships’ House. These amendments will remove the stain of illegality from the Bill, and we should be grateful that that is what we are going to achieve this afternoon—but in doing so, they also let the Government off the hook. Were it not for the ability of this House to ask the Commons to think again, and to give a pause, the Government would now still be wriggling on the hook, because this would not be a Bill any more, but an Act, and we would be stuck with those illegal clauses, which would have caused longer-lasting damage to the reputation of this Government, and of this country, than will, I hope, now be the case.
I am amazed by the coincidence that just by chance, yesterday, after months of toil, Minister Michael Gove reached an agreement. It seems like an extraordinary coincidence, but when we read what he says about it, we see that there is no coincidence at all. This so-called agreement, in which everything is allegedly resolved, is simply a point in the negotiations at which it was appropriate for the UK Government to announce some progress. Although a number of principles have been agreed, the letter that we received from the noble Lord, Lord True, says that
“The parties have also reached an agreement”
on the issues on which decisions have still to be taken
“before 1 January.”
That is the agreement in principle, on some quite significant things, including
“the practical arrangements regarding the EU’s limited and light touch presence in Northern Ireland when UK authorities implement checks and controls under the Protocol, determining criteria for goods to be considered “not at risk” of entering the EU when moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, thereby ensuring that the overwhelming majority of goods will not attract tariffs”.
So there is quite a bit of substance there.
Among the substance is, first, that there will be EU officials based in Northern Ireland, at the ports, checking that our customs officers are doing their jobs—something that, I believe, the Government said at an earlier stage they would never countenance. There will also be— because the letter says so—checks and controls on goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK. Indeed, one of the principles that has been agreed is the detail of the export declarations.
There is also the possibility—although obviously, this will apply only if there is no deal—of tariffs being applied to some goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and vice versa. If the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, thinks he has unfettered access, he needs to read what the Government are doing. Every declaration takes time. Every declaration costs money. Every declaration fetters trade.
The dilemma that a number of noble Lords have referred to, which this agreement merely seeks to amplify, is where we have the border. There has to be a border; it could be on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea. We as a country have decided, in the agreements that we have made, that it will be a border in the Irish Sea. There should be no question but that that border exists or that there are checks across any customs border —and they cost, which means that trade is fettered.
We will no doubt spend many happy hours discussing these detailed issues in future, but for today we should simply be grateful that the stain on our legislation, at least, if not the entire stain on our reputation, has been removed by the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and accepted by the Government.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
We are in a much better place now, thanks to the Statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday, and the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord True, to us today. The effect of what the noble Lord is proposing is that all the unlawfulness is stripped out of Part 5. He proposes that parts of Part 5 remain in the Bill, but none of those parts can legally overtop the withdrawal agreement entered into in 2020, as the Government of the United Kingdom agreed at the time to legislate so that the withdrawal agreement, including the Northern Ireland protocol, could trump everything except primary legislation that purported to overrule it.
Now, as a result of what the noble Lord, Lord True, has said, the Government accept that there shall be no provisions in the Bill that can overtop the withdrawal agreement, which they agreed to give direct effect to. They have gone back to the position they committed themselves to with the European Union.
I completely respect what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, have said. They have issues with the Northern Ireland protocol. They are both right when they say that Northern Ireland is being treated differently, for reasons that have been widely debated. But that is not what these issues, in this Bill, are about. For better or worse, this Parliament, earlier, had agreed to the Northern Ireland protocol and the withdrawal agreement.
Why did we see the Government try to escape from the provisions of the Northern Ireland protocol? I cannot remember whether it was the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, or the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who said that it meant that their troops were marched up to the top of the hill and then marched down again. The reason given was that the Government feared what the European Commission might do in the negotiations.
Let me tell the House how the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster described the attitude of the European Commission in these negotiations. He described Maroš Šefčovič, the vice-president of the Commission, and his team as displaying
“their pragmatism, their collaborative spirit—and their determination to get a deal done that would work for both sides.”
If that was the attitude of the Commission, it is difficult to see why we needed those provisions.
I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said about this being an agreement in principle, not a locked-down agreement, as is much more candidly accepted in the letter sent by the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Callanan, to Members of this House this morning, than it was by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Later, in the Statement that he made earlier today, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
“the agreement we have reached also enables the Government to withdraw clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill … Having put beyond doubt the primacy of the sovereignty of this place … we rest safe in the knowledge that such provisions are no longer required.”
I understand him to be saying that putting in these provisions and then running scared from them when it looked as if they might stand in the way of a trade deal constitutes putting beyond doubt the primacy of the sovereignty of this place. That is absolute nonsense.
I agree with what my noble friend Lord Adonis said, and I am glad that the Government have retreated. However, what they did has damaged the position of this country, and shows a terrible misjudgement. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord True, has been so gracious in his withdrawal, and we are all grateful for it—but it would have been so much better if the Government had been straightforward about why they did this. They did it because they know they cannot get a trade deal without withdrawing those clauses. I do not know whether they will get a deal, but they hope for one and they cannot get one without withdrawing them. That is why it has been done—and it was done today because this House is debating this today.
Although I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for the fact that some attention has been paid to the Lords, I am glad that she is here to help the Lords influence the Government, which is what it does. It is because the Lords stood firm that constitutional crisis is averted. A good message is sent by the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and I single out the noble Lord, Lord Howard, for his stalwartness in standing up for the principle. If we had not, goodness knows what a mess this Government would have got this country into. We send a message that there are certain principles we will stand up for and will not be moved from.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am not a lawyer, as I am frequently reminded in your Lordships’ House, but I am a historian by vocation and occasional practice, and I know that history is the study of cause and effect. I have heard one version of a proto-history just put to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer; there are many other versions which no doubt could and will be put—indeed, some have been put in this debate. The thing to do now is to move forward. Once all the documents are revealed, no doubt people will be able to say what had an effect on what. We are here today to make a judgment on carrying draft legislation, a Bill, forward.
