House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
We recognise the crucial role of high-skilled workers in making our creative industries world leading. The £1.57 billion culture recovery fund provides targeted support to critical cultural arts and heritage organisations during the pandemic and the £500 million film and TV production restart scheme has supported 4,500 jobs in the screen sectors to date.
Bill Esterson
SSE Audio employed 196 people in the supply chain of the events industry until March; 75 of those have already been made redundant. Last year it paid £2.45 million to freelancers as well. Its freelancers are among the excluded group who have had no financial support, the business did not qualify for the cultural recovery fund, 99% of which has gone to venues, not suppliers, and unless the furlough scheme is extended in January it will have to make the rest of its workforce redundant. Is it not the case that suppliers such as SEE Audio and its freelancers are essential to the recovery of this brilliant sector of our economy?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about all the amazing parts of the industry that support our creative and cultural venues up and down the country. Of course this Government have just put in an incredible amount of unprecedented business support right across every sector—over £100 billion for the furloughing scheme, the self-employed income support scheme, grants, loans, VAT deferrals—and for freelancers we know the best thing we can do is get our sectors back up and running. That is what the culture recovery fund is all about.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Today, research from the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre has shown that in the last six months there have been 55,000 job losses in music and the performing and visual arts—all that talent, dedication and diversity of voices lost. Our creative workers are desperate to get back to doing what they do best, and we know the simplest way to get money to freelancers is to make shows, but to do that producers need a safety net. Germany has just announced an indemnity fund so event organisers can plan for the second half of 2021 without the financial risk posed by a potential covid outbreak. Industry predictions suggest a three-month indemnity here could get the sector back on its feet. I know that the Minister is receptive to this idea, so can she explain what is holding things up? Has the Chancellor again said no?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight that our creative industries are a fantastic success story. They contribute more than £112 billion to our economy, more than the automotive, aerospace and life sciences sectors combined, so we do need to do everything we can to help them. The next stage of the cultural recovery fund will be announced shortly—that is another £258 million—and we are looking very carefully at the German insurance model. It has only been announced this week so the details have not been made clear. We have to be sure that it really is the only obstacle to things being able to reopen, but we very happy to have those conversations with the Treasury.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
We are carefully considering the extent to which current advertising regulation is fit to tackle the challenges posed by the modern world. Next year we will be launching a public consultation on the regulation of online advertising. We are also working on more specific areas, including high fat, salt and sugar advertising, and establishing a new pro-competition regime.
Andy Carter
I thank the Minister for that detailed answer. Local journalism is funded on the whole by local advertising, be that in local newspapers or local radio, and the structural impact of the changes in our local economies and the move online is having a significant impact on the way that local independent news is produced. Can the Minister give us more details on the steps the Government are taking to protect local journalism, which is so important to maintaining local democracy?
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is a great champion for local media and newspapers in his area. We recognise the vital role publications like his own Warrington Guardian play in supporting communities but also in providing reliable information. We strongly welcome the recommendations in the Competition and Markets Authority report and the setting up of a digital markets unit within the CMA to ensure fairness in regulating digital platforms. The Minister for Media and Data meets very regularly with the sector to discuss all its ongoing concerns about this.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I do not know who your secret Santa is, Mr Speaker, but I do know the Minister’s: Google and Facebook. Only, they are not buying presents—just using our data, behaviour and social contacts to tell us what to buy through their domination of online advertising, while our local retailers, who pay significant taxes and employ so many people, lose out. Can the Minister confirm that the digital markets unit’s powers have yet to be defined and that powers in the long-delayed online harms Bill are being watered down? Will she promise now to stop tech companies selling on our data, and put us back in control of our digital lives and Santa back in charge of Christmas?
Caroline Dinenage
I sincerely hope they are not my secret Santa. Online advertising is clearly an important driver of the UK economy. The Government are really committed to supporting the continued growth of the industry, but it needs to be fairer and better regulated. So we will launch a public consultation next year on measures to enhance how online advertising is regulated in the UK. That will build on the call for evidence we launched this year, and we will consider options to enhance the regulation of advertising content and placement online. The hon. Member asks about the online harms response. It will be published very shortly and it will not be watered down—there is my secret Santa gift for her, Mr Speaker.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
The Government are absolutely committed to delivering nationwide gigabit broadband as soon as possible. That is why we are investing £5 billion to support roll-out in the hardest-to-reach areas of the country. We will go as fast as we can and the only thing that will hold us up is how fast we can get the fibre into the ground. We are engaging closely with industry to support its efforts by incentivising investment and removing barriers to roll-out.
Jonathan Gullis
I thank my hon. Friend for his positive answer. Now that Stoke-on-Trent has a complete city-wide full-fibre network offering gigabit speeds and capability, does he agree that Stoke-on-Trent would be the perfect test bed to show how, post Brexit, smaller UK cities can more than match up to similar-sized centres of digital innovation such as Eindhoven, Karlsruhe and Aalborg? Will he commit the Government to help make my Silicon Stoke vision a reality, as part of the levelling up commitments?
Matt Warman
My hon. Friend misses no opportunity to promote Silicon Stoke. The Government are absolutely committed to using trials and test beds to support the kind of innovation he talks about. We are interested in new ideas as part of that levelling up commitment. I look forward to continuing our conversations with Stoke and maybe even visiting one day.
Rob Roberts
Mrs Sharp, who lives in Delyn in my constituency, has just had a quote for £131,638 to install full-fibre broadband for her and her 18 neighbours. That works out at about £7,000 per property. When I queried this with Openreach, it said, “Well, she lives in a rural community. Perhaps she could dig her own trenches to reduce the cost of the groundwork.” Given that levelling up should not only be for people in towns and cities and those who happen to own heavy machinery, can my hon. Friend look into this case and others like it to come up with a better answer for Mrs Sharp than “dig your own holes”?
Matt Warman
There are communities that have successfully dug their own trenches, but it is obviously not right to suggest that that would be right for everybody. Ofcom is looking at the universal service obligation, one of the routes to getting broadband into rural areas, but there are other methods. I encourage my hon. Friend to ask his constituents to look at the voucher schemes, particularly those supported by the Welsh Government, and other technologies. But I am happy to look into this specific case, because obviously it is not likely that everyone owns enough heavy machinery to dig every trench.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
The Government have agreed a £1 billion deal with mobile network operators to deliver the shared rural network. This landmark deal will deliver 95% coverage by the end of 2025. The exact deployment plans will be managed by operators and we look forward to seeing more details of those.
Robert Largan
The unique geography of the Peak District means that we have some of the worst mobile phone coverage blackspots anywhere in the country. I welcome the introduction of the shared rural network, but can the Minister provide further information to the House on when my constituents might see some of the benefit of this? Would he agree to meet me, so we can discuss how we can roll out better phone coverage to the whole High Peak?
Matt Warman
The shared rural network is already benefiting some parts of the country, but my hon. Friend is right that in areas such as High Peak it cannot come soon enough. I am very happy to meet him to discuss that, and I am very happy for him to join me in continuing to encourage operators to make their plans public as quickly as possible.
Simon Baynes
Will the Minister join me in praising the often unsung work of local councils in improving rural mobile connectivity, such as the digital officers of Wrexham and Denbighshire councils in Clwyd South, who bring together local solutions to complex mobile coverage problems?
Matt Warman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, whether it is in Wrexham and Denbighshire or up and down the country, the work of local authorities has been absolutely essential in delivering the kind of bespoke solutions that work best for local communities. I am grateful to those in Wrexham and Denbighshire who have engaged closely with my Department’s barrier-busting taskforce to make sure that his constituents get the connectivity that they deserve.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
Sports and physical activity are vital for our physical and mental health and an important weapon in the fight against coronavirus. That is why I made the return of grassroots sports an immediate priority after national restrictions ended. Since 2 December, I am pleased to say that grassroots clubs, sports facilities and gyms have opened across all tiers.
Karl MᶜCartney [V]
As my right hon. Friend is aware, my constituency of Lincoln is home to the mighty Imps—something that my constituents and I are very proud of. While the partial resumption of fan attendance is positive news, this does not end the concern that clubs and fans have. Will he confirm his plans to see a full return of fans, and what further financial support will be provided for those clubs, which have had a very difficult 2020? Finally, has snooker now be reclassed as entertainment and not sport?
Oliver Dowden
I know that my hon. Friend is not impish in his devotion to Lincoln City, and it is good to see them doing so well this season. First, I am pleased about the deal that has been reached between the Premier League and the English Football League for £250 million, which I am confident will secure the game through to the end of the season. Of course, we want it to reopen as rapidly as possible. The first important step for somewhere such as Lincolnshire is to get out of tier 3 into tier 2, and then into tier 1, and we will see more fans able to attend as we go through that process.
In relation to snooker, the professional game has returned, but some recreational snooker and leagues may not be happening in higher tiers due to the risk of spreading. We will keep this under review.
Ian Levy [V]
Blyth Valley is currently under tier 3 restrictions, with gyms and sports facilities open for individual exercise. Increased ventilation, enhanced cleaning of sports equipment and a constant supply of hand sanitiser are just some of the measures required to ensure that facilities can operate in a covid-19-secure way. The implementation of such measures is adding significant cost to an industry that has had a terrible year. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will engage with the industry and find a way to help it to remain open in a safe and covid-secure way?
Oliver Dowden
Sport is of course a force for good in all our communities, and I made it a priority to open sports facilities and gyms in all tiers as part of this reopening. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the incredible efforts made by venues to ensure that this could happen. I know the difficult financial situation many of them find themselves in. We have already provided over £2 billion to sport, including, for example, the £300 million sport rescue fund, money for local leisure centres and support from Sport England, but of course I will continue to work with sports over the weeks and months ahead to support them.
Mark Jenkinson
Workington Reds are under the new chairmanship of David Bowden, and I would like to send him my best wishes for taking over at such a difficult time. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what support has been made available to clubs such as Workington Reds?
Oliver Dowden
I of course join my hon. Friend in giving my very best wishes to the new chairman, David Bowden, at Workington Reds. We know the value of these clubs. That is precisely why we included £25 million of funding for national league clubs in the sports winter survival package. That is, of course, on top of the unique lottery deal, which has provided £10 million for the national league’s top two tiers to get them playing this season. Of course, we will continue to work with the sport.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
In addition to more than £100 billion of general business support, our unprecedented investment of £1.57 billion in the culture recovery fund has seen more than £500 million handed out to organisations across England to date, a fifth of which has gone to the music sector. Those funds are providing valuable protection to live music venues and festivals, and to all the valuable jobs that rely on them.
Theresa Villiers
I know the whole sector is very grateful for the support it has received from the Government, but if we are going to get music festivals and major events on again from the spring and summer, businesses need to be signing contracts and spending money now. Will the Minister give serious consideration to Government support for an indemnity or insurance scheme so that they can make those decisions in the confidence that, if there is a third wave, their losses will be mitigated?
Caroline Dinenage
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. I am well aware of the concerns about and the challenges of securing insurance for live music events. It is something we are looking at very carefully, but the key is for the industry to build an evidence base that demonstrates that insurance coverage is the only barrier to events being able to take place. That is what we managed to prove with the film and TV production restart scheme. In the meantime, the remaining £258 million of the culture recovery fund will very shortly be made available to provide extra support.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) [V]
On a similar theme, the UK is the world leader in music and arts festivals. The sector is worth £12 billion and supports many thousands of highly skilled jobs, as well as being the financial lifeblood of the nation’s musicians. However, there will be no festival season next year unless insurance is underwritten in case of covid disruption. First, will the Minister meet with me and MPs from across the House to see how that reinsurance can be put in place? Secondly, noting her answer to the previous question, does she recognise that with a minimum lead time of six months, the reinsurance needs to be in place now before the likes of Glastonbury can commit and, if it is not, those festivals effectively cannot be put in place? We need them to be able to sign those contracts today, rather than to wait several months and then have an insurance scheme in place.
Caroline Dinenage
I know this is something that my hon. Friend cares deeply about and that he met the Secretary of State recently to discuss it. Festivals are a vibrant and integral part of our creative community and our economy, and I am well aware that many will take decisions very soon about whether they can go ahead next year, so this is an urgent situation. There is a sub-group of my entertainment and events working group looking specifically at how we can get festivals reopened. I have met in the past few weeks with representatives from festivals in Edinburgh, and only yesterday with representatives from festivals on the Isle of Wight.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
Following the recent introduction of regional tiers, venues in tiers 1 and 2 are open to audiences, subject to social distancing and caps on capacity. Venues in tier 3 are adapting their performances to broadcast without audiences. The Government continue to work with the performing arts sector to assess the impact of the tiers and to develop proposals for how venues can open with fuller audiences when it is safe to do so.
Paul Blomfield [V]
The culture recovery fund, which the Minister mentioned earlier, has of course been welcomed by our award-winning Sheffield theatres, along with others across the sector. However, she knows that the performing arts depend on an army of freelancers. They make up some 70% of the theatre workforce alone, not only actors and performers, but more working in lighting, set design, stage management and other areas. She also knows that they have been shut out of the business support that she talked about earlier—more than 200,000 people, part of the 3 million excluded across all sectors—so will she recognise the problem for freelancers and press the Treasury to provide the support they need?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the culture recovery fund has been a lifeline for cultural and artistic institutions up and down our country. Sheffield Central has received over £7 million in funding in 2020-21. The whole thing about supporting freelancers is getting things up and running. For example, the Crucible theatre in Sheffield is in tier 3, but it is continuing to rehearse its panto with the aim of performing it live if restrictions are lifted in time, but whatever happens, it will record its work and stream it into hospitals, schools and, hopefully, to audiences. That is how we get our freelancers back to work—by continuing to produce the high-quality cultural content that audiences are so desperate for.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)
The general data protection regulation regime will be retained in domestic law after the transition period through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The UK remains committed to maintaining high data protection standards now and in the future.
Martyn Day [V]
The EU has been a world leader when it comes to the protection of citizens’ digital rights. This is evidenced by the large number of countries, such as South Korea, Japan and Brazil, that sought to emulate its groundbreaking GDPR policy. As the end of the transition period looms, how will the UK Government ensure that digital rights law not only lives up to the EU’s high standards but exceeds them?
Mr Whittingdale
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the GDPR has ensured that we have high standards and, as I say, we are absolutely committed to maintaining them. We have no intention of diverging substantially from GDPR, but obviously we will be looking to see whether there are ways in which we can improve our regime while maintaining those high standards.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
The independent Information Commissioner recently revealed that the Conservative party had racially and religiously profiled 10 million voters at the last election. I was shocked to learn that it did this by buying data that
“identified a person’s…ethnic origin and religion based on their first and last name.”
Can the Minister explain to the House why his party does this?
Mr Whittingdale
As I recall, the Information Commissioner examined the practices of all political parties and made comments against all of them. However, it did not find that any breaches of the law had occurred.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
The Government take the issue of misinformation and disinformation very seriously, and DCMS is leading work across Government to tackle it. As this can be particularly harmful during the pandemic, we stood up the counter-disinformation unit to bring together cross-Government monitoring and analysis capabilities. We are working closely with social media platforms to help them to identify and remove incorrect claims about the virus and to promote authoritative information.
Gavin Newlands
Online misinformation is a great harm to us all. It can make people refuse life-saving medicines, it can make people believe that the so-called leader of the free world has been cheated out of an election, and in the last of the 16 days of action on gender-based violence against women and girls, it is important to note that 52% of young women and girls have been abused online and that 87% think the problem is getting worse. When will we finally see the online harms Bill, given that the social media and tech companies are doing nowhere near enough to protect individuals and society at large?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight this. We know that the vast majority of misinformation is harmful but legal. It is really important that we develop a comprehensive piece of legislation, working closely with civil society and the tech platforms, so that where disinformation is illegal or encourages illegal behaviours it can be dealt with, and so that we can address false narratives online and try to root out the content that is legal but harmful, particularly to children. With that in mind, we will be publishing the online harms response very shortly, and we plan to bring forward the legislation early next year.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many other Members, I have been sharing information about the excellent developments on the vaccines with my constituents on social media, but I have been deeply worried by some of the anti-vax nonsense I have seen in response. What is the Minister’s advice to my constituents when they see this information online? Should they simply report it to the social media companies and expect them to remove it—they have a pretty poor track record of doing that—or is there some way of feeding into the disinformation unit that she has described?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this. Anti-vaccination propaganda can be really harmful and can deter people from getting treatment that could save their life or the life of a loved one. That is why it is really important to bring it to the attention of the social media companies themselves. Last month, my colleague the Secretary of State, alongside the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, met the social media companies, which agreed to reduce the spread of harmful and misleading narratives, particularly around the potential covid-19 vaccine. We are holding them to account for this; it is vital that they get it right and that their work is transparent and effective.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
The Government continue to engage with creative sectors so that they know how to prepare for changes at the end of the transition period. We are seeking a reciprocal arrangement with the EU that would allow UK citizens to undertake some business activities in the EU without a work permit on a short-term basis. We cannot comment on the details of those arrangements at the moment, as the negotiations are still ongoing.