I, too, welcome prodigal sons, and indeed prodigal daughters, if I may say so. The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to say that the Government had graciously changed their position. I heard less comment in the debate—although the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to it—about the change of mind, if I may use the phrase, by your Lordships. I hope it is forthcoming on Clauses 42, 43 and 46. I welcome that change of mind. I do not believe that unfettered access should have been called into doubt in your Lordships’ House, and I heard no one speak against that principle, although the noble Lord, Lord Newby, appeared at one moment to exult in the idea that it might not exist. I welcome and am grateful for what I hope will be the change of mind on those other clauses, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will be able to confirm that.
I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, although I do not want to pick him out particularly, that I do not think that, whoever he or she may be, personal vilification of the Prime Minister is a conducive or beneficial way to broaden consensus in debate in your Lordships’ House. I counsel the noble Lord that vilification of the current Prime Minister will not particularly persuade me to listen to his arguments.
As I said in my opening speech—I thank noble Lords for their comments on the facts of it, not the speech —the Government will not be opposing the removal of Clauses 44, 45 and 47. I can confirm to the noble and learned Lord that new Clause 45 is in accordance with the rule of law. However, as I have argued, the remaining clauses in the Bill are vital to the Government delivering on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.
I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that I will be repeating a Statement tomorrow, and I will obviously answer questions on that matter. I am sorry, but I do not make the rules and customs of the usual channels in this place, but I understand her feeling, and no doubt she will examine that Statement tomorrow. I do not think I am telling anybody anything that they do not know when I say that, unfortunately, that Statement will be repeated relatively late tomorrow.
The clauses which I hope your Lordships will allow to return seek to protect Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory and internal market, and that is something, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, recited, that not only this Government and the Northern Ireland Executive but the EU absolutely committed to—unfettered access, so please let us see that back in the Bill.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the history, I hope that the reality of the day is that people in different parts of this House will be able to have some satisfaction in where we have reached at this point. I always agree that, in life, negotiation is desirable. As I said in my opening remarks, Clauses 42, 43 and 46 have now been sent to us twice by the democratically elected House, and on those I urge your Lordships, if the Question is put, not to vote them out again. I beg to move.
Lord Judge (CB)
I do not think there is anything I could usefully add; I think we should get on.
(i) is necessary for the purpose of dealing with a threat to food or feed safety in Great Britain.”
“(6A) For the purposes of this section the exercise of a function “is necessary for the purpose of dealing with a threat to food or feed safety in Great Britain” if the exercise of the function consists of—
(a) the making, or operation, of legislation which satisfies the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, or
(b) any other activity which satisfies the conditions set out in paragraph 2(2), (3), (4) and (6) of Schedule 1 (reading any reference in those conditions to “legislation” as a reference to the activity in question).”
Baroness Penn
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 48 and 49 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48A.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government have reinserted into the Bill the power to provide financial assistance. This was removed by your Lordships’ House through Amendments 48 and 49. There is a point of parliamentary principle at play here, which is that the other place wishes to assert financial privilege and preserve that House’s right to decide on public spending arrangements. Indeed, that is the reason for disagreement that has been sent from the other place, and we must respect its financial primacy. It would be contrary to normal practice for noble Lords to insist on any amendment disagreed for a privilege reason. Indeed, it is the only reason given by the Commons, as it alone should be deemed sufficient.
However, we have also heard clearly from the other place that this is a power they wish to remain in the Bill for other reasons, when asked to think again by your Lordships’ House. These clauses form the financial assistance power, which enables the UK Government to deliver strategic investment in all four corners of the United Kingdom. This is all the more important as businesses and communities throughout our countries recover from the Covid crisis. The past few months have demonstrated clearly how important the responsiveness and scale of UK Government support can be to protecting lives and livelihoods.
This power will cover infrastructure, economic development, culture and sport, and will support educational and training activities and exchanges both within the UK and internationally. These are policy areas in which funding was previously provided by EU programmes under terms and conditions set by the EU. It is right that, as we leave the transition period, the UK Government have the right tools to make sure the whole country can benefit from investment which strengthens the communities, economies and connectivity within and between all parts of the UK.
I emphasise again that this power is in addition to the devolved Administrations’ existing powers. It does not take away responsibilities from the devolved Administrations; rather, the power will enable the UK Government to deliver investment more dynamically and in collaboration with the devolved Administrations and other partners. The Government will work with the devolved Administrations to make sure that we can complement their existing and continuing powers, used to support citizens in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We will also work collaboratively with other crucial partners, including local authorities and wider public and private sector organisations.
We have taken this collaborative approach to investment with devolved Administrations already: for example, through our successful city deals programme. The UK Government intend to continue to work in this spirit of partnership with stakeholders as we deploy support with this power. Practically, the power means that the UK Government can make good on our commitment to the UK shared prosperity fund. We have published our heads of terms for the fund online. The UKSPF will help to level up and create opportunity across the UK in those places most in need—such as ex-industrial areas, deprived towns, and rural and coastal communities —and for people who face labour market barriers. These places will then develop investment proposals, with input from a range of local partners, to be approved by the Government. We will set out further details on the objectives and administration of the UKSPF in a UK-wide investment framework published in the spring. We will continue to engage the devolved Administrations as we develop the investment framework and in advance of its publication.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has put forward Amendments 48B and 48C. Let me be clear that the UK Government intend to work with both the devolved Administrations and local communities to ensure that this power is used to best effect and that the UK shared prosperity fund supports citizens across the UK. Indeed, the devolved Administrations will be represented in UKSPF governance structures. Our intention is to work with the devolved Administrations and respect the devolution settlements, and I hope that noble Lords will take this as a demonstration of that commitment. I can assure the House that officials in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will continue their ongoing conversations with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations, and will discuss the detail in due course. This provides one example of what we seek to deliver with this power, but I hope it makes plain our intended approach for working collaboratively, while taking a UK-wide view of investment opportunities, to support all parts of the country. As such, I hope that this will encourage the noble and learned Lord not to test the opinion of the House on his Motion.
Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
At end insert “and do propose Amendments 48B, and 48C to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Amendment 48—
“(1A) The powers in subsection (1) may only be exercised—
(a) after consultation with the relevant authority on the principles under which financial assistance may be provided by a Minister of the Crown;
(b) after publication of such principles; and
(c) with the consent of the relevant authority where the financial assistance is assistance that could be given by a relevant authority.”
““relevant authority” means the Welsh Ministers in respect of Wales, the Scottish Ministers in respect of Scotland, and the Northern Ireland Executive in respect of Northern Ireland.””
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for the opportunity to discuss this matter with her. In light of what she said about wishing to set up a governance structure, I am sure that progress could be made. However, there are five short reasons why I hope the House will accept the compromise I have offered in Motion K1, which I now seek to move. First, the Commons reasons were, as has been stated by the Minister, to do with financial primacy. With the utmost respect, they are not correct. Powers to spend in devolved matters are powers of the devolved Governments, not the UK Government. Most of what is covered in this clause are matters that are devolved. Secondly, the clause therefore seeks to change the devolution settlements to enable the UK Government to override the devolution settlements. The clause is therefore a constitutional and not a financial issue.
My second reason is that, at present, funds provided by the EU for regional aid for matters within devolved powers are provided to the devolved Governments, who have to agree how the funds are to be spent. The amended clause would continue this architecture for the shared prosperity fund, the successor fund to that. Under the amendment, the UK Government would agree with the devolved Governments the way in which the funds would be spent where the funds were for matters within the devolved competences—roads, health, education and the like. This would combine the benefit of an overall strategy for the UK with the benefit of devolved Governments agreeing how funds were to be expended in the areas for which they and they alone were responsible.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
One Member in the Chamber has indicated he wishes to speak. I call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I do not wish to cover the ground that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has just covered so compellingly. He has made absolutely compelling arguments for why we should send this matter back to the Commons again. As he says, it goes to the heart of the devolution settlement: you just need to read the wording of his amendment to Clause 48 to see why it is so compelling.
What the Government are proposing is a provision that says they should make financial arrangements in respect of spending in the devolved territories of the United Kingdom without consultation with the relevant authorities, whereas the noble and learned Lord’s amendment says that it should take place only with consultation with the relevant authorities. So the noble Baroness would need to explain to us why it is appropriate that these arrangements should be entered into with no consultation with the devolved authorities to which they apply. That is an absolutely fundamental point about whether devolution is for real.
The point I want to add, which is so important and why it is a vital that we send this back to the other House, is that what is essentially going on here is an attempt by the Prime Minister to undermine and make as weak as possible the existing devolution settlement. He said, and we should take him at his word, that devolution was the worst mistake of the Blair Government; he does not agree with the setting up of the Scottish Parliament; he does not agree with the Welsh Assembly; he has played very fast and loose with the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the way he has conducted policy in respect of Ireland over the last year.
We have a constitutional duty to see that that the devolution settlement, as constructed by Parliament in successive Acts, all of which have represented consensus settlements between the territories concerned and the United Kingdom Parliament, is safeguarded. This Bill is deliberately intended to cut across and undermine the devolution settlements because the Prime Minister does not agree with them, and it is therefore vital that we send this matter back to the House of Commons again.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Does any Member in the Chamber wish to speak? No? Then I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been, again, a short but important debate. I thank the previous speakers and I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for his detailed proposal.
First, I will address the comprehensive and well-laid out response by the Minister on why your Lordships’ amendment has been knocked back. I will not come between the noble and learned Lord and the Minister when it comes to deciding whether it is a financial issue; I shall leave those two to have that argument. However, I will pick up on the second issue. The Minister painted a genuinely exciting picture of all this wonderful investment that will happen across the country—I am not being ironic—and I agree that there needs to be a response to what we have seen this year, and it needs to be comprehensive, co-ordinated and well organised. This cuts to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis: without working with the devolved authorities, the efficiency and the effectiveness of any investment are massively undermined. Leaving aside the devolution issue for now, the efficiency issue raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is absolutely called into question here. The measures from the noble and learned Lord in Motion K1 bring the devolved authorities back into this process. It recognises the importance of the devolved settlement, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and makes sure that this investment, which will be so important to the future prosperity of this country—if indeed there is enough of it and it is delivered properly—can be made efficiently and in keeping with the needs of the people of that particular country.
As someone who comes from Herefordshire, which is a far-flung part of England, I wish that we had similar regional structures in England, whereby the same level of consultation that should be coming through this amendment could also be offered to the regions of England. While some parts of England have unitary mayors and some parts have negotiations directly with Government, places such as Herefordshire that are in as much need as some of the worst-affected places across the United Kingdom, do not have the benefit of that access. This is not the place, but going forward, I ask that when these proposals are brought, an approach towards the English regions that the Government have towards the devolved authorities would be appreciated.
With that, we look forward to supporting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, when he presses this.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear and concise introduction to this topic. Although she said she was relying primarily on the Commons argument that this issue engages financial privilege, she recognised there were other issues going on, and it was good of her to take the argument a bit further. We are, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has also said, completely cognisant of the restrictions placed on the House due to financial privilege being engaged. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made a compelling case about the wider issues, and it is important to have those on the record. I will add to the list of points he made.
The Government clearly assert—and we believe them —that these will be additional to existing powers, and we should not be concerned, as we have been, that the devolved Administrations will have their responsibilities and authority challenged in this way. The Minister said that the driving force behind the shared prosperity fund is to add and complement existing arrangements. If she wishes to repeat it when she winds up, that would be helpful. In that sense, there should be no need for the concern that is currently in the devolved Administrations about that particular aspect of it. We do not have the detail, and I think she said the likely outcome for their consultation would not be before spring 2021, which seems a long way away in terms of what we are doing. We accept that existing programmes are currently running out—but they are running out; they are not being continued at the same level and, therefore, there will be a shortfall unless the Government are prepared to move a bit faster than the current timescale suggests.
The Minister also confirmed—and this is good news —that there will be engagement with the devolved Administrations. When she responds, perhaps she could explain a bit more about what that means. We have already heard from the Government today about programmes of engagement that have involved substantial change in previous views; it would be good to hear that language repeated when she talks about how the devolved Administrations might be engaged with this process.