Kerry McCarthy
As the least musically talented member ever of the Musicians Union, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am sort of pleased that the Minister gave that answer, although it does mean that I am slightly floundering as to what question to ask her now, because that was what I was going to ask. Musicians really need that reciprocal exemption. I know she says that what is important is that they are ready and prepared for when they can resume touring again, but it is really late in the day to leave this, and Ministers told the Musicians Union that it would be quite an easy thing to do. Is it possible to get some reassurance to them now, rather than later?
Caroline Dinenage
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady; she may not have musical talent, but she has some of the best musical taste in this House. The cultural and creative sectors are, as she knows, some of the UK’s greatest success stories and produce talent that is recognised the world over. Being outside the EU will not change that, but it does mean that we need practical changes on both sides of the channel. That will not come as a big surprise; DCMS has been engaging for very long time with the relevant trade and membership bodies, which cover a membership of approximately 150,000 businesses and freelancers. We have also had “Get ready for Brexit” and “Check. Change. Go.” public information campaigns, so we have been keeping people updated every step of the way.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
We continue to protect our sectors through the covid crisis. In the past month alone, we have announced a £300 million winter survival package for sports clubs, seen a £250 million deal between the English Football League and the Premier League and announced £100 million in emergency funding for leisure centres. At the same time, we continue to deliver on our non-covid priorities, for example, the Telecommunications (Security) Bill and telecoms diversification strategy, the review of the Gambling Act 2005, the response to the Competition and Markets Authority and, of course, plans for Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.
Damien Moore
Britannia has just been voted the UK’s worst hotel chain for the 8th year in a row. This is doing untold damage to resort constituencies such as mine in Southport, which have Britannia Hotels and Pontins campsites. What does my right hon. Friend have to say about this truly appalling record?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise concerns about the management and cleanliness practices of sites owned by Britannia Hotels, and he has also raised them with me privately. I know that in November the Minister for Sport, Tourism and Heritage, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) met them, and he was again in contact with them yesterday to raise those concerns. Of course, local authorities have appropriate powers to deal with this, but it is something I am taking a very close interest in.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
This week, we learnt that a former Conservative DCMS Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, had to promise to be positive towards Mark Zuckerberg and his monopolistic company before Mr Zuckerberg would even agree to meet him in 2018. Has the current Secretary of State adopted the same approach in his meetings with Facebook executives during his tenure?
Oliver Dowden
I do not know what information the hon. Lady has been reading; if she is referring to the information released in the freedom of information request, that was certainly not how I read it. We have been taking a robust approach to social media companies. I have already met with Nick Clegg and Sheryl Sandberg about encryption, with the Home Secretary, and we continue to develop robust proposals for online harms, which we will announce very shortly.
Jo Stevens
I am pleased to hear that we will finally get the much-delayed online harms Bill to ensure that the regulator has the strength to tackle online child abuse comprehensively and ensure trust and transparency from online platforms—including, of course, Facebook; Instagram, which is owned by Facebook; and WhatsApp, which is also owned by Facebook—as standard, as the Secretary of State has promised. However, we have heard this week that the Bill has been watered down and will not include criminal penalties for senior tech executives after multiple breaches. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will not put his relationship with powerful tech companies ahead of the safety of children and that criminal penalties will be included in the Bill?
Oliver Dowden
I gently advise the hon. Lady that as much as I respect our newspapers and have done a great deal to support them, she should not believe everything that she reads in newspapers; wait to see the response. There is talk of things being watered down but people should wait and see what is in the Bill. I am confident that we will have a robust and effective regime that achieves two outcomes: first, we will ensure that people are safe online, and secondly, the legislation will at the same time be proportionate to ensure that we have a vibrant tech sector in this country.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Oliver Dowden
I do not want to interfere in the election of the chairman of that APPG, but my hon. Friend will make an excellent candidate for that position. We of course remain committed to ensuring that all children and young people have a broad and balanced curriculum, of which creative education is a key part. We will work with the Department for Education and other valued education partners to deliver high-quality education and training across all disciplines in the arts.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this issue. We have opened the consultation on products high in fat, salt and sugar and continue to keep all advertising restrictions under review. It is vital that the drinks industry does not undertake advertising that in any way encourages young people to drink or people to engage in excessive drinking.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. I should mention again, for your benefit, Mr Speaker, that not only did we provide £16 million of support to protect rugby league earlier this year, but we announced a further £12 million last month. The Halliwell Jones stadium in my hon. Friend’s constituency will be a terrific host of the rugby league world cup next year—
Oliver Dowden
Just outside—very close to his constituency. [Laughter.] I stand corrected, Mr Speaker. I assure you that it is an excellent stadium wherever in the United Kingdom it is located. We are very much looking forward to the rugby league world cup as the main event of 2021 and we are of course working very closely indeed with those involved. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the risks around covid; I very much hope that by that point we will be able to have the full return of fans to stadiums, but we will of course ensure that contingencies are in place.
Finally, I should say how grateful I am to Ralph Rimmer at the Rugby Football League and the rugby league world cup team for all their excellent efforts.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of digital exclusion across the board. My Department is working closely to address that, and of course I would be very happy for either me or one of my ministerial colleagues to meet him and that group to discuss those ideas further.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) [V]
Oliver Dowden
We are very committed to ensuring that we have vibrant local newspapers. They are a cornerstone of our democracy. We have already extended business rates relief on local newspaper offices, fast-tracked zero-rating of VAT on e-publications and will continue to explore further options for support. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the important role of statutory notices and the role that they play in newspapers’ revenue and we are working closely to ensure that we protect that.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Suella Braverman)
Morning, Mr Speaker. The criminal justice response to the pandemic has been truly collaborative, and I thank all frontline staff for their incredibly hard work. The Crown Prosecution Service is working closely with partner agencies to reduce the backlog of cases in courts. That includes introducing internal measures to manage larger, live caseloads and working to ensure maximum throughput of cases at court. I am pleased to say to the hon. Lady that Newport and Cwmbran magistrates court is now listing cases in line with pre-covid timescales.
Jessica Morden
The backlog of cases has meant a serious delay in the ability to access justice. As the Law Society has pointed out:
“Investing in legal aid for early advice and legal representation will ensure judicial time is used as efficiently as possible in cases which do go to court.”
What is the Attorney General doing with the Lord Chancellor to ensure that legal aid and early advice are funded properly to help tackle the backlog?
The Attorney General
I am grateful for the question from the hon. Lady. I am working with the Lord Chancellor and with all Government Departments to support publicly funded lawyers. At the beginning of the pandemic, the CPS, for which I am mainly responsible, made changes to its system for paying fees to advocates to help support them during this difficult time. In August, the Government invested a further £51 million into the criminal legal aid fee scheme to better reflect the important work that publicly funded barristers provide.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I and members of the Justice Committee join the Attorney General in paying tribute to all those in the justice system who have worked very hard to deal with the extra pressures of the covid pandemic. Recognising that, she will know of course that the Lord Chief Justice has recently observed that a significant number of multi-handed large-scale organised crime cases are likely to be coming into the Crown court system in the coming year. That will add to pressure because of the social distancing arrangements required in Crown courts, and given that we are listing, at the moment, some cases up to 2022, that is clearly not desirable. How is she proposing that the CPS deals specifically with those pressures given also the comments by the inspectorate around disclosure still needing to be improved as that can cause delays at trials?
The Attorney General
Again, my hon. Friend raises an important point, because, in order to tackle the backlog and ensure that court activity continues where possible, the CPS has moved over its Crown advocates to increase its resources in reviewing cases and has offered secondments to the Bar. That is something that has been welcomed by the Bar and by the profession. That move to bring CPS advocates in-house to deal with charging and case progression—matters that my hon. Friend raises—ensures that the CPS is in the best place to be ready for trials and to support the courts recovery plan to deal with the backlog and, in particular, those multi-handed trials, which are of concern when it comes to bearing down on this backlog.
Mr Speaker
I now call shadow Attorney General, Ellie Reeves, to whom I send birthday greetings. Happy birthday.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I congratulate the Attorney General on her happy news.
The CPS case backlog is up 55% since March; victims of domestic violence are being told by police to pursue civil action rather than criminal prosecutions because the courts are so overwhelmed; and the latest figures show that domestic abuse prosecutions are down by 19%. On the final day of 16 days of action against gender-based violence, it is clear that the Government are letting down victims on every front. What exactly is the Attorney General doing about this?
The Attorney General
I wish the hon. Lady a happy birthday and thank her for her kind wishes, but I have to disagree with the premise of her question.
Of course, the Government take very seriously the challenges faced by vulnerable victims, particularly at this difficult time, and we acknowledge there are challenges and strains in the court system. That is why, earlier this year, the CPS introduced the interim charging protocol with the police, which prioritised high-harm cases, including those with victims of domestic abuse or serious violence. That has enabled a slower decrease or fall in the prosecutions of those cases.
We have also seen the roll-out of section 28 in 18 courts since February, and, as of 23 November, throughout 82 Crown courts. That is a real benefit for vulnerable victims who are going through the traumatic experience of giving evidence in domestic abuse cases and on sexual violence matters.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
The CPS is committed to prosecuting immigration crime to protect UK borders, and, in particular, to bring to justice those who exploit and facilitate the entry of illegal migrants. The CPS has clear and published policy guidance on the prosecution of immigration offences that reflects the memorandum of understanding agreed between the CPS and Home Office Immigration Enforcement.
Martyn Day [V]
The offence of facilitating unlawful immigration has previously been used, quite rightly, to tackle smuggling gangs and traffickers, but in recent months the Crown Prosecution Service has started prosecuting refugees crossing the channel simply because they were the unlucky ones forced to steer the boat. As the chief inspector of borders has made clear, these people are victims of the gangs—they are not gang members—so why are they being prosecuted and put in prison, contrary to the spirit of UN protocols and the published CPS guidance?
The Solicitor General
The CPS has not changed its policy on prosecuting immigration offences. The joint approach between the CPS and Immigration Enforcement is to consider prosecution for anyone who has been involved in organising and planning these journeys—I emphasise, the organising and planning—together with those responsible for controlling the vessels. As always, every case has to be considered on its merits and on the facts, and decisions must be in line with the code in the usual way. Prosecutors have to be satisfied about that, and prosecutors understand their obligations.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Solicitor General referred to prosecuting the people who control the vessels, but they are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) said, the victims of these gangs—not members of the gangs—so there has been a change in CPS policy and practice. If he wants to prove me wrong on that, will he publish the new note or guidance on this offence that I understand was issued to CPS lawyers last month, and will he also publish details of any representations made by the Home Office in the last 18 months in relation to this offence?
The Solicitor General
As I say, the policy is clear on prosecutors’ obligations. They have obligations—the obligations that we have under article 31 of the refugee convention—and it is well to point out that those obligations are actually enshrined in our domestic legislation, here in this honourable House. The domestic legislation in section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is quite clear in this area. Those who facilitate, control and engineer these offences are subject to prosecution.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
The Government are investing across the justice system, with a further £23 million for the CPS, on top of £85 million invested over the past two years. That investment will enable the CPS to respond effectively to the increase in caseload that we expect; we are recruiting 20,000 new police officers. That will strengthen our response to things like rape and serious sexual offences.
Investing in the CPS demonstrates this Government’s commitment to securing justice for victims of crime. I am pleased to say that funding will support the recruitment of new roles across England and Wales, including in CPS East Midlands, which covers Northamptonshire—both my county and my hon. Friend’s county.
Mr Hollobone
Advocates for defendants at Northampton Crown court are regularly using the fact that their client has waited so long for justice during the pandemic as mitigation when seeking a lesser sentence from the judge. How is the Crown Prosecution Service countering such pleas so that convicted criminals receive the tougher sentences that the public want to see?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning Northampton Crown court, at which I appeared for many years, both prosecuting and defending. Sentencing is a matter for the courts. The CPS prosecutors will assist the courts when it comes to sentencing to ensure that all relevant factors are brought to the court’s attention when considering a sentence.
Courts do have to have regard to guidance that the Sentencing Council publishes on sentencing principles, including during the covid pandemic. That includes advice that each case must be considered on its own facts. The court has an obligation—my hon. Friend is right to raise this—to protect the public and victims of crime, and sentencing by our judiciary is actually very robust. It is right, though, that judges hear mitigating features as well as aggravating features. They do that, and they sentence accordingly.
Jerome Mayhew
The Government should be commended for bringing down the number of outstanding Crown court cases, prior to covid, to a 10-year low, but of course the social distancing requirements of covid have changed the situation. Is the Crown court system now keeping up with the current inflow of cases? If not, how are the Government going to get a handle on the backlog?
The Solicitor General
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which is well made. We have unlocked vital capacity by opening 16 so-called Nightingale courts to provide 29 extra courtrooms, 10 of which are being used for non-custodial types of cases and jury trials. We are continuing to open more Nightingale courts. We are spending £110 million on a range of emergency measures to help courts to tackle the impact of covid-19. We have recruited 1,600 additional staff, who are using the cloud video platform, and that continues to increase: virtual hearings are taking place more than ever. That has now been rolled out to over 150 magistrates courts and about 70 Crown courts. A lot of work is being done to increase capacity, but my hon. Friend is very right to raise this.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Suella Braverman)
Tackling rape is a priority for this Government, and £3 million has been awarded to the CPS in this year’s spending review specifically for rape and serious sexual offence work. This year the CPS published its own rape strategy, “Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO) 2025”, and has updated rape legal guidance and training for specialist prosecutors. The CPS is also engaging stakeholders on a joint action plan on rape, with the police, aimed at improving joint working, launching in 2021.
Tony Lloyd [V]
I can rehearse the figures, as indeed the Attorney General can, on declining rates of prosecution for rape and sexual violence. The Victims Commissioner, Vera Baird, found that only one in seven victims believes they will get any form of justice through our criminal justice system. Does the Attorney General agree that if rape is not to be a de facto matter of impunity for the attacker, we must have the rape review published as soon as possible, and that we have to see urgent action to begin to bring these catastrophic and scandalous numbers down and to give confidence to victims that they will actually get justice?
The Attorney General
The hon. Gentleman is, with respect, wrong to suggest that perpetrators of rape can behave with immunity—I think that was the word he used. There is a real priority shared throughout Government to bear down on the low rates of prosecutions and convictions in this area. Following the publishing of the shadow rape review, the Government have decided to delay publication of the end-to-end rape review until 2021, so that we can ensure proper engagement with the views and perspectives of stakeholders. That will allow us to assess other recently published findings, including the survey of victims of rape undertaken by the Victims’ Commissioner. That is important work, and we want to get it right.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Rape prosecutions are at their lowest level on record, and the recent survey of survivors found that just 14% believed they would receive justice by reporting the crime. Does the Attorney General agree that violence against women is a violation of women’s fundamental human rights, and does she therefore think that instead of announcing unnecessary consultations on the Human Rights Act 1998, which is there to protect victims and the public, the Government should instead focus on addressing the complete and systematic failures of the current criminal justice system?
The Attorney General
The decline in criminal justice outcomes for rape is a cause of deep concern for us all, and although the increased charge rates in 2019-20 and in quarter 1 of 2020-21 have led to increases in the volume of cases proceeding to prosecution following charge, there is clearly more to be done.
The decline in this issue is complex and cross-system. It is why the Government have commissioned an end-to-end rape review, which, as I said, is due to publish next year. The CPS is proactive in making improvements, including the publication of its strategy, which deals head-on with trying to support victims and to address the concerns expressed in the 2019 inspectorate report. It has also published updated rape legal guidance for public consultation. That is the way to get it right, so that we can inject long-term benefits and change in the system.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Suella Braverman)
Criminal defence lawyers play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law, and the Government greatly value the work that they do. In my meetings with the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and with circuit leaders, support for the publicly funded Bar is always high on the agenda.
There are three things here. First, at the beginning of the pandemic, the CPS made changes to its system for paying fees to advocates to support them at that difficult time. Secondly, the Government made it easier for barristers to claim hardship payments for Crown court work. Thirdly, in August, the Government invested an extra £51 million into the criminal legal aid fee scheme to better reflect the important work that criminal barristers do.
Afzal Khan [V]
It was extremely disappointing to see no further funding for legal aid practitioners announced in the Chancellor’s spending review. There has not been a rise in legal aid payments for 25 years, and a decade of Government cuts to legal aid have left thousands of practitioners facing the prospect of going out of business, even before coronavirus. Does the Attorney General agree that legal aid practitioners should have been included in the spending review?
The Attorney General
As I have already mentioned, the £51 million of additional funding through the criminal legal aid review has been allocated specifically for those publicly funded barristers and lawyers of whom the hon. Gentleman speaks. The next phase of CLAR will involve an independently led review that will ensure the market meets demands, provides value for money for the taxpayer and provides for defendants to continue to receive high-quality advice from a diverse range of practitioners, protecting access to justice now and into the future.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
The CPS is determined to bring perpetrators of domestic abuse to justice and provide protection for victims in spite of the pandemic. I have personally presented cases in the Court of Appeal where I have felt that sentences were too low in this area of law. Following the £85 million uplift awarded last year, CPS recruitment has continued to boost our resources and ensure that cases progress through the courts.