The Minister has confirmed there will be some form of shared prosperity fund board, which is interesting. She may recall that at the previous stage of this Bill, we proposed a shared prosperity commissioner. I said at the time, and I still think, that that was code for a board, because we were trying not to engage financial privilege. We have clearly failed in that. Can she confirm the board will be independent and say more about the powers that might be invested in that board? Can she also talk a bit more about whether the programme itself, when it is brought forward, will be subject to guidelines? Will those be published and discussed before they are invented? Will there be themes to it, as there have been in previous rounds of the regional structural funds? Will the funds be competitive and open to all countries to bid for? Can she confirm, most importantly, that the plan will be for the funds under the shared prosperity fund to be separate from any Barnett formula calculations? That is not in the sense of making people not eligible for funding—that is not what we are about here—but a needs-based or different set of indicators to set out the ideas under which the shared prosperity fund will operate. I look forward to hearing her response.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this short but very useful debate. I think it might be useful to take the points of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, in turn. On the first point on financial privilege, I think the noble Lord, Lord Fox, was wise to stay out of that one. All I can say to this House is that the decision on financial privilege is made by the Speaker on advice from the clerks. It is the only reason, when invoked, that can be given. Though I have spoken to others, that is the process in the other place.
On the second point on the consultation of, and consent from, the devolved Administrations on spending on these matters, I have said before, and will again, since the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked me to reiterate, that this is about an additional programme of spending to support the work of the devolved Administrations but also about taking a strategic look across the whole of the UK. It is important to remember that the main fund we are talking about, when it comes to the use of this power and the shared prosperity fund, replaces EU structural funds that were determined at an EU level for the needs of many different nation states. They were determined at an EU level and, while they may have been managed and delivered at a local level, the structure, framework and principles that people had to deliver were decided at an EU level.
The third point was about a principled basis for the funding. The Government set out, at the spending review, the heads of terms for the shared prosperity fund. Those have begun to outline how the shared prosperity fund will work. A portion of the SPF will target the places most in need across the country, such as ex-industrial areas, deprived towns and rural and coastal communities.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received a request to ask a short question of elucidation from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
The Minister will be aware that the current structural fund does not reach many regions across the United Kingdom, compared, I think, to the planned extent of the new shared prosperity fund. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true? If it is, and the money put into the shared prosperity fund is only—I use the word advisedly—as much as that put into the structural fund, it will be spread more widely. There will be losers among those who have been able to take advantage of the structural fund, because the money they would bid for will be spread to other regions and countries. Will the Minister acknowledge that? Is that perhaps one reason that the Government are rather reluctant to allow the devolved authorities any more involvement in this, because they know there will be issues around losing out on money that would have come through the structural fund but is now to be spread more widely across the United Kingdom?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government made a number of commitments on the shared prosperity fund in the manifesto, both about the overall quantum of the fund and the funding that different parts of the UK can expect to receive. We set out in the spending review that that would ramp up to £1.5 billion per year as the structural funds tail off. Our approach will be guided by that but, as I say, more detail will be set out in advance of the operation of the fund in spring next year, with the multiyear settlement coming in the following year.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short but interesting debate. I will deal with the Minister’s points in turn.
First, it seems clear that these powers—the Minister actually said this in Committee—were being taken to give the UK Government power to spend across the United Kingdom. These powers would plainly not be needed unless they were encroaching on devolved powers. City deals can be done without them; the Government can spend without them. I say respectfully to the Minister and to those who say this is a financial matter that it is not. When powers are devolved, the spending power goes with them. The reason of financial privilege is not correct.
Secondly, on how the funding works, I find it difficult to understand why, in light of what the Minister has said, she cannot agree to the very short amendment I have put forward. It spells out the principles, deals with consultation and ensures that, within the areas of devolved spending only—the amendment is clear on this—there should be agreement so that funds are spent together. With respect, the importance of this amendment is to show that, as we go forward, we do so as a United Kingdom with the central UK Government and the devolved Governments working closely together. Putting this provision in the Bill, particularly the structure under which this is to be done in this area, would be an enormous reassurance. It would strengthen the union, not imperil it, by enabling inconsistent spending to occur in devolved areas. Having listened to the debate and heard what all noble Lords have said, I seek to take the opinion of the House on this issue.
Lord Callanan
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 50, 57 and 61 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 50A and 57A, but do propose Amendment 50B in lieu—
Commons Reasons
“40A Duty to review arrangements for carrying out Part 4 functions
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the permitted period—
(a) carry out a review of the appropriateness, for the purpose of securing the most effective and efficient performance of the Part 4 functions, of—
(i) the provision made by section 30(1) and the amendments made by Schedule 3, and
(ii) any arrangements made under or in connection with that provision and those amendments;
(b) prepare a report of the review (see subsection (4) for specific requirements relating to the report), and
(c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(2) The review must, among other things, assess—
(a) the way in which Part 4 functions have been carried out by the CMA through Office for the Internal Market task groups authorised under section 30(1), and
(b) any advantages or disadvantages of continuing with—
(i) the provision made by section 30 and the amendments made by Schedule 3, and
(ii) the arrangements made under or in connection with that provision or those amendments,
as compared with other possible ways of providing for the Part 4 functions to be carried out (including possible arrangements not involving the CMA).
(3) In carrying out the review the Secretary of State must consult the other relevant national authorities.
(4) Before finalising the report required by subsection (1)(b) the Secretary of State must—
(a) send a draft of the proposed report to each of the other relevant national authorities, inviting the authority to make representations as to the content of the proposed report within a period specified by the Secretary of State, and
(b) consider any representations duly made in response to that invitation and determine whether to alter the report in the light of that consideration.
(5) The Secretary of State need not consult the devolved authorities further if the draft is altered as mentioned in subsection (4)(b) (but is free to do so if the Secretary of State thinks fit).
(6) The permitted period for the review is the period beginning with the third anniversary of the day on which section 30 comes into force (or first comes into force to any extent) and ending with the fifth anniversary.
(7) In this section “Part 4 functions” means functions of the CMA under this Part.”
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I now turn to the amendments on the office for the internal market and the subsidy control grouping.
First, I want to emphasise that Part 4 establishes the office for the internal market within the Competition and Markets Authority, which is, in our view, a natural home for the OIM, given its existing technical expertise that is highly relevant to the operation of the UK internal market. But, as I have set out, the office for the internal market will be independently governed within the CMA, and Schedule 3 sets out a carefully balanced set of governance arrangements which guarantee that independence and ensure a meaningful role for the devolved Administrations through the appointments process to the OIM panel. This gives the devolved Administrations a proper voice, while guaranteeing that the OIM can operate without delay or obstruction if four-nation consensus cannot be reached on appointments.
The Government have listened carefully to the discussions in this House and have acted, tabling a number of pragmatic and constructive amendments throughout Part 4. These make it clear that the OIM will work in the interests of consumers and ensure that it will operate in the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom and on an equal basis towards the four UK Administrations. This is further to the significant change put forward previously, requiring the Secretary of State to seek consent from all Administrations within a one-month timeframe, based on proposals developed originally by the Welsh Government. This change provides yet another enhancement for the devolved Administrations in the appointment process, which, as I have explained, fully reflects the even-handed approach to governance that runs throughout Schedule 3.
I hope your Lordships can appreciate that the Government have listened and moved accordingly. However, I cannot support your Lordships’ Amendments 57 and 61, which go further than this, requiring direct devolved Administration appointments to the CMA board. As already set out here and in the other place, it is the OIM panel that will undertake the work of the OIM. The CMA board is responsible for the operations of the organisation as a whole, which otherwise fall wholly within reserved competence. It is therefore not appropriate for the devolved Administrations to make appointments to the CMA board, as those board members would, in consequence, be involved in a range of reserved matters with no relation to the OIM functions set out in Part 4.
With regard to Amendment 50, your Lordships will be aware that this has invoked a financial privilege claim and has not been agreed to by the other place. Although this of course is sufficient in itself, I will remind your Lordships’ House that there is a consultation forthcoming on this matter of subsidy control. It would be premature and unjustified to agree to confer specific regulatory functions on the OIM in respect of subsidies before the wider details of any legislative UK domestic subsidy control regime—including the appropriate mechanism for oversight and enforcement—have even been developed and brought before Parliament, let alone agreed.
However, I have listened to concerns regarding the decision to have the CMA perform these duties, and I am pleased to announce that the Government have tabled Amendment 50B, which will require the Secretary of State to review, after between three and five years and in close consultation with the devolved Administrations, the appropriateness of, effectiveness of and potential alternatives to the CMA carrying out its Part 4 functions. This will allow Ministers from all Administrations to closely consider the CMA’s performance and the pros and cons of continuing with the CMA as the delivery vehicle for the Part 4 functions. This proposal makes it clear that the Government are committed to ensuring due diligence on the CMA’s new functions and facilitating further scrutiny by all Administrations.
This amendment requires the devolved Administrations to be consulted as the review is carried out—but it goes further, giving the Administrations the right to consider and make representations on the draft report itself, and requiring the Government to fully consider those views. Subsection (5) rules out an unlimited obligation to consider repeated rounds of representations that could block the review, but I want to be clear that the Government will consider all views offered in good faith. I note for the benefit of noble Lords that this final point applies equally to Clause 50—to which I will now turn—which reserves to the UK Parliament the exclusive ability to legislate for a UK-wide subsidy control regime in future.
I was pleased to note in the debate on Report that many noble Lords did in fact recognise the importance of maintaining a consistent approach in what is a nationally significant area of economic policy. In addition, I welcome the devolved Administrations’ support for the principle of a unified approach to subsidy control throughout the United Kingdom. For these reasons, the Government believe it is right that we retain the provisions for the reservation of subsidy control in the Bill.
Now we have left the EU, it is important that we continue to take a coherent approach to the system that governs how public authorities subsidise business across the UK. I reiterate that this reservation is not about sources of funding or who makes decisions on individual subsidies across the UK. This reservation will ensure that any future system we put in place to regulate against the distortive or harmful effects of spending on subsidies then applies to the whole of the UK.
A unified approach to that overall framework will reduce uncertainty for UK businesses and prevent additional costs to supply chains and consumers. As such, continuing our UK-wide approach to subsidy control and confirming it in law remains the best way to ensure that we continue to take a consistent approach to regulating the harmful effects of subsidies across the United Kingdom.
To be clear, all UK public authorities are and will remain responsible for their own spending decisions on subsidies—how much, to whom and for what—within any overall subsidy control regime. This reservation is not seeking to change public authorities’ responsibilities for spending decisions. However, the wider rules which they operate should continue to be consistent across the United Kingdom.
I acknowledge the concerns that some of your Lordships have raised in previous debates regarding the principle of reserving a policy area in advance of the forthcoming consultation the Government have committed to publish. However, this reservation is a necessary step to ensure that, if a legislative regime were introduced, it would apply then to the whole of the UK. Given that this is a national issue, the future subsidy control mechanism should be the responsibility of the UK Parliament to determine.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do not insist on its Amendment 50 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 50A but do propose Amendment 50B in lieu, and do insist on its Amendments 57 and 61 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 57A”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Motion L1 as an amendment to the Motion L. We now come to the vexed issue of oversight through the Office for the Internal Market. I preface my remarks by making it clear that these amendments relate to the risk as to whether the union is strengthened or weakened. They are concerned with the fundamental constitutional question of parity of esteem across, and long-term future of, the United Kingdom.
I recognise that the Government have thought and listened, and I appreciate that there is now a consultation and that they have modified their views. At the helpful Cabinet meeting today, hosted by the noble Lord, Lord True, the Government discussed the JMCEN, stressing the importance of an independent secretariat to the IGR to avoid disputes and ensure transparency. The importance of a strong, prosperous and thriving union was stressed, with emphasis on the importance of getting right the structures and the cultures within them. To lock in those cultures, the devolved Administrations wish to have a seat at the Competition and Markets Authority board. At Report, the Minister asserted that
“OIM appointees should reflect a range of expertise from all parts of the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, 23/11/20; col. 102.]