Catherine West
The Solicitor General will be aware of the 88% increase in case load and the 23% drop in resources to deal with that. What urgency can he inject to deal with this burning issue?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member is right: it is a burning issue and a very important one. Domestic abuse cases are among our highest priorities in the court system, being dealt with by the criminal justice system. They continued to be afforded a higher priority as social distancing restrictions were eased. That was reinforced in guidance for judges about listing in magistrates courts issued by the senior presiding judge for England and Wales, and the CPS is working across Government. We are at one on this. We recognise it as a priority. Domestic abuse cases are appalling, and they remain among our highest priorities.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that up to 30% of domestic violence starts during pregnancy, so can he tell me what the CPS is doing to protect vulnerable babies from that toxic environment, which has such a profoundly damaging impact on their lifelong potential?
The Solicitor General
I am full of admiration for the work that my right hon. Friend does in this area. She is a powerful and committed advocate for this cause. She is undertaking some work for the Prime Minister, which I know the Government are eagerly awaiting. Tackling domestic abuse and supporting victims is a key priority for this Government, now more than ever. The Domestic Abuse Bill and the wider action plan will help to protect and support victims and their children. All NHS staff must undertake mandatory safeguarding training nowadays, which includes a focus on domestic abuse, so that they can pick it up. The new “Working Together to Safeguard Children” arrangements help to strengthen the multi-agency approach of partnership and collaborative working.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
The Court of Appeal has this month increased sentences referred by me for a range of offending. Those have included the supply of drugs in one of Her Majesty’s prisons, the possession of firearms, and the rape of a victim who was asleep combined with the making of indecent images and recordings.
Mrs Latham
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the purposes of sentencing include public protection as well as punishment, and that is important for the unduly lenient sentence scheme?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is entirely right about public protection. It is one reason why, exceptionally, I will refer a case involving a dangerous offender, for example. In two separate cases this year—one involving a stabbing, and the other involving rape, where both the victims were lone females—the offenders had their original sentences extended following my reference to the Court of Appeal to properly reflect the dangerousness of their offending. She is quite right to highlight this point, and that work will continue.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for a few minutes.
Petition
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Bath regarding Cleveland Bridge and the importance of protecting that historic structure. Online, this petition received 1,278 signatures.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of Bath,
Declares that Cleveland Bridge, a Grade II* listed structure, is unable to withstand vehicles over 18 tonnes as part of its function on the Primary Road Network; further that interventions are now increasingly needed to preserve the structure for future generations, as the law requires; and further that the Government has set out in its Road Investment Strategy that the A350 corridor could be used as the main north-south strategic route from the south coast to the M4.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward urgent work to adopt the A350 corridor as the main route from the south coast to the M4, and to consider redirecting east-west traffic from the A4 and Bristol, to the A420 north of the city, thereby protecting Cleveland Bridge from heavy freight traffic and enabling a reduced weight limit.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002637]
Future Relationship with the EU
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office to make a statement on the progress of the negotiations on the UK’s future relationship with the EU and preparations for the end of the transition period.
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House again on the progress of our negotiations with the European Union. The Prime Minister met the Commission President yesterday evening in Brussels. They, along with the chief negotiators, Lord Frost and Michel Barnier, discussed the significant obstacles that still remain in the negotiations. It is clear that we remain far apart on the so-called level playing field, fisheries and governance. However, they agreed that talks should resume in Brussels today to see whether the gaps can be bridged. They also agreed that a decision should be taken by Sunday regarding the future of the talks.
We are working tirelessly to get a deal, but we cannot accept one at any cost. We cannot accept a deal that would compromise the control of our money, laws, borders and fish. The only deal that is possible is one that is compatible with our sovereignty and takes back control of our laws, trade and waters. As the Prime Minister said, whether we agree trading arrangements resembling those of Australia or Canada, the United Kingdom will prosper as an independent nation. We will continue to keep the House updated as we seek to secure a future relationship with our EU friends that respects our status as a sovereign, equal and independent country.
Rachel Reeves
The country was hoping for a breakthrough last night, yet there was none. There is a sense of huge dismay, as we all wanted to hear significant progress, but we heard more about the Prime Minister’s meal than we did about his deal. In fact, we have not heard from the Prime Minister at all, even though he was supposed to be taking charge of these negotiations.
On Sunday, we will have just 18 days to go until the end of the transition period. How has it come to this? Businesses desperately trying to plan need to know what on earth is going on. If talks break down and the Government pursue no deal, what happens next? Will the Government look to swiftly restart negotiations, or do the Government believe there should be no talks next year or even for the rest of this Parliament? Or have the Government not thought that far ahead?
I want to focus in my question today on the security implications of no deal. The political declaration, signed by the Prime Minister, stated that there should be a
“broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership.”
Yet despite numerous questions from the Opposition, and indeed from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), Ministers have been unable to tell us how border officers and police will be able to access security data. The Government’s “No-Deal Readiness Report” admitted that, without a deal on security and data, the UK would lose access to key law enforcement tools such as SIS II—the second-generation Schengen information system—Europol and the European arrest warrant. These databases help us to fight organised crime and terrorism. Can the Minister guarantee that the security of the British people will be in no way undermined in the event of no security agreement?
The Labour party believes that the security of our country and our people are crucial. The Government will not be forgiven for undermining those. So for our economic prosperity and for our country’s security, will the Government do the responsible thing and bring back the deal?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. First, let me assure her of the Prime Minister’s resolve, efforts and determination to secure a deal. It is one reason why she is having to endure me today and not others. We are going to do everything we can to secure a deal. The best outcome is a Canada-style arrangement, and we are going to leave no stone unturned. We will carry on in talks and carry on negotiating until there is no hope of that happening, but at the moment there is hope of that happening, even though things do appear gloomy.
I appreciate also that Members are very concerned about these matters. Ministers are always happy to come and answer questions and update as much as we can on these issues, but I would say to all colleagues, particularly those on the Opposition Benches, that calling for urgent questions or asking other questions on the Floor of the House with the express mission of trying to undermine our negotiating position by pretending we are not ready for any outcome that these negotiations might yield is not helping to secure the outcome we all want, and it is certainly not in the interests of the country. These are serious times and none of us should be doing anything that may undermine the possibility of us getting the deal we all want.
Let me turn to the issues the hon. Lady raises. We have been clear that the end of the transition period will bring both opportunities but also challenges. We have been making extensive preparations for a wide range of scenarios at the end of the year, including whether it is an Australian-style outcome, and we are ready to seize those opportunities of being outside the single market and the customs union. This includes investing over £700 million in jobs, technology and infrastructure at the border and providing £84 million in grants to boost the customs intermediary sector, alongside implementing border controls in stages and ensuring that we have the necessary time to prepare.
We will not compromise on security. This has been an absolutely key part of our preparations on any outcome, and it is one of the reasons why, even in these gloomy times, I still am optimistic that a deal can be secured, because I do not believe that any European Union member state would wish to affect or compromise the security of its own citizens. But if we leave on an Australian-style outcome, we have measures in place to ensure that our citizens will be safe, and that we will be able to share intelligence and the other things we need to do to ensure our security arrangements are as they should be. I urge all colleagues, whatever their political hue or imperative, to put our nation first over the next few days, to support our negotiating team, to demonstrate our readiness under any scenario and our resolve, and to help us get a deal.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
It was interesting that the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who speaks for the Opposition, did not address the central question at the root of these issues, which is about the ability of this House of Commons to make decisions about our rules without the European Union being able to override it. That is the central question and on that question I would like the Government to hold firm. My constituents voted to leave the European Union and to take back control of making our laws. Will my right hon. Friend take a message to the Prime Minister that, whatever decision he takes on Sunday—I am glad we are still talking, which shows that there is still opportunity—to secure the ability of this House to make our laws, he has the support of this side of the House? Perhaps the other side of the House should reflect that their approach is why they have lost the last two general elections and are probably going to lose a third.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. It is helpful for the negotiating team that we are facing across the table to hear the resolve of Members in this House and that they are representing the views of their constituents. We have had many years of wrangling over this, but the Government have a clear mandate to deliver on the referendum result. We will do that and we will hold to our promises.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
Here we are again—yet another deadline. October was a deadline, then it was November, then 1 December, then Friday, then Monday, then it was the last supper and now it is Sunday. God knows what it will be after that. I remember the good old days when Brexit was concluded and this was the easiest deal in history. The easiest deal in history now has more cliffhangers than “EastEnders” and we are just 21 days away from a likely no-deal Brexit—a no deal that will bring chaos, disruption and ruin for many.
The only policy in the negotiation position that the Government seem to have left is the forlorn hope that the EU will back down to their demands and concede that the British are right. The Government have made themselves hostage to their own Brexit right wing—any compromise will now be interpreted as a sell-out by that right wing. They have only themselves to blame, with the appalling language that they have used against the EU and their demonisation of the EU as some sort of cartoon villains. The EU are not going to back down, this Government are not going to compromise, so what is going to change in the next few days?
Penny Mordaunt
I am going to miss these exchanges with the hon. Gentleman, but my experience of my involvement on the Joint Committee under the withdrawal agreement and all aspects of these negotiations is that they have been done constructively and that there has been good rapport. The critical factor, however, in this is the EU recognising that the United Kingdom is a sovereign equal in these negotiations. That can be laid on the table in a charming way, but that is the bottom line, the cold hard facts of this situation. I appeal to the EU not only to recognise that fact, but to put the interests of the citizens and businesses in their own member states first, above any political project and above the political imperatives of the Commission. That is what we should all be doing. The negotiating position of the United Kingdom is one that creates that mutual beneficial outcome and I am hopeful that the EU will recognise that before the time runs out.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
We all want a deal, but UK businesses—let us be frank—are looking at the prospect of no deal with utter dismay. In the political declaration, the Government signed up to common high standards
“commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship”
and agreed to robust level playing field commitments to
“prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages.”
What proposals has the UK made in the negotiations to maintain common high standards in the years ahead, given that it is inevitable that these standards may change on both sides of the relationship?
Penny Mordaunt
We have always given that commitment. Clearly, there have been discussions in recent days focused on that precise issue, but right back even when we set out our opening positions, the UK position made those commitments. This Government and future Governments would not want to roll back on those standards, so we did not hesitate in giving those guarantees. The sticking point is our ability to control our own destiny. The EU has got to recognise that it cannot keep us within its own orbit, and that is something we will not compromise on.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Many on the Opposition Benches see that the biggest failure would be for there to be no deal, but does my right hon. Friend agree with me that actually the biggest failure would be to capitulate and to accept a deal that would not fully respect a sovereign Britain leaving the EU? Also, does she agree with me that it is not a great look for the Opposition Benches when it comes to this negotiation—and, of course, it does take two to tango—to incessantly, all the time, be seeing reasonableness in the EU and unreasonableness in our own Government? For a party supposedly looking to reconnect with some of its patriotic voters, this is hardly a good look.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I would say that we have compromised on a great deal. We have not been intransigent in these negotiations. We have compromised on all sorts of things, including accepting an overarching framework to the agreement. We are going to be as creative and as determined as we possibly can be in the next few days in order to try to secure that deal, but he is right: we will not compromise on those fundamental issues.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Can I assure the right hon. Lady that no one, as far as I am aware, on this side of the House in any way wants to undermine the negotiating position of this Government in Europe, because so much about the future of this country hangs on successful negotiations with the European Union? But in the rollercoaster of emotions that we have been through in the past few days—there is going to be a deal, there is not going to be a deal—and at the end of four years of a rollercoaster, would she accept that what we need is some reassurance that if, by Sunday, there is not an agreement, the Government will not give up on trying to reach a trade deal with the European Union that does not see us crash out on 1 January, with all the catastrophic effect that could have for our local businesses and for the economy?
Penny Mordaunt
We are already out, I would just remind the hon. Lady, but clearly we have prepared for every eventuality. We have a phased approach to the border. We have many pots of work going on into the new year to ensure that there are not those cliff edges that she refers to. We have thought long and hard, and there has been a huge effort by the civil service to ensure that, whatever the outcome, it will be as smooth as possible for our businesses and our citizens. I thank the hon. Lady, who has been consistent in helping us secure a deal, and I urge all Members of this House to follow her example. I think that all Members can, from whichever seat they sit in in this Chamber, help us, and I would ask that everyone does that in the coming days.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
One of the concessions the Government made this week is on clause 45 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which would have allowed the UK Government to apply UK state aid rules in Northern Ireland. Given that the UK Government feel comfortable conceding on this clause, will the Minister now also look at deleting clause 50, which reserves the power to Westminster to apply state aid rules in Scotland and Wales?
Penny Mordaunt
I refer the hon. Lady to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday and just reiterate Northern Ireland’s unique position in the United Kingdom.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Government have already published an economic impact assessment of no deal. Will the Minister ensure that they publish an economic assessment of any EU deal on offer, so if any deal is rejected we will all know at what cost?
Penny Mordaunt
At the moment efforts are on securing a deal, and the deal that is there—the component parts of it—is in the best interests of the people of the United Kingdom and in the best interests of the citizens and businesses in the member states of the European Union. That is very clear and that is what we are all hoping for and all working towards. The question is: will the EU accept that?
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
We end 2020 with Britain as the first country in the world to be protecting its citizens against covid with a properly authorised vaccine. For millions of workers in the manufacturing sectors—automotive, aerospace, food and drink, pharmaceuticals, chemicals—to end 2020 with a free trade agreement will be a huge relief and boost to confidence, so can my right hon. Friend reinforce with the Prime Minister the opportunity for 2021 to be a very much better year for Britain than we might have expected a few months ago, and to use all his personal efforts, energy and creativity to secure a deal in the remaining days ahead?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for that and assure him again of the Prime Minister’s resolve to leave no stone unturned to get the Canada-style arrangements that we would all hope for. I would say to him that, as well as a boost for our own manufacturers and scientists and everyone else in the United Kingdom, securing such a deal would be a boost for the world economy and I hope that that focuses minds over the next few days.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
In terms of the internal market Bill, we all remember Scottish Tory MPs in this House voting against amendments from the other place that would have forced the Government to seek the consent of the people of Scotland, and time and again we have witnessed the utter violation of not only the devolution settlement but potentially Scotland’s entire constitutional existence. We in Scotland did not vote for this Brexit, or indeed any Brexit, and we will not watch idly as our work and relations with our European friends and neighbours is unravelled. We will make our voice heard at next May’s Holyrood elections, but the truth is that the people of Scotland have had enough now. So I ask the Minister: come May, will she accept our democratic intent, or will we in Scotland always come a distant second to such reckless Tory ideology?
Penny Mordaunt
I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he thinks his constituents and the people of Scotland would benefit from us securing the deal that we seek. Would they benefit from us being able to take back control of our waters and not cede that to European partners? If he thinks that is the case, and I understand that is his position, he might like in the coming days to add his voice to those of Scottish MPs on these Benches who are supporting our negotiating team.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I am sure it was absolutely no coincidence that the Prime Minister dined on scallops and turbot last night. I represent a coastal community. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that this is not about the fact that fishing is a necessarily small part of our GDP at the moment; it is about what the future can be for our coastal communities? It is so important to return sovereignty and that those coastal communities have a fishing future that includes my constituency of North Norfolk.
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend understands these issues very well and makes those points very well. He will also understand the Prime Minister’s resolve on this issue. I can reassure him that, with the exception of the scallops and that very fine piece of turbot, fish was not on the table last night.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I get on well with the Minister, but I must tell her this morning that it is our duty to hold this Government to account at this crucial time for all our constituents. That being said, being creative and determined is all very well, and I have been impressed by the negotiating skills of the two men leading this over these weeks, as I sit on the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union, but this is about leadership. As soon as the Prime Minister gets his sweaty hands on this issue, there is failure—failure of leadership, failure of determination and failure really to deliver this Government’s message. I hope the Minister comes back on that.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the kind remarks that he makes about our negotiating team. They have done an incredible job. It is an incredibly technical job, with many details to work through, and their respective teams have done an incredible job. We owe them an immense debt of gratitude, whatever the outcome of these negotiations.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is the job of Members of Parliament to hold the Government to account. We will always be here, whether it is on an urgent question or other matters. Again, I should plug that I am available at 10 am every day to take calls from Members of Parliament on any issue, whether it is Brexit or covid-related. But I would just say to him: please do not misinterpret the Prime Minister’s determination on sticking to these fundamental principles as somehow a negative in these negotiations. The only way we are going to get any arrangement that will enable our country to thrive is if he sticks to his guns, and he is going to stick to his guns.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
A free trade agreement is manifestly, overwhelmingly to the advantage of both sides, and it should be pressed for to the very last opportunity. However, does my right hon. Friend also recognise that security issues are critical to the welfare of this country, and so is civil justice co-operation? Those do not depend on a free trade agreement as such. The data adequacy agreement would certainly be of great advantage in sharing intelligence information. Now that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has reached an agreement in relation to the Joint Committee and it is not necessary for us to deal with certain potentially controversial clauses in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, it would be greatly to the advantage of both sides if the EU Commission were to withdraw its objection to the UK joining the Lugano convention on civil justice co-operation in its own right. That would benefit both sides too, regardless of whatever else is decided.