The amendment that we inserted in the Bill and which I seek to reinstate would ensure that the CMA’s annual plans, proposals and performance reports are laid before the devolved legislatures, as well as Parliament, ensuring equal scrutiny and oversight of these developments. This would allow them to be discussed between Ministers from all Administrations.
It is the desire of the devolved Administrations to have their voice heard. Perhaps I may quote the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in his belief, which I echo, that the union is in peril. He urged Ministers to take that reality into account. Without representation, it reads as if the Government want to have a monopoly of power and control in the country.
In rejecting Amendment 50, which we passed after our debates, the Government have tabled their own amendment. Amendment 50B from the Government appears to recognise that the CMA may not be the appropriate place for the effective and efficient performance of the OIM and that they have agreed that it needs its Part 4 function subject to review. Their amendment requires a formal review of between three and five years and they will consult with the devolved Administrations over conducting the review—so far, so good. But then the sting: the amendment from the Government allows the devolved Administrations to see the draft and comment on it, but only once. There is no need whatever for the Government to pay any attention to what they say. To quote from the amendment:
“The Secretary State need not consult the devolved authorities further if the draft is altered as mentioned in subsection (4)(b) (but is free to do so if the Secretary of State thinks fit).
That makes a mockery of seeking views. The Secretary of State can put the views of the devolved Administrations into the shredder. In disbelief, I called the Bill team to check whether I had understood correctly.
If the Government want this House to accept that Amendments 57 and 61 are not reinstated in the Bill, and to accept the Government’s proposal, we must hear from the them today a clearer commitment that the devolved Administrations will be respected as equals; that their views, at review, will be taken into account; and that they, the Government, will ensure that the finalised report represents all views, which may include a minority view within such a report.
I will repeat the words we heard from the noble Lord, Lord True, in the meeting today, because they are so important. He said that the Government were committed to a strong and thriving union. If that is the Government’s view, they must prove it by clear words today that determine future actions.
The Senedd does not believe that. Members voted today by 36 votes to 15 to deny legislative consent to the Bill, given the reversal of the Lords amendments in the Commons. While accepting that Amendment 50B replaces the deleted Amendment 50, and not wishing to reinstate the deleted amendment, I reserve the right to seek the opinion of the House on Motion L1, reinstating Amendments 57 and 61, if I do not have further adequate assurances from the Government. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I now call the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, to speak to, but not at this point move, Motion L2.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for the opportunity to discuss this clause with him. I hope that there is a basis on which we can move forward to agree this. I will explain the purpose of the amendment in five short reasons. First, it has always been the position that there must be a competition regime that must apply to the whole of the UK. The issue is how we get there in a way that preserves and strengthens the union.
The position at the moment is that there is no agreed new competition policy. We will be operating, subject to anything that may be agreed with the EU, under the WTO regime, which devolved Governments are bound to apply under the existing devolution settlements. There is therefore time to set about this constructively. It is clear that, in devising a competition regime for the control of subsidies, a lot of things need to be ironed out. What is the role of the CMA to be? Is it to be an independent adjudicator or merely advisory? If so, whom does it advise? What does control over subsidies mean? These issues need to be examined carefully.
There are two ways forward. Way one—what I would call the UK Government’s way—is, first, to change the devolution settlements. This is a change to the devolution settlements because they operate on the basis that, if a power is not reserved, it is devolved—and there is no reservation in respect of this matter. It is therefore plainly devolved, and the purpose of this amendment is to change the devolution settlement. Having changed the settlement for a policy that they have not yet devised, the Government then wish simply to consult—and I am grateful for the clauses that affirm that they will at least do that—and then announce their decision. That is what I would call “way one”—the UK Government way.
But there is a better way, which is to do it by agreement but with a backstop. I think that there are good prospects of agreement. The Welsh Government offered unequivocally, in a letter sent on 24 November—the day before the Report stage of the Bill—to try to agree a common framework, but what I do not think many have appreciated the significance of is that the Scottish Government committed themselves to joining in that. I am not sure the extent to which that might have been appreciated at the highest levels of government, but if we simply reject this offer by the Scottish Government, that will, in my view, have very serious consequences.
Therefore, the amendment seeks to build on the progress that we have been able to make and to provide that an attempt should be made to agree a common framework—which is a regime that can govern the control of subsidies. However, if one is not agreed in the specified period of time—I have suggested three years—this clause would then take effect. If there is a view that that period is too long, obviously that is a matter that can be discussed.
The vital question is that the amendment, I respectfully urge, would allow for a further strengthening of the union, with an agreed way forward and the UK Government and the devolved Governments working together to achieve a regime applicable across the UK under the mechanism of consensus through a common framework. This would achieve what the Government want by consensus, not simply consultation. To reject the amendment and restore Clause 50 would be to impose unilaterally a change in the devolution settlement by reserving a power that is not reserved. This would be a gratuitous present to those who say that the union does not work.
There is an offer to work together from the Scottish and Welsh Governments. This House should not allow the Government simply to reject a consensual solution, as there is a time limit for that consensual process. In due course, I will move my Motion and seek t test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the following noble Lords have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I speak in favour of Motion L2 in the context of having been the mover of the original Amendment 50, which was rejected as involving a charge on public funds, despite my budget reference endeavours.
I broadly welcome the Government’s Amendment 50B in lieu. It picks up the final point of my Amendment 50 regarding a review. The review also specifically includes the concern underlying the first part of Amendment 50 around the location of the OIM by requiring an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of continuing with the provision of Part 4 functions via the CMA, compared with alternatives, including possible arrangements not involving the CMA.
I also welcome the fact that the relevant national authorities are to be specified as consultees at the stage of both review and draft report, but I hope that it will also be fulsome at the finalising stage as well as the draft stage.
Both in Committee and on Report, concerns about the CMA culture and the enforcement provisions were brought forward by myself and other noble Lords. It would be good for the OIM and the CMA to know that they will be watched and that these issues will be among those which are checked when it comes to the review and the report. I thank the Minister for the various amendments and assurances about the OIM, and in particular I note and thank him for the reassurances made regarding the penalties relating to information gathering, including proportionality, consultation with the devolved Administrations, and that
“these penalty powers in Part 4 will not be commenced unless there is a clear and credible need for them”—[Official Report, 25/11/20; col. 259.]
or unless
“there is evidence that they are called for, and even then they will not be used except as a last resort,.”—[Official Report, 25/11/20; col. 270.]
There are further quotations like these.
A review clause is often seen as a weak compromise, but here it serves an important function in the context of new regulatory powers and as a vehicle for monitoring and checking the concerns raised in Parliament and the assurances given.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I share the feeling of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that the Government have come a long way on this Bill, and I thank my noble friend the Minister for that. Noble Lords will recall that I had reservations about locating the Office for the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority. I believe that it is the wrong place with the wrong culture, a point just echoed by noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. There is a practice of aggressive enforcement that is hardly suitable to some of the sensitive issues that it will be asked to investigate. I am concerned in particular that small businesses in those sectors that are not lucky enough to be excluded will be fearful and suffer relative to the way they are being treated at present in the EU single market. A formal discrimination is now being introduced between services that are in and those which are not included within Schedule 2. I therefore very much welcome the review being proposed in the government amendment. It is an idea that featured in an earlier amendment to which I added my name.
However, I have a question on the wording. Could that review look not only at the track record of the OIM panel and its task groups, which are mentioned in Clause 30, and its constitution as set out in Schedule 3, but also at the location of the OIM itself and whether it should be within the CMA or somewhere else? I ask this obviously without commitment, but it would certainly be helpful to know that the review would be suitably wide-ranging.
I rise also to express doubts about Motions L1 and L2. Many of us have been clear in the endless debates on this Bill that we should avoid a situation where a particular nation can veto important new measures that are in the national interest. The Government have, of course, wisely conceded that the devolved Administrations should be included as a statutory consultee and, of course, the views of all the four nations will be properly taken into account in that process. But I agree with my noble friend the Minister that we should not accept Amendment 50C. It risks a delay of up to three years in implementing a UK subsidy control regime because of the need for agreement with the devolved Administrations. The existing arrangements for spending decisions on subsidies under the devolved settlements will continue, so I strongly support the Government on this matter.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I make a brief intervention in the hope that the Government will listen to the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the particularly wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. We are at a delicate moment in our constitutional history. The future of the United Kingdom, with Brexit, is now in doubt. This will be the great issue of the next two years: can we keep the United Kingdom together? In that context, these are detailed matters, but the UK Government should go out of their way to ensure that those who want to break up the United Kingdom are not given just cause. I think that elements of the Bill and the Government’s position on it will be used in this way.
First, in the argumentation, I recognise that the Government have tried to strengthen consultation with the devolved Administrations in the amendments that they have put forward. So well done to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on that—we are to be thankful for that. But the line that state aid is a reserved UK matter and the devolved Administrations have never had any power over it will not go down well in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Wales and Scotland have had their development agencies. To tell the Welsh and Scottish people that these bodies have had no rights or independence to make decisions that promote economic development in their nations is very odd. To them, it looks as though the Government are taking away powers that they presently have. That is how it looks. The noble Lord shakes his head but, honestly, it is how it looks. Therefore, I think the Government should be bending over backwards to carry the nations of our United Kingdom with them.
I cannot understand the reasoning behind rejecting the proposal that has come from both Cardiff and Edinburgh to see if we can sort out, by consensus, a regime of state aid through a common framework. I do not understand how the Government can arrogantly say that this is something that we must control ourselves. It seems that the consensus for the future of the United Kingdom is much the best way forward.
The same applies to the argument about appointments to the body that is going to administer the new regime. The devolved nations should be treated as equals in this process. They should be able to nominate their own people to this body, not just be consulted. That is on the principle of equality between the nations and not appropriating to the UK Government, who, in my part of England, northern England, are seen as a London Government. That is how people look at it; it is not seen as a United Kingdom Government. I am sure that in Edinburgh and Cardiff it is not seen as a UK Government, particularly because of the Prime Minister we have. We have to bend over backwards to bring the nation together. Here is an opportunity, and I am very sorry that the Government appear to be wasting it.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Does any other noble Lord in the Chamber wish to speak? No noble Lord does, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister set out, this group relates to state aid, the Competition and Markets Authority and the office for the internal market. At Report, your Lordships removed a clause that changed the devolution statutes to specify that state aid powers are a matter exclusively for the UK Government. This was overturned in the Commons. Notwithstanding that, the Government have come back with the proposals set out by the Minister, which are welcome. My noble friend Lady Bowles set out where they have come from and should be congratulated for her work on this Bill.
Notwithstanding that, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has tabled Motion L1, which would enable the devolved Administrations to appoint people to the CMA board. The Minister has stressed that the OIM, while being within the CMA, will be independently governed. One of the reasons for not allowing previous amendments was a financial rule. This indicates clearly that the CMA will be holding the OIM’s purse strings. In that respect, culture is one thing, but budget is something completely different. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and from my noble friend Lady Bowles, and as I have said, we remain extremely concerned about the culture and role of the OIM. The Minister again stressed the technical expertise in the CMA, but the OIM is being asked to do something that is essentially different from the CMA. Frankly, this technical expertise, if deployed in the way the Minister hopes, is the problem we are warning the Government about. That accepted, one of the small ways of dealing with this issue is to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and to make sure that there is at least some board-level representation from the devolved authorities.
Motion L2, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, would insert a new provision relating to Clause 50, on state aid. As the Minister has acknowledged, it would create a common framework process whereby state aid is managed.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and others have talked about the message all this sends to the devolved authorities, at a time of great fragility and change. To set this up in this way sends a bad and dangerous message to the devolved authorities. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, set out a reasonable response—a reasonable way of involving the devolved authorities centrally in the process of delivering the structures and frameworks for, and areas of, state aid. To simply consult with the devolved authorities on draft and not go back on the final decision is a little derisory, to say the least. The Government need to understand the message they are sending—a message clearly articulated in the Senedd vote today.