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many things that we could agree to and could do that would be beneficial to both parties. Of course, what lies behind the politics and the negotiations are decades of relationships between law enforcement and all the agencies, services and forces that work together and will continue to work together in the interests of all our citizens.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
On Monday, the Paymaster General had no opinion as to whether a 20% average tariff on food imports would be “modest” for poor people. With the prospect of a no-deal resolution now greater than ever, does she think that an export tariff of 48% on lamb and 84% on beef would be modest for Welsh farmers?
Penny Mordaunt
Clearly, the information on tariffs has been published. It is on gov.uk, but I stress to the hon. Gentleman that we are working to secure a deal that is in the best interests of our farmers, our hauliers, our businesses and our citizens, and we will continue to do that until all hope is exhausted.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Would my right hon. Friend accept that even if a deal is done now, it will be very late for businesses to have a chance to understand and interpret it? Will she therefore urge the EU to go further than in the announcement that it made this morning and mirror our proposals not to impose the full import formalities for a period of six months to give a period of time for business to understand and get used to the new rules?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I think it is in everyone’s interests if a pragmatic stance is taken on all these issues. That has, by and large, been the case to date. We should continue to do that as we go into the new year, no matter what the outcome of the future relationship.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware of my party’s support for a deal, and we wish the Prime Minister well in his continued negotiations. She will also be aware of my party’s views on the Northern Ireland protocol and our opposition to it. In light of the announcement yesterday, will the Minister outline what actions she and the Government plan to take at the end of the six-month derogation on chilled meats moving from GB to Northern Ireland, so that businesses do not look elsewhere for those supplies? Will she commit to take unilateral action where necessary if all these new arrangements are seen to be detrimental to Northern Ireland’s economic wellbeing?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will know that throughout all this we have sought to provide not just the practical support that Northern Ireland businesses need, but also the confidence in the environment that businesses need to continue to make investments. She will be aware that this morning the Northern Ireland Office announced a further £400 million, which has been committed to assisting businesses and boost economic growth, and to support throughout the transition. She has my assurance that the success and some new opportunities that will come with this if we get it right for Northern Ireland are there to be seized.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and I both campaigned for leave in the referendum, but more importantly 70% of voters in Dudley South and a majority nationwide decided to take back control over our laws, our borders and our trade. Does she agree that an agreement is only going to be possible if it respects that decision and ensures that laws are made here in the United Kingdom?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this comes to the heart of it. I cannot, I am afraid, give him any guarantees as to whether the EU will reconcile itself with those facts, and I cannot say what the outcome will be. All I can assure him of is that the Government will stick to those principles and are absolutely determined within that to do everything we can to secure a deal.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I would like to press the Minister further on the issue of policing, justice and security co-operation. This is, of course, of huge importance to the whole of the UK, but particularly so for us in Northern Ireland given our problems with organised crime and terrorism, and the existence of a land border. Given that the UK is facing a cliff edge at the end of the month in this regard, can she tell us what will be happening specifically on matters such as extradition, data sharing and data adequacy?
Penny Mordaunt
Of all people, I know the importance of these matters to every part of the UK. We will be gaining access to new information via safety and security declarations. These will be required by the middle of next year. For every issue the hon. Gentleman raises, there are clear plans for how we can ensure a smooth transition to new arrangements. However, I would also just emphasise the fundamental principle that I do not think anyone—a member state, in the Commission and certainly not in this Government—is going to compromise on matters of security.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Whether it is a Canada or an Australia deal, the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, 72% of whom voted to leave the European Union in 2016, are rightly proud that this Government are sticking up for the United Kingdom’s interests, something the Labour party desperately needs to learn if it wishes to regain the red wall in the future. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that no matter what comes out of these negotiations, the fine world-leading potteries have an exciting future in global Britain?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for that upbeat question. He is absolutely right to say that we have taken care of the challenges in any scenario, and again great credit goes to the civil service for preparing for that. There are also opportunities, which is why the people of this country voted to extract themselves from the EU. We would be doing them a disservice if we did not create the conditions for us to be able to seize those opportunities, and that is what we will do in the coming days.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Last October, in preparation for a possible no deal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told us that stockpiles had been built up of essential medicines, including asthma inhalers, antibiotics, paracetamol and ibuprofen. That was just as well, given that they were needed in the coronavirus pandemic. Have stockpiles of those things been returned to the levels they were at in October 2019?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the efforts the civil service went to in order to prepare for a no-deal scenario last year stood us in much better stead for what then happened with regard to the pandemic. That is not an argument for Brexit; it is simply a fact that this nation was much more resilient because of the no-deal planning scenario. I cannot give him drug by drug, line by line details on the stocks, as he will appreciate, but I am sure the Department of Health and Social Care can. I can, however, reassure him on those matters. A huge amount of work has done, in a multi-layered approach, asking suppliers of medicines, medical products and other medical devices to help us replenish those stocks, while making sure that they themselves are trader-ready, so that their businesses are not interrupted. [Interruption.] No, I am saying that he should have reassurance on the points he has raised, and I will be happy to follow up with him with further detail regarding paracetamol and the other items he mentioned.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Financial services are crucial for not only London but Scotland and many of our regional cities. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that financial services, and indeed the service sector as a whole, will be at the forefront of our minds in the next few days, given the importance of services to our economy?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. Services were one area where we were very poorly served by our membership of the EU. As well as the negotiations, the Department for International Trade has been doing fantastic work in signing roll-over trade agreements and new agreements with many nations. There are fantastic opportunities for our service economy in those nations.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Investing in green industries and our transport infrastructure will be key to building back better after the pandemic and transitioning to net zero. With Government support, the automotive sector, including Vauxhall in my constituency, could move more quickly to producing more electric vehicles and councils could move to implementing the required green infrastructure to support them. Will the Minister outline whether a position on what is considered state aid has been reached, and whether any agreement will enable Government to invest in and subsidise green sectors?
Penny Mordaunt
There were certainly elements of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s statement earlier in the week that touched on that, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that we want to be able to secure opportunities to set the conditions for our economy to thrive. Clearly, we have very challenging environmental goals that we wish to reach. Those are the freedoms we are working and fighting for.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
The end of the transition period will present both opportunities and significant challenges for those involved in the agriculture and food production sector. Will my right hon. Friend reassure those in that sector in Penrith and The Border, Cumbria and the wider UK that sufficient provisions are in place for veterinary and certification work at borders? Will she reassure farmers in sectors that may face severe challenges in tariffs, such as the sheep and beef sectors, that the Government are prepared to step in and provide support?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend raises two important points. I can assure him that a great deal of thought has gone into ensuring that we have the supplies and enough personnel to meet the requirements on the veterinary side of things. We have always stood by any sector or part of the UK that is facing tough times, and we will continue to do so.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
England and Wales were due to qualify for BSE negligible risk status next year, but due to the diversion of Government resources and staff to work on Brexit and covid, the Government missed the OIE—the World Organisation for Animal Health—submission deadline. Will the Minister apologise to my constituent in Bedford who runs Dunbia Cardington, who, despite his attempts to send out a message in a post-Brexit world that he is open for business and has the highest food standards in the world, will have to wait at least another year for his meat to qualify for this world-class status because of her Government’s failure?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. I do not know the details, but I would be happy to look into it if he would like to pass those details to my office.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if we cannot find suitable compromises with our European friends on the remaining issues of the level playing field, governance and fisheries, we will be fully prepared to leave the transition period on Australian terms on 1 January?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I thank him for all he has done to champion the interests of his constituents, in particular the fishing industry.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that Scotland “will benefit” even if the UK crashes out of the EU single market without a trade deal with the EU, despite the fact that no deal will mean higher food prices, additional costs for businesses and job losses. As we stare down the barrel of a no-deal Brexit, can the Minister explain to what extent she believes Brexit is turning into the titanic success that the Prime Minister predicted it would be?
Penny Mordaunt
I say to the hon. Lady, as I have said to her colleagues, that if she does not want that scenario—and I get that impression from the tone of her question—she ought to be helping this Government to secure the deal that would be in the interests of her constituents. I urge her, even at this late hour, to consider that.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will achieve a good trade deal for this country if there is one to be achieved. However, when I was in business and negotiating international trade deals with Governments, I found that they could only be concluded if there was a firm deadline, or they would continue to be pushed back. Given that, could the excellent Minister confirm that Sunday is the absolute deadline, which will make people focus on the negotiations and come to a conclusion?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend greater assurance than that, because there is a very firm deadline, which is that at the end of this year, we and others have to legislate. Time is running out. We will carry on negotiating until there is no hope left, and the statement made yesterday would indicate that, unless progress is made, Sunday may well be that deadline.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
On Tuesday, the chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation said that his members could not agree export sales for next year with any certainty as they cannot be sure what tariffs may apply, what delays they may face or how much they will get paid for their goods. He also said that there is a shortage of general ambient warehousing space and cold chain storage. Businesses are trying to stockpile against the shocks and offset increased costs, but how can they do that if there is not facility for that stockpiling? What are the Government going to do about that, and why on earth have they not thought this through sooner than just three weeks before exit day?
Penny Mordaunt
These are serious issues and, partly because of the stresses that global trade is under with regard to the pandemic, there are other issues—for example, containers being at the wrong end of the globe to enable particular trade to continue—to contend with in addition to the ones the hon. Lady mentions. For each of these issues, the relevant Department has a mitigation plan that it is carrying out. I understand that this situation is very difficult for business, but we are here to provide both the practical and the financial support, as we have done through the investments we have made in infrastructure, technology and people. Where specific issues affect particular sectors, the relevant Departments are doing all that they can to rectify those situations.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]
I know that my right hon. Friend agrees that it is good that the negotiations continue—we all want a good trade deal—but will she convey to the Prime Minister that if the EU refuses to recognise or accept British sovereignty, which was at the very heart of the 2016 vote, and there is no deal, he has the party’s full support? After all, both the UK and the EU trade very profitably with much of the world, including the United States, China, India and Australia, on no-deal terms.
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says and I thank him for that demonstration of support for the Prime Minister and the position of the negotiating team. I think it will help, in the coming days, for them to have heard that.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
In acknowledging its importance yesterday, the Minister for the Cabinet Office told me that he could “see no reason why” a data adequacy agreement with the EU should not be in place by the end of the month. Will the Minister confirm that one has actually been applied for? When is a decision expected? Does she recognise that, in the national interest, we must have one?
Penny Mordaunt
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is the lead Department on that issue; I will ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to update the right hon. Gentleman on the precise timetable that the Department is working to. The right hon. Gentleman is right at the heart of what he says: there is no logical reason why all sorts of things cannot be agreed to—they are in the interests of all parties and I hope that that is the conclusion that the EU negotiating team come to in the coming days.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
The fishing communities in Grimsby are pleased that we have not accepted the EU’s unreasonable requests in the negotiations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any deal must allow us as a country to control who fishes in our waters?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I reassure her, as I have other hon. Members, that the Prime Minister knows what his responsibilities are, the expectation of the fishing industry and what is in the interests of this country.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister accept that even the sovereign United States believes that trade disputes can be resolved through internationalised mechanisms such as the World Trade Organisation and others? In that context, is not the concern of business about a crash-out no deal limited by the fact that it is not so much the Prime Minister’s guns that he is sticking to but the guns of those siren voices behind him who want that no-deal Brexit?
Penny Mordaunt
No, I think the Prime Minister has been very clear about what the optimum outcome is. We are not crashing out; what is being decided over the next few days is which set of rules will be taken forward for our future relationship with our European friends. There are plans and support in place for every scenario and I think what business really wants is the certainty of what that will look like. We are talking about an incredibly resilient group of organisations and people who can prepare for any scenario; what has been a strain is preparing for every scenario. They will get certainty in the coming days.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I am clear that most of my constituents in Bracknell, and those beyond, really want a free trade deal, but given the ongoing inability of the bully boys in Brussels to accept that we are now a sovereign nation, does the Minister agree that there may be a point in time at which a clean break is the only option, with a view, perhaps, to returning to the table in 2021, as a sovereign nation, to secure a deal that other sovereign nations have already achieved?
Penny Mordaunt
If we have to go on those terms then that is what will happen and we will prosper, but it is clearly not our first choice. The key factor in this is whether the EU is going to place above its own political interests, the interests of the citizens and businesses in its member states. Fundamentally, that is what is at the heart of this, and if the EU does not do that, that will be a very serious mistake.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
The EU is the source of 26% of the UK’s food. The next highest country of origin for food imports to the UK provides only 4%. Considering that we are not acceding to any new markets on 1 January, never mind that we are leaving one with which we have unfettered access, will the Minister finally come clean with consumers and shoppers that no deal will mean increased costs for putting food on the table and that it is the actions of this Government that are directly responsible for this?
Penny Mordaunt
The future is not yet written and I invite the hon. Lady to consider at this critical moment for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom what she might do to assist the UK Government in achieving the objective that she wants.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that, because of the agreement reached by the Joint Committee on the Northern Ireland protocol and regardless of the outcome of our negotiations with the EU, there will be no new customs infrastructure required in Northern Ireland?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We accept our responsibilities with regard to the Northern Ireland protocol, as does the EU, and, again, I put on record my thanks and congratulations to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on all the work that he has done to secure that.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I spent yesterday in meetings listening to businesses small and large, locally and nationally, including the aerospace industry, farming, hospitality, tourism, finance and manufacturing. They had two things in common. Thing one was that they spent the past nine months completely battling all they could to protect their workers and to keep their heads above water during the covid crisis. The other thing they have in common was complete and total frustration and dismay that we are three weeks off a new arrangement of one kind or another and whatever great contingency plans the Minister speaks of, she has not shared them with them. Will she allow businesses in this country to do the best for our country by giving them an adjustment period after whatever happens on 1 January, so that they are not clobbered by changes for which they are not prepared?
Penny Mordaunt
I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. It is called the phased approach to the border. The civil service and the experts that we have on all these matters relating to the border, whether they sit in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or elsewhere, have spoken to tens of thousands of businesses at literally thousands of events and on webinars. When colleagues in this House request access to that expertise, those meetings are set up by my office. We will do everything we can to give them the right advice and support. Colleagues can help in this, too. I do not know whether he has seen in his inbox the pack that we put together for his caseworkers.
Penny Mordaunt
Good. Please use it. There is contact information in there if there are technical questions that he needs to follow up on. We know that this is really hard for businesses, and that our businesses have been amazing in dealing with everything that they have had to in the past year. We will do all we can to support them, both practically and in the information that we will give them, so please do use the services that are there.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that, throughout this process, some have tried to suggest that the Government actively want to trade only on WTO terms, but does she agree that the huge amount of time and effort spent on the negotiations in these months shows that the Government do want a good trade deal, but, rightly, not at any cost?
Penny Mordaunt
Absolutely. As someone who has been very close to this whole process and sits on the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee, I can say that that is our prime effort. It is the focus of the Prime Minister, but he is, as my hon. Friend says, not prepared to compromise on those issues that would affect our ability to capitalise on our new-found freedoms. That is what, I think, the people of this country understand and expect.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, thank the Minister for her hard work and for her positive responses to the urgent question. Will she outline the steps that are being taken with regard to the beef, sheep and pork industries and the vegetable sector—particularly the potato sector—to secure tax-free, hassle-free and EU bureaucracy-free transport between Northern Ireland and the other nations of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the very large amount of work that DEFRA and other parts of Government have undertaken to get the best possible outcome and smooth the path for businesses, whatever the destination of their products. I mentioned the announcement today of £400 million of new money from the Northern Ireland Office; that is obviously on top of the £650 million UK investment announced in August, to deliver the trader support service and our contribution to the PEACE PLUS programme.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
In the four years since the referendum, the Opposition have wanted to be in, to be out, to shake it all about. Does my right hon. Friend agree that their failure to support any deal that we deliver means that they have learned nothing from last year’s general election and that they cannot be trusted to deliver on the will of the British people?
Penny Mordaunt
Second only to the outcome of the negotiations is what Labour’s position on Brexit will be. We all need to focus on the first job, which is to secure a good deal for this nation. I hope all Members of this House, whatever their political hue, will recognise the seriousness of this moment and will support the Government in securing that objective.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The only thing that those on the Labour Benches want is a decent deal that serves the people of this country well and supports business. There are just 18 days left for businesses to prepare, and they certainly do not have the tools to understand, digest and implement a new deal. What additional resources will the Minister bring forward for businesses across my community and others to ensure that they can be helped not only to the end of the year but beyond 1 January?
Penny Mordaunt
Most of the things that businesses will have to do are not contingent on these final negotiations. As I mentioned, there has been a huge amount of investment in people, technology and infrastructure, and there will be a phased approach next year. We are giving businesses, colleagues and other intermediaries who will be working with those businesses the information they need to prepare well; that includes the hon. Lady’s casework team, who will have had the pack that I mentioned earlier. If there are outstanding issues, specifics or technical matters that you need help on—I am sorry, Mr Speaker: I mean “the hon. Lady needs help on”, or indeed you, Mr Speaker—we are available to assist. Please do make use of those services.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
This Saturday, it will be a whole year since I was elected on a manifesto pledge to get Brexit done. Two thirds of people in my community voted to leave the EU and take back control of our laws, borders, fishing waters and money. Will the Minister confirm that we will not sell out on any of those priorities, and that no trade deal remains better than a bad trade deal?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I congratulate him on reaching his anniversary, and I thank him for all the work he is doing to represent his constituents’ interests in this matter and many others.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
This afternoon, the Government are finally removing the clause from the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill that would break international law, arguably after having committed to do so as a concession to secure a deal. If there is a no-deal outcome this weekend, do the Government have any plans to bring forward new measures that break international law, either in the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, which was introduced this week, or as part of any unknown business?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady will know the reasons why those clauses were in the UKIM Bill. We will not compromise on the integrity of the United Kingdom. The fact that the Prime Minister made that offer shows that we are doing everything we can to be creative and try to ensure we get a preferable outcome. As I say, the Prime Minister has resolved that he will not move on those red lines.
Mr Speaker
Order. To allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for a few minutes.
Business of the House
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 14 December will include:
Monday 14 December—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a general debate on covid-19.
Tuesday 15 December—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by the remaining stages of the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill.
Wednesday 16 December—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to approve the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021, followed by a motion to approve the draft Tax Credits Reviews and Appeals (Amendment) Order 2020, followed by a motion to approve the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2020, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of Members to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
Thursday 17 December—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
Valerie Vaz
I do not think the Leader of the House mentioned what is happening on Friday 18 December. Will the House be sitting or not?
Valerie Vaz
Yes—thank you.
I do not think there has ever been a time like this when it comes to the usual courtesies that help the working of this House, respect democracy and respect the Opposition. This is absolutely chaotic: we knew more about the menu for the dinner yesterday than we did about the business of the House for the forthcoming week.
I ask the Leader of the House, for the fourth time, when he expects the current parliamentary Session to end and when the House will rise for the Christmas recess. He mentioned the recess Adjournment debate, but that is not the same. This is an incredible discourtesy to the staff of the House, who, as Mr Speaker pointed out, have worked so hard to keep us going. They need to prepare. They need to check on childcare; there are all sorts of arrangements they need to make. When I asked the Leader of the House a fortnight ago, he said that he would be announcing the recess in the normal manner, but these are not normal times. We have a confluence of events—covid and Brexit—all coming at the same time.
This uncertainty is not good for the House, but it is also not good for businesses. Listen to the Food and Drink Federation’s chief executive, who said at the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee:
“How on earth can traders prepare in this environment?”
We were promised frictionless trade, but what we got was lorry parks, red tape, forms and a border in the Irish sea. The Government reneged on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, then on Monday asked the troops to vote for something, only to change their mind on Tuesday. The arch-Brexiter Sir Jim Ratcliffe does not care about sovereignty—he is taking his business to Germany. When will the Prime Minister come back to the House and explain exactly what is going on? Can he do that on Monday?
Where is the vaccine Minister? I know he was sitting with the Secretary of State for Health at one point, but we have not heard anything from him. The vaccine tsar has resigned. She has appointed her deputy and then given out money to friends of the Government. Nobody has come to the House to tell us what is happening about the roll-out of the vaccine and the criteria that are going to be used. Why is the vaccine Minister so silent?
I do not know whether the Leader of the House has seen it, but on Monday the Procedure Committee published its report, “Procedure under coronavirus restrictions”. He will know about the motion on the 24th. The Committee has asked for that to be tabled again and for it to be done in a proper fashion, given the conditions. It also recommended that Members cannot decide to put their name on the call list and then withdraw it—hence collapsing the business, as they did on the 24th. Those are two important recommendations that need to be debated. Most importantly, on Standing Order No. 47, the Committee asks for no injury time to be added in debates with a very short time limit of five minutes or less, because that helps the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers to organise business and it is fair to hon. Members. When will the Leader of the House bring forward a motion on all those recommendations?
I thank the Leader of the House for placing the letter in the Library about the International Development Committee. It is important now to amend Standing Orders because the two Select Committees—the IDC and the Foreign Affairs Committee—are doing different things. The DFID Committee, which has been in existence since 1969, did not have a Department to shadow until very recently. It is now looking across different Government Departments, so the Standing Orders should reflect a change of name. This is about transparency and accountability with regard to public money. When will the Standing Orders be amended?
Today is Human Rights Day. Her Majesty’s Opposition are proud that people of this country were the framers of the declaration on human rights, which then became the convention on human rights, which then became the Human Rights Act 1998. The Lord Chancellor needs to come here and explain the article where he says that judges can influence policy. They cannot.
How is the Lord Chancellor telling the judges what to do? If he reads their judgments, he will see that they are very careful not to interfere with policy. Then he says that the Government do not have preconceived ideas. Well, actually it was in their manifesto, and Minister after Minister has come to the Dispatch Box to say that they are going to repeal the Human Rights Act. So what is the point of the review?
This issue goes all the way back to Magna Carta. It is about the rights and obligations of our citizens, and it must not be changed. There is a letter co-ordinated by 140 well-known organisations who said, “Please don’t touch it.” This is a sad next chapter to our island story—that we do not respect all the rights from Magna Carta onwards, which I know the Leader of the House is very keen on.
Now, Mr Speaker, we say goodbye and thank you to Eric Hepburn. You and I and David Lidington were in the Chamber when PC Keith Palmer was murdered and Eric came to the House and explained what was happening. He has also been part of the change. We thank him for all his work and wish him well in the future.
The Leader of the House will have seen, I am sure, Elika and Gabriella lighting a candle for their parents, Anousheh and Nazanin. Each day that we have the covid virus is a day that they are separated from their parents, and Luke Symons’s parents are in Cardiff and his family are in Yemen. I ask again that something be done so that they can be released before Christmas.
Finally, I want to wish everyone in the Jewish community a happy Hanukkah, as they light the first Hanukkah candle.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I join the right hon. Lady in wishing members of the Jewish community a happy Hanukkah? Lighting candles is something done very often in the Catholic Church as well, as she will know. Lighting candles is a very good religious symbol.
May I also thank Eric Hepburn for his service to the House, which has been very impressive and has led to a professionalisation of security in this House? I wish his successor well.
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Lady that British citizens detained abroad unfairly and illegally ought to be released. The Government are doing what they can, and I can reassure her that every week I write to the Foreign Secretary reminding him that this issue has been raised in the House.
Now let me come to the other issues that the right hon. Lady raised. I would dispute very strongly that the usual courtesies are not being observed, but we are in a time when we are waiting for the end of a very important negotiation that may have legislative consequences. It would be absolutely disgraceful if this House were not able to facilitate any ratification of any deal that may or may not come. We have a duty to the country to ensure that the House of Commons is not an obstacle to ratification. If that means a degree of uncertainty about business, that is simply the political reality. It is an important political reality, which we should embrace rather than complain about, and I am surprised at the right hon. Lady that she would complain about it in that way.
There will be change on 1 January. That is absolutely clear. The reason the Bill was changed mid-week was the success of the Joint Committee—the success of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who managed to get a deal so that 98% of goods going from GB to Northern Ireland will not need to have any tariffs paid on them and all goods coming from Northern Ireland to GB will not need export declarations. It has been a real achievement to ensure that what we legislated for was actually going to happen. We should be proud of that and actually commend the wisdom of Her Majesty’s Government in bringing forward the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill in all its glory, which helped the negotiations to succeed.
There will be a debate on covid on Monday, when the roll-out of the vaccine can be raised. I am always asked for debates, but when I provide them, the hon. Lady ignores them, but we have got one. She can raise those questions, and other hon. and right hon. Members can do so too.
The right hon. Lady also referred to the Procedure Committee and its plethora of recommendations, which the Government will of course reply to, in accordance with the Osmotherly principles, although I would say that injury time encourages interventions, and interventions are an essential part of debate. I would therefore be nervous about taking away something that adds to the flow of debate.
I am delighted that the right hon. Lady is pleased about the International Development Committee being retained. It has been going, as she said, since 1969, which is a vintage year because it happens to be the year of my birth, so I have a certain prejudice in favour of that date. I think we have come to a good solution to ensure proper scrutiny, and it reiterates the Government’s commitment to scrutiny.
Let me come to Human Rights Day. In our island story, which the right hon. Lady referred to, we should be so proud of the fact that we have led to the world in having proper protection of the subject in relation to the state. Bear in mind that in 1215 at Runnymede what they did was confirm ancient rights, which they thought—almost certainly incorrectly, as it happens—had been drawn up by Edward the Confessor. However, the principle was that they were confirming ancient rights, not inventing ones. Exactly the same happened when habeas corpus was passed into law in the reign of Charles II: they were confirming rights of antiquity, so that we would not have the illegal detention of people without the prospect of a trial or the process of a court. It is worth bearing in mind that at that point in France it was still possible to hold people on the word of the King. There were letters of cachet that meant that people could be locked up simply on the word of the King.
Then, in the 18th century, we had the Mansfield judgment, one of the judgments we should be proudest of in this House, with the understanding that in the United Kingdom there is no such thing as a person who is not free. We then led the world democratically in 1832 with the Reform Bill. We are model to the world of rights, which are our rights—United Kingdom rights—and other countries have followed behind. We should recognise that we know how to do it and we have done it extraordinarily well, to the prosperity of the British people and the solidity of our constitution.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was gobsmacked, just wishing I could have been such a class act as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, with his vast knowledge. That was a real history lesson. I want to ask him what news there is on the Elizabeth Tower, as we are all aware that the restoration was very much over budget and over time. It is an iconic part of our great United Kingdom history. I am particularly keen to know what disability access has been installed in Elizabeth Tower so that everybody across the UK can access that wonderful site.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend has led the way in this, because it was her pressure to ensure that the Elizabeth Tower should have disabled access when she was Leader of the House that has ensured that one of the ventilation shafts will have a lift in it, which will make disabled access possible. The lift will improve safety and help reduce the time it would take to evacuate a mobility-impaired person from the Tower. In more general terms, the Elizabeth Tower team is back working at full productivity, and the work is continuing across all sites, in line with advice from the Government. The Commons is working with its supply chain to update its programme of work, ascertaining and limiting the impact of covid-19 on all projects. It is encouraging that the work is going ahead full steam and that there will be disabled access, and I thank her for the contribution she has made to ensuring that.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
It seems the Conservative party’s toxic political cocktail of British exceptionalism and arrogance has hit the buffers of the real world. We await Sunday, but if there is a deal, it will be a sordid and pitiful affair. Can the Leader of the House at least answer this: in what fashion will the Government involve Parliament in this endgame? Will they put down a resolution, introduce a Bill, table a statutory instrument or simply make a statement, which we can neither amend, nor agree? With three weeks to go, if the Government do not yet know how they will present to Parliament our future relationship with the EU, is this not only a failure of statecraft, but a shocking level of domestic political mismanagement?
It seems that the people of Northern Ireland will get to march to a European beat after all. In consequence, the Government have withdrawn part 5 of their United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, but the assault on devolution remains, so may we have a debate on why Scotland is the only nation within the UK that is getting a hard Brexit against its will? If a bespoke solution is available for Northern Ireland, why is there not one for Scotland? The arguments against are unconvincing. A border is a border; it has the same legal and economic status whether on land or on the seabed. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was effusive about what he called the “primacy of democracy”, saying that it is
“for the people of Northern Ireland to decide”—[Official Report, 9 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 849.]
their future. May we debate why the Government take that view regarding one part of the UK but not another? May I give the Leader of the House another opportunity to say whether he will respect the outcome of the Scottish general election in May next year? That is something he has refused to do so far.
Finally, today is international Human Rights Day. Given his comments a moment ago, will he support a debate on the Justice Secretary’s plan to review the Human Rights Act and give an assurance that it will not weaken the protection of the European Court of Human Rights or the authority of the devolved Administrations in these matters?
Mr Rees-Mogg
What a joy it is, as always, to hear from the hon. Gentleman. He is an uplifting advocate for the United Kingdom, because he comes on and talks about sectionalism, but what is the most sectionalist party? Oh, good heavens: it is the Scottish National party that is the one trying to split up the United Kingdom. I would say “pot and kettle”, but it has to be said that there is no kettle, only a pot. He then says that Her Majesty’s Government believe in the primacy of democracy—unlike, it must be said, the Scottish Government or the SNP.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, what? Quite right. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) does not believe in democracy. He is against it, because there was a vote in 2014 that was a generational vote. He may think that a generation means the generation of the fruit fly, but I think the generation in question is the generation of a person, a voter, and we have not got close to a generation. It is fascinating that he does not want to talk about the success of the United Kingdom and the £8.2 billion provided by the UK taxpayer to help Scotland, or the disaster that the SNP is at the moment, with its failures in governing Scotland, its failure in education, its failure in health and its failure in law and order.
The hon. Gentleman does not want to get on to the rather juicy gossip that is coming out of the SNP, either. What do we have? The chief executive of the SNP, when he is at home, never talks about politics with the First Minister—no, of course not—he only talks about cooking. That makes it sound as if his household is even more old-fashioned than mine, because I must confess that in the Rees-Mogg household we spend a lot of time talking about politics; it seems improbable that such a highly-politicised family never talks about such interesting things. Scotland is beginning to see through the SNP. We had a vote, and the vote has been respected; we also had a debate on Europe, and that vote is being respected too.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]
As the Leader of the House is aware, the hospitality sector has suffered very badly during the pandemic and continues to do so. Is he aware, though, that many businesses, including pubs, still need more financial aid to enable them to survive? Irrespective of any future debates, can we have an assurance today from the Leader of the House that the plight of the hospitality sector and the financial support given will remain under constant review by the Government? As he may know, in a number of areas, such as East Yorkshire, the sector is vitally important to the local economy.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Our hospitality sector and our pubs are a glory of the British nation and provide much pleasure to people as well as employment and business activity. Efforts have been made, very serious ones: VAT has been reduced, cash grants of £3,000 a month have been made available and money has been made available to local councils. The Government greatly understand and appreciate the problems that the sector has faced during the lockdowns that have been necessary because of the coronavirus. Support has been made available, but ultimately this is taxpayers’ money that is being spent and, while it is right that the Government continue to work out how they can support the sector, ultimately, there is not unlimited money.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement. I note that the debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment next Thursday will be held in Government time, not Backbench Business Committee time. I assume that that is to allow the Government flexibility to change things should they need to do so, but may I ask the Leader of the House for any time that might become available, even at relatively short notice? We can have Back-Bench debates oven ready to fill any slots that might open up to the House.
I also echo the comments of the previous speaker, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight); the hospitality sector across the tier 3 north-east needs urgent support. The policy needs urgent review and upgrade, or many businesses and jobs will be lost. Lastly, Mr Speaker, I live in the midst of and represent a large Orthodox Jewish community here in Gateshead, so I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, and of the Leader of the House, in wishing the whole community that I represent a very happy Hanukkah.
Mr Rees-Mogg
An oven-ready debate sounds like a very tempting idea. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the forthcoming Adjournment debate will be in Government time. He is also right that this does allow for flexibility. It is important to recognise that there is a balance to be struck when providing time for debates where Members may do a great deal of preparation and a great deal of work beforehand, and then find that Government business has to supersede them, potentially, at relatively short notice—be that statements, debates or even legislation in the event of a deal. Therefore, I hope the House will understand that next week particularly we need to maintain flexibility, but I am well aware of the Standing Order requirements to provide Backbench Business debates.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the hospitality sector. There is not a great deal for me to add to what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), but it is something the Government are concerned about. Its being raised by so many Members is a reminder of this House’s facility to seek redress of grievance for the constituent, and that is a proper thing for this House to be doing.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend once revealed to the House that he likes
“a good, proper, plain, British banger.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 703.]
However, proposals to restrict the online advertising of certain foods are currently under consultation. If accepted, they would ban farm shops, butchers, restaurants and pubs—from North East Somerset to Dewsbury—advertising their delicious bangers via social media, local newspaper websites and even email newsletters. Given the pervasive impacts of the proposals and the flimsy evidence base, will my right hon. Friend commit to holding a debate before any proposals are taken forward?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an exceptionally important point. In 2020, of all years, I think it is right that we do all we can to support small businesses in our food and hospitality sectors. I must confess that I would not hold up my own diet as being a model for anybody else, child or otherwise. I have a predilection for Creme Eggs that is probably not to be encouraged, and I did even once have a deep-fried Mars bar, which was absolutely delicious.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am glad to see that there is something on which I agree with the Scottish National party.