We are pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is going to test the mood of the House regarding his Motion, and we will support it when he does.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, covering a wide range of issues previously discussed in Committee and on Report. I will not go through them in detail but I will say three important things. First, I welcome the Government’s movement on the matters raised in the Minister’s opening address on the OIM: its membership, the review within three to five years of the potential location of the OIM, and the firm commitment to ensuring that the DAs are consulted and their views fed in to this report. That was not as much as we wanted, but it is certainly a positive step forward that we welcome at this stage.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what was another short but powerful debate. I have listened carefully to the points that have been made. I will set out in my closing remarks why I cannot support Amendments 51, 57 and 61 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Turning first to the OIM, I emphasise that the Government have listened and responded directly to points made in this House. This is reflected in the meaningful changes made throughout Part 4. They include putting beyond doubt that the OIM will work in the interests of consumers, and making it clear that its functions will be available to the benefit of all parts of the UK, and for all Administrations, on an equal basis.
The Government have recognised the need for the devolved Administrations to be closely involved in OIM panel appointments. That is why the proposal for a one-month consent requirement on OIM panel appointments with the devolved Administrations is being introduced, providing them with an enhanced role in the process. This amendment originated with the Welsh Government.
Finally, the Government have tabled an amendment that will require a review and a report between three and five years after the CMA takes on the Part 4 functions. This will examine the way in which the CMA has carried out these functions, and the devolved Administrations will be closely involved throughout. The review and the report will provide the necessary assurances that the operation of the OIM within the CMA will be closely scrutinised, providing enhanced transparency and accountability to all four UK Administrations.
I will reply to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay: in seeking to go further than a normal requirement to consult the devolved Administrations on the review of the OIM, the Government have included an additional and explicit requirement to share and allow for representations on the resulting draft report. As I have said, providing that the Government are not required to follow this operation an unlimited number of times is simply intended to prevent a procedural impossibility if no consensus is reached. I am happy to say again that all views offered in good faith will be considered by the Government in preparing their report, as required in the proposed clause. The amendment makes clear that the Government have the option of sharing as many drafts and considering as many rounds of representations as are appropriate and feasible in the circumstances.
I am happy to assure my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that these proposed reviews would assess the pros and cons of the CMA as the delivery vehicle of the OIM, including whether possible arrangements not involving the CMA could carry out the Part 4 functions in the future.
I turn to the knotty issue of subsidy control. The purpose of this reservation is to provide stability and continuity as we move forward in forging a new UK-wide subsidy control regime. This Bill continues the UK-wide approach to subsidy control and confirms this in law. State aid has never been a devolved issue, as I have said on a number of occasions, and this reservation will ensure that we can continue to take a uniform approach to subsidy control across the UK. I reiterate that, in practice, nothing will change for the devolved Administrations. All UK public bodies, including the devolved Administrations and in the areas that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, highlighted, will still have responsibility for spending decisions on subsidies and should make these in a way that is consistent with the overall approach taken across the United Kingdom.
In the coming months, we intend to publish a consultation on whether we should go further than our World Trade Organization and international commitments, including whether further legislation is necessary. We will take the necessary time to listen closely to the devolved Administrations and design a system that promotes a competitive and dynamic economy throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.
The proposed amendment makes clear that the UK Government are committed to involving the devolved Administrations in the forthcoming development of proposals for a UK-wide subsidy control regime. We recognise the importance of working constructively and co-operatively in this policy area, and it is in all our interests that a new regime works to the benefit of the whole country. That is why the Government cannot agree with Amendments 50C, 51, 57 and 61, so I urge noble Lords to accept Amendments 50B and 51B put forward in my name and reject the others.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for providing me with the additional reassurance that I was seeking, that they will share and allow representation and that the hold-up would only be to prevent procedural deadlock in the review of the OIM panel within the CMA. In light of those assurances and the tone of wanting to work with the devolved Administrations in relation to the issue of the CMA, I will withdraw my amendment.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
Leave out “Amendment 50B” and insert “Amendments 50B and 50C—
“(A1) Subsections (1), (2) and (3) shall take effect when the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Executive have agreed with the Secretary of State a common framework applicable to the United Kingdom to regulate the provision of subsidies by a public authority to persons supplying goods or services in the course of a business or, if agreement cannot be reached, three years after the passing of this Act.””
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to all who have taken part in this very interesting and difficult debate. The points may seem obtuse, in that they concern state subsidies, but there are very real issues of principle involved. In the first place, it is quite clear, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, pointed out earlier in this debate, that the state subsidies are devolved. For example, Schedule 5, Part III, paragraph 4(1) of the Scotland Act says:
“This Schedule does not reserve giving financial assistance to commercial activities for the purpose of promoting or sustaining economic development or employment.”
When one then looks at the amendment that is brought in by Clause 50, it speaks of:
“Regulation of the provision of subsidies which are or may be distortive or harmful … to persons supplying goods or services.”
There can obviously therefore be an argument, as any subsidy may be distortive, that the whole of the power is subsumed in what the Government are seeking to do through their Amendment 50.
Where we have got to is an almost Alice in Wonderland situation: they want to change the devolution settlement first, in this way, which cuts right across agreed provisions, quite apart from the general reservation, and then work out the policy second. Surely, the better way to do this is to work out the policy first, and to do it in consultation with the devolved Governments. The amendment I have put forward gives a way of doing that and, most importantly of all, apart from these technical issues, to take away power—express power in the devolution agreements—because all these powers are not reserved. The Government would not need this change. Not having a clear idea that you can explain and work out how this works with the devolution settlement in my view is a gift to those who say, “The union will not work. We offered to co-operate and they won’t”. I therefore want to test the opinion of the House on this amendment, which is a compromise to try to secure the future of our union, in which so many of us have such faith.
Lord Callanan
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 51 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 51A, but do propose the following amendment in lieu—
Commons Reason