Reducing obesity levels is a key priority of this Government—and rightly so, bearing in mind the effects of obesity on covid—and our ambition is to halve childhood obesity by 2020. However, I understand that the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are currently running a consultation on how to proceed with their proposed policies on food advertising, and I would urge all hon. and right hon. Members, and indeed members of the public, to respond. My hon Friend might like to write in and remind people that
“A Mars a day helps you work, rest and play”.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
Mr Speaker, I would like to pay tribute this morning to a valued member of staff of the House, my former Clerk of the International Trade Committee, Lydia Menzies, who sadly passed away last week at the age of just 38. Lydia was a fantastic Clerk—knowledgeable, helpful to Committee members, and a friend and mentor to her colleagues as well. Lydia’s wonderful sense of humour and wit made working with her enjoyable for everyone. In fact, the tie I am wearing this morning was a present from Lydia, of her own tartan, when she left the Committee. Such was her nature: she gave presents at moments like that. It was indeed a privilege to work with Lydia, and I understand that the Leader of the House worked with her, too. Doubtless he will join this morning in paying tribute to Lydia. My thoughts and those of the tremendous ITC staff and colleagues from across this House are with her husband, Greg, her 18-month-old daughter, Orla, and her wider family.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to Lydia Menzies, who was a very valued member of the House staff and a distinguished Clerk. She served on several Committees, including his, and was in the Table Office for a period, and many Members will have come across her there. I have always found that the Table Office provides a wonderful service in helping Members to avoid mistakes and to enable them to craft their questions in a way that will be orderly, and she was very helpful to me when I was visiting the Table Office. She was seconded for a period to the Department for International Trade, so also had some experience of Government, and she was also a great teacher and source of inspiration to colleagues. Her early death is a great loss to the House service, and I pass on my condolences to her husband, Greg, and to her daughter, Orla.
Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord. May her soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, by the mercy of God, rest in peace.
Mr Speaker
May I, too, add my comments and say that I have sent a letter to the family? Lydia’s death was a shock to all of us. She has been robbed from this House far too soon and from her family. She had a great career ahead of her. It is a sad time, but, as the Leader of the House says, all our thoughts and prayers go to the family.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the Chairman of the International Development Committee and me about keeping that Committee, because we recognise its value, and I am really pleased to see that he does, too.
My question is related to hospitality businesses, and has been raised before. Many of them have spent not just thousands of pounds but tens of thousands of pounds to make themselves covid-secure, but in tier 3 they cannot open at all. They can do takeaways, but they are losing money hand over fist. Could we have a statement, or a debate in Government time, to look at the plight of hospitality businesses, because in my constituency many of them are covid-free but cannot be used? That is not logical.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s approval of our decision to keep the overseas aid Committee going. She and the Chairman of the Committee made a compelling case in meetings with me and with others.
As regards the hospitality sector, the Government absolutely appreciate the enormous sacrifices that businesses and the hospitality sector have made to ensure that their premises are covid-secure. The decision to place restrictions on them has not been taken lightly, but for the clear need to suppress the coronavirus. It is right that the Government should support the sector how it can. The rent is being covered by cash grants worth up to £3,000 for each month a business is forced to close. We estimate that this will cover rent for around 90% of small and medium retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England. Pay is being covered by furlough, with employers only paying national insurance and pension contributions. Businesses facing reduced demand in tiers 2 and 3 can receive cash grants worth up to £2,100 a month, but, as I have already said to other hon. Members, it is quite right that this matter is brought to the Floor of the House, because this is how we carry out our historic responsibility of seeking redress of grievance.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Yesterday, the front page of the Financial Times informed the House that the Government would not be applying the tariffs awarded by the World Trade Organisation against the United States. That may well have a devastating impact on tens of thousands of jobs at Airbus and its suppliers and on the UK steel industry, but there has been no statement to this House—not even a measly written statement. Can we have an urgent debate on why this Government are happy to sell British jobs down the river to the fag end of the Trump Administration?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Department did notify two Select Committees about its intention and wrote to the Chairmen of those Select Committees notifying them, so Parliament was informed, although I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that a written statement would have been preferable, and I am passing that view on to the Department.
As regards the issue of tariffs, these are the reverse of mercy. Mercy is known to bless both the giver and the receiver, but tariffs harm both the payer and the imposter of the tariff. Therefore, removing tariffs and encouraging free trade is something that we should always welcome. It is good economic policy.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Employability organisations such as Safe Opportunities and Seetec Pluss and employers such as AO.com and charities such as Community Recycle Cycles work incredibly hard in my constituency to secure employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Like me, they are concerned about the impact of coronavirus on jobs going forward and their ability to carry on with that work. Will the Leader of the House inform us of what opportunities we might have coming forward to raise those important issues on behalf of our constituents who struggle with employment and disability?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Supporting people with disabilities to find dignified and fulfilling work is one of the most important things our welfare system can do. The coronavirus pandemic has posed huge challenges to our welfare system, and I am pleased to say that the Department for Work and Pensions has managed to withstand and address them. We are actively working on policies to prevent ill health-related job losses, and we provide specific employment support for disabled people out of work. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he might wish to be called in the pre-Adjournment debate, when he can raise the issues specific to his constituency and praise those firms he is working with to help disabled people find employment.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s 10-point green strategy for the entire economy. I wonder whether the Leader of the House agrees with me that the £600 million spent each year through the bus operator grant to subsidise the purchase of diesel fuel for buses is no longer fit for purpose in the light of that green strategy. Will he agree to a debate on a policy shift that would allow and encourage the purchase of zero-emission buses and allow for a green transport strategy across the entire country to increase employment for our entire people?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government are committed to spending £2 billion of taxpayers’ money to improve local bus services and we are committed to buses that have low emissions. I understand that some of those buses are made in Northern Ireland, possibly even in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, so I hope that there will be employment, prosperity and success in his constituency and in Northern Ireland as a whole.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Yesterday I had the incredible privilege of attending a Zoom call with Schools North East and local headteachers from Whitworth Park Academy in Spennymoor and Thornhill Primary in Shildon. They raised concerns about the cost of covid to education budgets, particularly with regard to supply teacher provision and the cost of additional cleaning equipment. One of the key concerns is that those schools, which have worked incredibly hard to balance their budgets and make this work, cannot access the extraordinary funding that schools that have perhaps not been so prudent with their finances can access. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend if he will raise this with the Education Secretary to ensure that the views of local headteachers right across the north-east are taken into account on this.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I can assure the House that after business questions I always pass on to all Secretaries of State any points that are relevant to their Departments that I feel ought to be raised with them, and I return their answers to Members accordingly. However, it is worth pointing out that we have supported schools throughout the pandemic, and they have been able to claim up to £75,000 for unavoidable costs such as the additional cleaning that my hon. Friend mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced during the recent spending review that school funding would increase by £2.2 billion next year, so the Government are doing everything they can to help schools by providing the necessary taxpayers’ money to help them to get through this difficult period.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford arc has been a major project that the Government have been considering for some years, but the detail seems to have been lost in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport. The highly unpopular road link has been paused for a year and there is still no clarity on whether the east-west rail link will be an environmentally friendly electrified line or a diesel line. Can we have a statement from the Minister—some Minister—to provide clarity on this subject?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Transport connectivity is absolutely essential to economic growth. In the arc to which the hon. Gentleman refers there has been enormous economic growth recently, and ensuring that there is good transport infrastructure will help that to go further. As regards a specific debate, I cannot promise him one, but it is a great advantage that we have an end-of-term Adjournment debate, because I can offer that to almost everybody for any subject that they may wish to raise.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The great British pub has had a difficult year, not just being closed for much of it but also bearing the heavy brunt of the restrictions when they are permitted to open. Our pubs, restaurants and hospitality businesses in Carshalton and Wallington have been in touch to tell me about the struggles they have been having, so could we have a debate about support for hospitality so we can help them to thrive once the pandemic has passed?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am noting that a lot of people are asking about the hospitality sector. That shows the strength of feeling about this in the House, and it may well be something that people will want to raise in the debate on covid that will take place on Monday. We all know the difficulties that pubs in particular have faced in the extraordinary circumstances of this year. I would reiterate that the restrictions that we have placed on them have not been done lightly, but because of the clear need to suppress the virus. The Prime Minister announced last Tuesday that an additional grant of £1,000 will be provided to all of what are so inelegantly referred to as wet pubs, but what we in this House like to call boozers, in tiers 2 and 3 in December, benefiting around 27,000 businesses, and VAT has been cut to 5%. Ultimately, however, there will be broad sunlit uplands, at which point we must support our pubs. It will be our patriotic duty to go and drink a yard of ale.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Under the Erasmus+ programme, every year over 250 students study at the University of Bath alone and there are many thousands of students across the country who also study under the programme. We cannot underestimate the value it brings, not least in financial terms, to our universities. In three weeks’ time, the transition period ends and the Government do not seem to have any plan, beyond allowing students who are already on the programme to finish it. The all-party group on Erasmus has already asked for a debate on this issue, but short of a debate, may we have a statement on what the Government are planning with Erasmus+ and International Student Exchange?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising a question that I know will be of interest to many across the House.
Under the withdrawal agreement negotiated with the EU, the UK will continue to participate fully in the current 2014 to 2020 Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps programmes. This means that the projects successfully bid for during the current programmes will continue to receive EU funding for the full duration of the project, including those where funding runs beyond 2020 and the end of the transition period. Negotiations are obviously continuing with the European Union at the moment, but in parallel with those negotiations the Government are continuing to develop a UK-wide domestic alternative to Erasmus+ as a contingency measure. The spending review 2020 provides funding to prepare for a UK-wide domestic alternative to Erasmus+, in the event that the UK no longer participates in Erasmus+, to fund outward global education mobilities—which I think means people studying abroad. The Government will set out further details in due course, but if the hon. Lady feels that that is not a comprehensive enough answer, if she would write to me I will take it up further.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Just a gentle reminder that we do have a lot of business to get through this afternoon, including a hugely subscribed debate on the high street, so if we could have fairly succinct questions and answers that would be superb.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
With that in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just say to my right hon. Friend that, as he knows, there are two plans for local government reform in Somerset. One of them, from the districts, is an extremely good plan and it will restore our wonderful county back to its grandeur. The other one, from the county council, just does not cut the mustard and is rubbish. The panic now setting in with the management there is getting embarrassing. County staff have been told that they are not to allow difficult questions to the management or the councillors. This sort of desperate intimidation was used by the Vikings. We need a full debate to expose the county council’s tactics and the bullying it is up to. My right hon. Friend knows that King Alfred beat Guthrum and the Vikings retreated to Essex—obviously. Surely, no one in Somerset deserves such a fate.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could be briefer even than that in future. [Laughter.]
Mr Rees-Mogg
Somerset is the glory of our nation and a whole united Somerset would be of great advantage to the United Kingdom. It is worth remembering that, if Alfred had not retreated to the Somerset Levels and worked out how to defeat the Danes, our country would never have achieved the greatness that it has achieved.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Please may we have a debate on the fast growth of the buy now, pay later sector, as highlighted this week by Martin Lewis in the Treasury Committee? These firms are targeting predominantly under-30s who in the run-up to Christmas are shopping online with what is an explosive form of credit that may leave many in debt. Even some in the industry acknowledge that this form of credit needs to be regulated.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady once again raises a really important issue at business questions and I am grateful to her. Whenever new forms of credit come along, they often produce risks that people are not aware of until some time has passed, at which point it is too late to do anything. So I think looking at these things early on is important. From the Government’s point of view, we had better wait for the Treasury Committee’s report to see what it recommends in this direction, but she is right to highlight the risks of credit, particularly to younger people.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Last Saturday, a gentleman called Simon Royce-Dexter was taken ill in the mighty Shirebrook in my constituency. A group of young adults were nearby. They called an ambulance, looked after Simon and kept everybody calm during the incident. Simon wrote on Facebook afterwards that Keane, Max, Charlie, Megan, Keegan, Shay and many others were a credit to their parents and to their community. In that spirit, may we have a debate on community champions, so we can praise not only these fine young people but the dozens who have been made heroes of Bolsover in this most difficult of years?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is wonderful to hear what my hon. Friend says and encouraging that young people, who often get a bit of a bad press, are actually heroes too, so may I join him in congratulating Keane, Max, Charlie, Megan and the others, who are community champions—they got involved, modelled themselves on the Good Samaritan and did not walk by? The community champions scheme will support those groups at greatest risk from covid-19 to ensure key public health advice is understood and safer behaviours are followed, but it seems to me that people can do things—can be Good Samaritans—without being told what to do by Her Majesty’s Government.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report describing a “rising tide of destitution” across the UK, including the shocking finding that the number of children experiencing destitution rose by 52% between 2017 and 2019. This means families unable to access absolute essentials—a roof over their head, food, heating and lighting, clothing and footwear, and basic toiletries. Food banks and charities such Sharewear and Shoe Aid are doing incredible work to try to help, but, as the report says:
“In a society like ours, this is intolerable.”
Can we have a debate on how this Government’s policies have led to such a shameful situation and the urgent measures needed to address it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is one of the gloomiest bodies around and it ignores the success of the Conservative party in government. We have doubled free childcare for eligible working parents and will establish a £1 billion childcare fund, giving parents the support they need and freedom to look after their children. We are having a £400 million scheme to support children, families and the most vulnerable over the winter and through 2021. Child poverty has gone down in absolute levels by 100,000 since 2010. So there is a good, strong record and we should be proud of that. There is always more to do, but more is being done.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
As the National Infrastructure Commission will be publishing its recommendations on the integrated rail plan next week, can my right hon. Friend provide an opportunity for us to impress on the Government that there is cross-party support for the HS2 east midlands hub to be at Toton and the eastern leg to extend to Leeds? We cannot level up in part; we must level up in full.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right to be a champion for levelling up, and the integrated rail plan will focus on sequencing and delivering transformational rail improvements along the HS2 and northern powerhouse rail routes so that their benefits are delivered to communities as quickly as possible. On the eastern leg, the integrated rail plan will consider how to sequence delivery to ensure that the benefits are realised sooner and to ensure it is integrated with plans for northern powerhouse rail and other rail investment projects. I recognise that there are concerns about what the NIC is likely to suggest in its report, but it is an independent body so it is right that we wait to see what it has to say in its evaluation of the evidence and in undertaking its assessment. Once the report is published, Ministers will consider the conclusions. I hope that provides a degree of reassurance to my hon. Friend.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
First, may I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to pass on to Mr Speaker my thanks and congratulations to everyone involved in the outdoor socially-distanced carol service that took place in New Palace Yard yesterday? It was a lovely occasion.
May I ask the Leader of the House if we can have a debate on sovereignty? The briefing pack for his party’s Back Benchers keeps banging on about how the United Kingdom is about to become an independent sovereign nation, and I wonder if that means that it is Government policy that other EU members, such as Germany, France, Spain and the rest of them, are somehow not independent sovereign nations, because I think that would be news to them. If he does think that sovereignty is so important, will he confirm that in May next year he will support the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine the form of government best suited to their needs?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There will be an election in Scotland and whoever wins it will form the Government in Holyrood; that is an obvious state of democracy. It is also an obvious state of democracy that people voted in 2014 to remain part of the United Kingdom, in the great wisdom of the Scottish people. As regards the point the hon. Gentleman makes about the UK being independent on 1 January, it will be. The other EU member states are the members of a super-state, which is increasingly centralising power under a bureaucracy in Brussels. That is why we voted to leave.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
Last week, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) sent me a message hoping that I would vote for the amendment in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and himself. He then proceeded to talk out the provision that would have allowed clinically vulnerable MPs to participate remotely in debates. His message was an empty gesture. Twice this motion has been blocked, and it means that all elected MPs are not treated the same in this House.
This is an affront to democracy, especially when unelected Members in the other place can participate remotely in debates. It is a shameful position for the mother of Parliaments and a very poor international example. Mr Speaker and his office have been supportive throughout on this appalling situation, but can the Leader of the House please bring back this motion, perhaps as a 90-minute debate at the end of the day, so that we do not continue to gag vulnerable MPs and we allow them to contribute to debates? Otherwise, it makes a mockery of business questions; what is the point of requesting a debate when people like me cannot take part in it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend knows the sympathy I have with her, and that is why we brought forth the motion to allow her and others who are clinically vulnerable to participate in debates. It is quite extraordinary that the debate was talked out—indeed, by somebody talking out his own amendment, which is an unusual use of parliamentary procedure. I can assure my right hon. Friend that our efforts in this regard are kept under review. I would very much like it to be possible to allow people who are seriously clinically vulnerable to be able to participate, but I cannot give her any firm date at the moment.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, based in my constituency, produces high-quality research in order to transform our society and address the tragic issues of poverty.
I want to raise the issue of universities. Will the Leader of the House make time available next week to debate the pressures on universities as they deal with the return of students next term in order to control the pandemic? Issues such as isolation payments for students, testing for students from home and overseas and payment for accommodation that students are not able to return to need to be debated.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is a famously left-wing organisation. It always takes up left-wing causes, and that is not a surprise; that is what it does.
In relation to a debate on covid and universities, there is a debate on Monday on covid generally. That will be a good opportunity to bring up these issues, which I recognise are important and on which universities will want formal answers from the Government.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Having heard from the tourism and hospitality industry in Devon this week, I am gravely concerned that tier 2 could be the death knell for a huge number of these businesses. Will my right hon. Friend secure Government time to debate how this vital sector can survive when households cannot meet indoors in tier 2 and these businesses are entitled to far less support than the revenue they are missing?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will reiterate what I said before: these decisions were not taken lightly, and there is support available. I understand exactly the point that my hon. Friend makes, and I am very aware that this point has been raised more than any other during this set of business questions. The debate on Monday will be an opportunity to raise it, but I can assure her that the points made by her and other Members will be passed on within Government.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I join others in wishing my Jewish constituents chag urim sameach.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister gave comfort to the 3.6 million leaseholders who are in unsafe buildings because of unsafe cladding that they would not have to pay for the remediation of that cladding. However, the £1.6 billion fund allocated by the Government runs out on 31 December this year. There is no plan yet for what happens in 2021 to remediate that cladding or, indeed, to provide funding for the work to be carried out. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State or a Minister to come to the House next week and make a statement on what will be done to give comfort to the leaseholders as we go into 2021?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think some comfort has been brought forward with the most significant building safety reforms in almost 40 years, providing £1.6 billion of taxpayers’ money to speed up the removal of unsafe cladding, making homes safer, sooner. Almost 80% of buildings with dangerous Grenfell-style cladding have had it removed or are in the process of doing so, rising to 97% in the social housing sector. Over 100 buildings have started remediation on-site in 2020 so far, despite the continuing backdrop of the global pandemic—more than in the whole of 2019—and we are clear that works to remove unsafe aluminium composite material cladding must be completed by the end of 2021. I hope that this will provide some reassurance to leaseholders, but I accept that there are others in difficult circumstances, and my hon. Friend is right to raise this issue.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has just stressed that we are coming out of the EU on 1 January. Of course, that forces us to look at Government purchasing rules after then so that, locally and nationally, Government can properly support British firms, workers and communities. I have been in correspondence on this with the Cabinet Office Minister Lord Agnew, who has been very helpful. He informs me:
“We are developing a package of proposals to reform the UK’s procurement regulations”,
and he goes on to say:
“We still plan to publish our proposals later this year and bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows”.
This was on 2 December. Can we have a debate so that we can demand that Ministers and especially civil servants get a move on, enable us to behave like every other major European and industrial economy, and back our businesses and our people?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is more joy in heaven over the one sinner who repented than the 99 who never needed to repent in the first place. I am delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman becoming such an ardent Eurosceptic and welcoming the advantages of leaving the European Union, in that we can set our own procurement rules and, if we choose, help local firms and British businesses. That will be a matter for us to decide as a country, and my noble friend, Lord Agnew, has written to the right hon. Gentleman and set out the position pretty clearly.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]
Following the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), may I press the Leader of the House further on virtual participation in debates and endorse the opinions of the Procedure Committee that we should complete the debate started on 24 November and allow all Members to fully contribute in the Chamber on behalf of their constituents? He and I shared the same trenches when campaigning for an EU referendum, yet many of us will be unable to contribute if and when EU trade deal votes come before the Chamber.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend will be able to vote, because there has been a system set up for proxy votes. We had two hours of debate on this issue, and some hon. Members deliberately decided to talk it out and not allow the House to come to a conclusion. We notice in business questions the pressure of time from Members asking the Backbench Business Committee for debates on specific subjects. Having provided two hours of debate, it is difficult to know what more the Government could have done.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s engagement with faith groups? The Department’s faith engagement review closes tomorrow night, but ironically and shockingly, it quietly removed Ahmadi Muslims from the list of Muslim denominations after angry representations from radical groups such as Khatme Nubuwwat. Given that His Holiness the head of the Ahmadi faith and thousands of Ahmadis have sought asylum, support and safety in the UK because of precisely this sort of persecution in Pakistan, is it not shocking that a Department of the British Government would seem to act in a similar way?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by thanking the hon. Lady for doing something that she does not know that I know she is doing in helping a member of my parliamentary team who happens to be her constituent? I am very grateful for that and much appreciate what is being done for a member of my team.
The point the hon. Lady raises on the Ahmadis is deeply concerning, and I assure her that I will take it up with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It should not be for other groups to decide which groups are listed. It should be for the groups themselves to determine whether they are identified as specific groups.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Like many others, it was a delight for me to spend Small Business Saturday in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke visiting local retailers such as Goldenhill Garden Centre, Scott’s Barbers in Butt Lane, Barewall Art Gallery in Burslem, Abacus Books and Cards in Milton and the lovely Margaret Thelwell, with her vanilla custards, at Tunstall indoor market. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we back our local high streets after they have made so many sacrifices to protect us and our NHS, and can we find parliamentary time to celebrate local independent retailers?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Margaret’s vanilla custards at the Tunstall indoor market sound mouth-wateringly good to those of us who have a sweet tooth. My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of supporting our high streets during these difficult times. Small Business Saturday was a great opportunity to show support for businesses across the country. The Government have supported businesses throughout the pandemic, approving nearly 1.4 million bounce back loans for small and micro-businesses worth over £42 billion, and nearly 80,000 coronavirus business interruption loans worth nearly £18.5 billion. If we all follow the lead of my hon. Friend and visit shops such as Goldenhill Garden Centre, Scott’s Barbers, Barewall Art Gallery and Abacas Books and Cards, we will find that our bank balances may be lower, but the high street will be higher.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lefarydd.
A disturbing development this year is the use of military camps in Folkestone and Penally to house asylum seekers. The Home Office is shrouding its actions in secrecy—from not releasing details of the scoping exercise used to select camps, to reportedly using non-disclosure agreements to prevent refugee support groups delivering winter clothing from telling the outside world what is happening inside. With legal challenges being prepared, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the use of military camps for this purpose?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Immigration policy is evolving at the moment, as we leave the European Union. We are committed to delivering a firmer, fairer, points-based immigration system, and to ensuring that people who are here are here legally and legitimately. This, of course, has to be done humanely and with respect for people’s individual dignity, and I believe that that is what the Government are doing. If the right hon. Lady were to raise this matter next Thursday in the debate before the forthcoming adjournment, it would be an opportunity to get a ministerial response.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Across the country and in towns like Eston, our high streets have large empty units on them that get in the way of much-needed redevelopment. Eston Square has been held back by the Precinct building, like Redcar has been constrained by Marks & Spencer and B&M. Can we have a debate in Government time on what powers can be given to local communities to help free up these large units?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government recognise that this is a challenging time for everyone in the country, and the coronavirus is having a significant effect on our communities, town centres and businesses. Now more than ever, it is vital that we continue to help our local economies by supporting town centres and high streets to recover, adapt and evolve. To support our high streets, we have also introduced reforms of use classes to enable the more flexible use of existing buildings. These came into force on 1 September. My hon. Friend may desire to speak—or, if he is not on the call list, to intervene—in the debate that is coming up after statements have been completed and Lords amendments dealt with.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My caseworker’s husband, Alan, is a self-employed mortgage adviser, and applied for a mortgage holiday. Nationwide, their lender, confirmed that it would not affect their credit rating, yet when they went to move home and wanted to transfer the mortgage, the company would not allow it; it actually penalised them and confirmed that their credit rating had been affected. Alan had even made payments during the holiday period to eliminate the risk of this. Can we have a statement on what the Government are doing to ensure they keep their promise that credit ratings would not be affected by mortgage repayment holidays applied for during the pandemic?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That sounds like an appalling way to behave. The hon. Gentleman is right to come to this House and hold Nationwide to account for not treating his constituent fairly. He has now put it on the record. I will take it up with my ministerial colleagues, but the issue at hand is that people who took mortgage holidays were assured that their credit ratings would not be affected. When this is something that is said, it is something that ought also to be done.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for debate on British nationals held in custody overseas? I am delighted to say that my constituent, Lakhbir Sandhu, was recently found not guilty on all counts by a Czech court, but he did spend a considerable time in prison. I thank our embassy there for all that it did to help. I now have another constituent who was held in prison in Spain. He wants to clear his name; again, any support would be welcome.
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is a reminder that the points made by the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) on this subject are more widespread every week, with more Governments sometimes holding British citizens when they should not. Consular staff aim to help people and contact a person who is arrested as soon as possible after hearing of the arrest or detention, so that they may assess how the Government can help—although that may depend on local procedures—with an aim of providing assistance according to individual circumstances and local conditions. However, I encourage my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to raise such issues regularly to ensure that the Foreign Office is alerted to them and that pressure is applied, particularly with friendly nations with which we have good relations and which we hope will recognise that Palmerston had something to say about this subject.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
Some leaseholders who are affected by the cladding scandal are now starting to declare bankruptcy, because of the escalating service charges that they are being forced to pay. That gives the question of who pays for the fire safety remediation work renewed urgency. There is an opportunity for the House to debate this when the Fire Safety Bill comes back for consideration of Lords amendments, but the programme motion allows for only one hour of debate. Will the Government amend the programme motion to allow sufficient time for a proper debate of Lords amendments and Commons amendments in lieu of Lords amendments and, crucially, to allow MPs to vote on the issues?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this. The Fire Safety Bill is an essential piece of legislation which this Government have brought forward to bring about real improvements in fire safety across the UK. We are committed to implementing the recommendations made following phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. As regards the programme motion available for consideration of Lords amendments, I have heard her appeal. These things always depend on the availability of parliamentary time and the other pressing issues that we may need to debate, but what she said has been noted.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Leader of the House. We will now have a three-minute suspension to allow for the safe exit and entry of right hon. and hon. Members.
Ockenden Review
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the initial report from the Ockenden review, which was published this morning.
Before I update the House on the findings, I wish to remind the House of the tragic circumstances in which the review was established. It was requested by the Government following concerns raised in December 2016 by two bereaved families whose babies had sadly died shortly following their birth at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), who, as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, asked NHS Improvement to commission the independent inquiry.
The inquiry is chaired by senior registered midwife Donna Ockenden, a clinical expert in maternity who was tasked with assessing the quality of previous investigations and how the trust had implemented recommendations relating to newborn, infant and maternal harm. As the report acknowledges, this year the country has rightly united in pride and admiration for our NHS, but we must accept that in the past not everyone has experienced the kindness and compassion from the NHS that they deserved.
The review team has met face to face with families who have suffered as a result of the loss of brothers and sisters, or who have, from a young age, been carers to profoundly disabled siblings. The team has also met parents in cases where there have been breakdowns in relationships as a result of the strain of caring for a severely disabled child or the grief after the death of a baby or resultant complications following childbirth.
The original terms of reference for the review covered the handling of 23 cases; however, since its launch more families have come forward and extra cases have been identified by the trust. As a result, the review now covers 1,862 cases, and this has led to an extension of its scope and delivery. An interim report has therefore been published today, and it contains a number of important themes that the review team believe must be shared across all maternity services as a matter of urgency. Indeed, I personally, and the Government, pushed to have this interim report at this point in time so that we could learn from the findings of the inquiry so far.
This is the first of two reports, based on a review of 250 cases between 2000 and 2018; the second, final report will follow next year. Today’s report makes it clear that there were serious failings in maternity services at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust. I would like to express my profound sympathies for what the families have gone through. There can be no greater pain for a parent than to lose a child. I am acutely aware that nothing I can say today will lessen the horrendous suffering that these families have been through and continue to suffer. Nevertheless, I would like to give my thanks to all the families who agreed to come forward and assist the inquiry.
The review team held conversations with more than 800 families who have raised serious concerns about the care they received. I know that it has not been easy for them to revisit painful and distressing experiences, but through sharing their stories we can ensure that no family has to suffer the same pain in the future. From the outset the inquiry wanted families to be central to the team’s work and for their voices to be heard, and I am pleased that the families were able to see the report first, this morning, shortly before it was presented to Parliament. I assure them, and Members of this House, that we are taking today’s report very seriously and that we expect the trust to act on the recommendations immediately.
I thank Donna Ockenden and her team for their diligent work. Their valuable work provides essential and immediate actions to improve patient safety and ensure that maternity services at the trust are safe. Four of those actions are for the trust and seven are for the wider maternity system. The report sets out clear recommendations for what the trust can do to improve safety relating to overall maternity care, maternal deaths, obstetric anaesthesia and neonatal services.
The report also sets out actions that can make a difference to the safe provision of maternity services everywhere. They include recommendations on enhancing patient safety and how we can best listen to women and families, developing more effective staff training and ways of working, managing complex pregnancies and risk assessments throughout pregnancies, monitoring foetal wellbeing, and ensuring that patients have enough information to give informed consent. I welcome those recommendations and the others in the report. We will be working closely with NHS England, NHS Improvement and Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, which have accepted each of the recommendations and will take them forward. We learn from these tragic cases so that we can give patients the safe and high-quality care that they deserve.
Patient safety is a big priority for me and the Government. We want the NHS to be the safest place in the world to give birth, and this report makes an important contribution towards that goal. Our ambition is to halve the 2010 rates of stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths, and brain injuries in babies occurring during or soon after birth by 2025. We have achieved early our ambition of a 20% decrease in stillbirths by 2020, but of course there is always more to do and we owe it to the families to get it right.
The Ockenden review is an important document that vividly shows the importance of patient safety. I assure the House that we will learn the lessons that must be learned so that the tragic stories found within these pages will never be repeated again. I commend this statement to the House.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement and the personal commitment she has shown on this issue. I too thank Donna Ockenden and her team for their work to date.
Sadly, the report is not the first of its nature, and it is unlikely to be the last. We need to get ourselves into a place, sooner rather than later, where these systemic, almost cultural, failings become a thing of the past. The families have suffered unimaginable pain, and it must not be exacerbated by closed and defensive responses to the tragedies they have experienced.
Today’s statement comes only a fortnight after another damning report on maternity safety—Bill Kirkup’s report “The Life and Death of Elizabeth Dixon”. This is the latest in a long line of reports that show that, across large parts of the NHS, there is still a long way to go before we have the openness and transparency that patients deserve. That is not to do down the hundreds of thousands of staff who do a fantastic job day in, day out, but the report points to the wider problem—it is not a new problem—that when things go wrong, there is too little candour, too much defensiveness and a lack of leadership at the top of trusts; the leadership do not take personal responsibility and put right what has gone wrong.
Once again, we have got to this point only because of the persistence and resilience of the grieving families who have suffered such personal tragedy and refused to accept that what they were told was the end of the matter. I want to put on the record my appreciation of the courage and strength that they have shown throughout, but we really should not expect light to be shone on these issues only because individual families do not accept what they are told.
Senior leadership within trusts has to be much more candid and challenging with itself when faced with these concerns. These families just want answers and an assurance that nobody else will have to go through what they did, but, too often, they do not get them. The fact that we are now looking at more than 800 cases over a 40-year period, when the original investigation was tasked to look at just 23, must surely tell us that, for a very long time, those grieving families were not being listened to and the necessary lessons were not being learned. That in itself is as much a failure as the individual incidents. With so many more families coming forward and having to relive some of the most difficult experiences in their lives, it is vital that support is offered to them to deal with the consequences of that, so can the Minister assure us that appropriate support is available to all those who need it?
So that we will all be clear now, the Ockenden review will be far larger and take far longer than was originally intended. Can the Minister assure the House that the review has the resources necessary to complete the final report as soon as possible? I understand that the trust has not waited until today to take action, but, inevitably, further recommendations will emerge from the final report. There are also actions for the whole NHS, and a number of specific actions that can be taken across the board now, which the Minister indicated are in fact urgent. I would be grateful if she indicated whether she intends to set a deadline for implementation of the system-wide recommendations and whether she will provide regular updates to the House on their progress.
Strong leadership, challenging poor workplace culture and ring-fencing maternity funding are all key to improving safety. On tackling the poor workplace culture that exists in some trusts, it is clear that there is still a long way to go. It is concerning to see a report this morning that the review into bullying at West Suffolk Hospital, which was originally due to be published last April, is now not due until next spring. It is also clear that there is a pressing need to reinstate the NHS maternity safety training fund. That money was vital for safety and makes a big difference to care, so can the Minister commit to reinstating that training fund?
Can the Minister also advise what action is being taken to ensure that we have enough staff in all maternity units, and will the Government commit to legislating for safe staffing levels? More widely, can she set out what is being done to tackle the estimated 3,000 midwife vacancies that we currently have? We cannot ignore the fact that some of the problems created by this culture will be exacerbated and will continue if we do not solve the staffing and resourcing crisis in the NHS, and these issues will continue to compromise patient safety.
Finally, it is understandable if families who are currently receiving care at the trust are anxious. Can the Minister provide them with some reassurance today that they will be safe and well looked after?
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for his, as always, constructive and reasonable tone in his response. Yes, I can assure him that the resources are in place, and have been guaranteed to be in place. As for the deadline, it is 2021. I cannot give an exact month. It was really important to me—I believe that Donna Ockenden has mentioned this in her report a number of times— that the first 250 cases were evaluated so that we could take the learning from those cases and introduce it as quickly as possible. In that way, we could identify what had gone wrong so that we could prevent it from happening again in the future. That is why we have produced the report in two stages. We know the findings of this interim report and the recommendations that have been identified by Donna and her team can be put in place. The second stage of the report will appear before the end of next year—certainly in 2021. I will, as the hon. Gentleman requests, and personally if he requires it, update the House on what is happening with the report.
With regard to the maternity safety training fund, we secured £9.4 million in the spending review. It cannot be underestimated, in this time of covid, what a huge achievement that was. The money will not go into the old format of the maternity safety training fund, because we do not believe that that worked as well as it should have done. Much of that money was used to backfill the staff, who then, unfortunately, did not attend training. We did not get the best results—the biggest bang for the buck.
What we, as a Department, are doing now is directing that £9.4 million to where it is needed most and to where it can be spent in the most effective manner to produce results in maternity safety. That work is ongoing now in the Department, and I hope to be able to update the House and the hon. Gentleman very soon on how that money is being spent and what results we expect to see in return for the expenditure.
I did not anticipate the hon. Gentleman’s question about midwives. I do not have the exact number, because the figure rises every day. None the less, we are recruiting new nurses—I think the figure was 12,000 when I last gave a statement to the House—some of whom will be recruited to become midwives. So, yes, work is under way on the workforce and on nurse recruitment.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
Babies’ skulls were fractured and bones were broken in excruciatingly traumatic births that would never have happened if mothers’ wishes had been listened to. This is an utterly shocking report, and I think the whole House is immensely grateful to Donna Ockenden and her team for such a thorough report, and to the Minister for taking it so seriously, as she always does.
Although much has improved in maternity safety in recent years, does the Minister agree that it is time to stamp out the “normal births” ideology, which says that there can be a debate or compromise about the total importance of a baby’s safety? That should always be paramount, and decisions on it should always be taken in consultation with the mother. The report team said they had
“the clear impression that there was a culture within The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust to keep caesarean section rates low”.
That needs to stop—not just at Shrewsbury and Telford, but everywhere throughout the NHS. The biggest mistake in interpreting this report would be to think that what happened at Shrewsbury and Telford is a one-off, as it may well not be and we must not assume that it is.
Secondly, the report talks about the “injudicious use of oxytocin” to facilitate vaginal births that perhaps should not have been happening. Will the Minister look into that issue? Finally, this report happened because Rhiannon Davies and Richard Stanton, who lost their daughter Kate in 2009, and Kayleigh and Colin Griffiths, who lost their daughter Pippa in 2016, persuaded me that something needed to happen. Is it not shameful that we make it so hard for doctors, nurses and midwives in the NHS to speak out about tragedies that they see and that all the burden for change is left on the shoulders of grieving relatives? Is it not time, once and for all, to end the blame culture that we still have in parts of the NHS?
Ms Dorries
My right hon. Friend asked a number of questions that deserve answers, so please bear with me. His first point was about the number of caesarean sections and the thought or belief in the hospital that it was a good thing not to have them, which the report identifies.
The report shows us that there were years when C-sections at Shrewsbury and Telford were running at 11% and the national average was 24%, and at 13% when the national average was 26%. That demonstrates a lack of collegiate working between midwives, doctors and consultants. Most of the report’s recommendations show that, fundamentally, that is the problem: a lack of communication and an unwillingness to work with people—the medics, doctors, obstetricians and midwives. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about intervention. There is the old saying, “Mother knows best”, but every woman should own her birth plan and be in control of what is happening to her during her delivery.
I give all thanks to my right hon. Friend, because this report is fundamental in terms of how it is going to inform maternity services across the UK going forward, not least because the NHS is working on an early warning surveillance system. What happened at Shrewsbury and Telford was that it was an outlying trust. As with East Kent and others, including Morecambe Bay, where we have seen issues, there has been an issue culturally; they are outlying, without the same churn of doctors, nurses, training or expertise. The NHS is now developing a system where we can pick up this data and know quickly where failings are happening.
Oxytocin is a drug used in the induction of labour to control the length, quality and frequency of uterine contractions. There are strict National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on the use of that drug. My right hon. Friend is correct: every trust should follow the guidelines. By highlighting that in this report, we will ensure that trusts are aware of those guidelines and that they are followed in future.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Our heart goes out to all those who have suffered these tragic events and losses; those of us who are parents or grandparents suffer with these families. May I ask the hon. Lady a question as the Minister for Mental Health? The mental health of mothers during and after pregnancy is vital, not just in the tragic circumstance of baby loss or severe injuries during birth. Will she ensure that training in perinatal mental health becomes a strong focus for improving maternity services across the country?
Ms Dorries
I hope the hon. Lady will not mind my mentioning it, but I know that she is about to become a grandmother herself soon, so I understand the reason for her questioning. She raises a very important point. I know she is aware, because I believe we have had this conversation, that we are focusing on women in the Department at the moment, and of course the mental health of women is a big part of that. The post-natal depression services that have been rolled out across the UK in the past 18 months are a testament to the fact that we are focusing on mental health. I take her point on board, and she has made it before.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I very much thank the Minister for coming to the House so promptly and making this statement, and for her commitment to patient safety. I also pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) for initiating this very important review. Without that, we would not be here today.
The findings of the report are deeply harrowing. The scale of the deaths and injuries suffered are horrific, but so too was the response of the trust at the time. The report details this. Women at their most vulnerable could not get their voices heard. They were not listened to by those in positions of power, who normalised poor maternity care and also denied its existence. Instead of humility and empathy, what we saw was the harshness of bureaucratic defensiveness, with women at times “blamed for their loss”—that is in the report.
There is now a criminal investigation into this matter, but I would be grateful if the Minister would please ensure that nothing gets in the way of implementing the recommendations as soon as possible, so that families can see real change in maternity care, at this trust and also right across the country.
Ms Dorries
I thank my hon. Friend for her pursuance, her persistence and her dedication, both to her constituents and the hospital as a trust. I would also like to mention, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) did, the parents of Kate Stanton-Davies and Pippa Griffiths, who have been instrumental in getting us along the pathway to where we are today. Yes, my right hon. Friend commissioned the report, I pushed for it to happen now, and my hon. Friend has been pushing also, but it is down to those parents and their commitment. It should not have to be like this. Parents should not have to go through what they have gone through to get to where we are today.
As my hon. Friend is aware, I have visited the trust myself and have been round the midwifery unit and the consultant-led unit, and I think there is an anomaly there. Should we have a midwifery unit and a consultants’ unit? Is that not where the problem is, with two separate disciplines not working together? Should there not be just one delivery unit? Does the culture not start there, and should we not look at how it works?
However, my hon. Friend has my absolute 100% assurance that, for as long as I am in this post, I will be driving forward the recommendations and findings of this report.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her understanding and compassion on the findings of the Ockenden report. With other right hon. and hon. Members, I wish to express my deepest sympathy to those families who have been grievously damaged by the failings of the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust.
But will the Minister underline that sympathy alone is not necessarily what is required? What is required is action, and an undertaking to review procedures not only in this trust, but UK-wide, to ensure that the Ockenden report recommendations are implemented in all maternity wards. Will she give a guarantee that that will be done?
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; he is absolutely right, of course. The findings will be put in place, and in many trusts they already are. I was just looking for my data on the Morecambe Bay investigation, which I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) also commissioned. If we look at the Morecambe Bay trust investigation, the predecessor to this, it is quite commonplace to say—I hear it all the time—“Well, we had Morecambe Bay and nothing has happened: the recommendations haven’t been implemented there.”
Actually, the Morecambe Bay investigation made 44 recommendations, 18 of which have been completed within the Morecambe Bay trust. There were 26 wider NHS learnings and recommendations, of which 14 were accepted nationally and 11 are being worked on now in the Department, to be rolled out nationally. I use that as evidence that reports such as this have consequences: actions that are implemented and make a difference in maternity units.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
I add my sympathy and condolences to all those who have suffered loss or damage to their baby or mother in childbirth under the care of the trust, and I also add my voice to thank Donna Ockenden and her large team for the important work that they have done to review so many cases over the past two decades and more. I hope this will help each and every family who have suffered to reach a better understanding of the tragedy of their own case. However, the principal motivation of my then constituents, the Stanton-Davies parents, in coming forward following the loss of their baby daughter Kate, which prompted this review, was to ensure that other parents could be spared the trauma that they went through.
I am grateful to the Minister for her response to this report. In addition to what she has already said, can she tell the House, and the thousands of expectant mums whose babies are delivered by the committed clinicians at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust every year, about the improvements in safety and standards that prevail now in the women’s and children’s unit? That might reassure them that some lessons have already been learned, that more will continue to be learned on the back of this review in implementing its recommendations, and that the maternity service in Shropshire and Telford provides a safe place for babies to be born.
Ms Dorries
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. As he is aware, I have visited the trust. We have a chief executive in place now who I personally, and the Department and NHS England, have been working closely with, as well as with the team in the hospital. The trust has accepted the findings of the report and will take each of the recommendations forward, so that we learn from these tragic cases of the past and can give patients the safe and high-quality care that they deserve. My right hon. Friend was a Minister himself, I think possibly in my role, in the Department when this report was commissioned, so he has been involved with it right from the beginning.
We want the NHS to be the safest place in the world to give birth—I know I say that often at the Dispatch Box—and this report makes a valuable and important contribution towards that goal. That starts in Shrewsbury and Telford, where as I stand here now the recommendations are being discussed within the trust, and ways found both to deliver and to implement the recommendations that have been made, so that from today onwards Shrewsbury and Telford will be a safe place—as it has been for some time, while it has been on our radar and in special measures—for women to give birth.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We are discussing today the traumatic findings thus far of the Ockenden review about the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, and our hearts go out to the grieving parents and families. Until recently, the travesty of Morecambe Bay was considered the worst maternity scandal in the NHS, so why have there since been others, and what steps are the Government taking to implement findings of successive inquiries into maternity services across our country?
Ms Dorries
As I said, the vast majority of the recommendations on Morecambe Bay have been implemented. Of those that were for wider NHS consideration, 14 have been implemented and 11 have not. However, this is not a case of us overnight going out and saying, “Right, this is how you change”—it takes a vast amount of work in policy, process and delivery. Those 11 recommendations are being worked on and have been worked on since the report on Morecambe Bay happened. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that we do not have consistency across the NHS in terms of care or delivery. That is what we are working towards. We are currently developing a core curriculum of training that will be multi-disciplinary and we hope will rolled out next year. It will be undertaken by midwives, doctors, obstetricians and everybody working in the maternity unit so that they are all at a certain point of skill in terms of consistency, they are all aware of the lessons to be learned from the past in terms of safety, and they implement the recommendations that go across the UK in maternity units. Most maternity units in the UK operate well and deliver babies safely. We have fantastic maternity services in the UK. However, we do have difficult trusts. As in all disciplines, they are not all the same. This is about the outliers—the hospitals that we are working to identify early. With the core curriculum, we are making sure that everybody working in maternity units across the UK has the same standard and level of training.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) [V]
I welcome the considered tone the Minister has taken today in responding to the difficult contents of this report and in promoting a clinically led response to the findings rather than allowing knee-jerk political reactions that often do not lead to the right results. Let me pick up on one thing. What we see throughout a number of reports, be it Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay or now this one, is that management is often central to setting a culture that allows mistakes and deaths to occur. When a clinician is found to be negligent, they have a responsible body—the Nursing and Midwifery Council or the General Medical Council—that can take action against them, but what are we going to do to ensure that managers receive better training and that we stop the revolving door of bad managers who are responsible for poor care being employed elsewhere in the NHS?
Ms Dorries
I thank my hon. Friend, who, again, is a predecessor in my Department—a former Health Minister. He is absolutely right to talk about strong leadership. Strong leadership has been established across the system. In the context of maternity services, which is what we are talking about, we have the maternity safety champions who are being led by Dr Matthew Jolly, the national clinical director of maternity and women’s health, and Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent OBE, the chief midwifery officer for England. There are lead clinicians who are leading clinically.
In terms of the management of the Shrewsbury and Telford trust, there have been eight chief executives in 10 years. That is not good. Good practice does not come from a revolving door of chief executives and board members who constantly rotate, because there is no continuation of learning, no loyalty, and no commitment to good outcomes at the hospital. We have to change this revolving door of boards and chief executives. The chief executive who is there now has our confidence, and we are assured that she will put in place the recommendations of the report, but my hon. Friend is right: it is crucial that we work on this revolving door of managers and those who are not clinically led, because that is part of the problem. He is right to identify that, and I want to reassure him that it is something we are aware of.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
First, our thoughts today must be with all the families who have been affected by this tragedy. The investigation found that an area of concern was having the right staffing levels and the right skills mix. Will the Government look to legislate for safe staffing levels in the NHS and, in particular, midwifery?
Ms Dorries
It is probably in the Secretary of State’s domain to make that kind of statement at the Dispatch Box, so I cannot give the hon. Lady that reassurance myself, but we are delighted about the huge number of new nurses and doctors that we have in training. Recruitment of our workforce in the NHS is going well, and I hope that that will be the ultimate goal.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Reading this report is utterly heartbreaking, and my heart goes out to the families who have been involved in this terrible situation. Leadership, workplace culture and patient safety clearly go hand in hand, so what steps is my hon. Friend taking to strengthen clinical leadership, in order to ensure that all maternity wards are the safest they can be?
Ms Dorries
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for not only his work at Watford General Hospital—he is probably there more often some of the patients—but his commitment to mental health in his constituency. He has launched a programme of 1,000 mental health first aiders, which is a tremendous boost to his constituents. I am aware of his work, and I thank him for it.
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Midwifery leadership has been strengthened this year by the appointment of seven regional chief midwives, working with local maternity services to ensure the provision of safer and more personal care for women, babies and their families. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) had the same thoughts that I did on reading the report. There is a lack of collegiate working—“Let’s not let the doctors have this. Let’s keep this for the midwives”—and a lack of team working. The recommendations in the report put forward solutions to end that culture and to introduce one where doctors, nurses and midwifery champions work together, as a team, with the mother, who is in control of and owns her birth plan, because that is what it should be about.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is devastating to read about the families involved in this. We have been here so many times. I think back to the publication of the Robert Francis report in 2013, which particularly talked about the duty of candour and the way that those issues are addressed. Clearly the system is quite passive; it is dependent on people raising concerns. What is the Minister doing to ensure that it is more interrogative of families and those involved in order to draw out people’s concerns at what is perhaps their most vulnerable time, as is the case for many women when giving birth?
Ms Dorries
The hon. Lady is right: there is a theme. Whether it is Paterson, the Cumberlege review or Morecambe Bay, central to all this is women, and so much of this report is familiar in that women are not listened to. The way some of those mothers were spoken to when they were delivering their babies or during the most tragic hours and days afterwards is just appalling. It is about women being downgraded almost, as though their complaints, their voices or their concerns, and the awful circumstances in which they find themselves are not worthy of the same consideration as patients in other hospitals in other situations.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We already have national guardians—they immediately spring to mind. We have 600 national guardians in hospitals. NHS workers wear lanyards and, when people want to highlight something that they have seen going wrong in terms of patient safety, they may speak to that person, who will assist them and raise their concerns. It is quite something when we need that, when patients need such assistance. It is also for staff to raise patient concerns. She is absolutely right—it is about listening and treating the complaints and issues of women seriously.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
My heart goes out to the families. I pay tribute to the Minister for her work on this. Although these tragic things go wrong in our national health service, does my hon. Friend note that many good things also happen across our hospitals? Our maternity ward in the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow has been described as “outstanding” by the Care Quality Commission, and is one of the most successful and important parts of our hospital. Will she pay tribute to and thank staff across the NHS, as well as in Harlow, who do so much? Will she also look at best practice around the country, in places like the Princess Alexandra Hospital for maternity, to see what can be done to learn from that best practice to ensure that such tragedies never happen again?
Ms Dorries
My right hon. Friend adds such a hopeful note. I thank him. He is absolutely right. We stand here to talk about reports, patient safety issues and where things have gone wrong, and yet so much of the NHS so much of the time goes absolutely right. The Princess Alexandra Hospital in his constituency is a shining light and an example of the best practice in maternity services. Of course, we use examples such as Harlow to inform us of how things go right and how well maternity units work. He is absolutely right, and we will of course look at Harlow, as we do at other examples of good service across the NHS, which is—I thank him for reminding us all of this today—in most hospitals most of the time. Our job is to reassure women. The UK is among the safest countries in the world in which to give birth, and most of the time it goes right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As questions 14 and 15 have been withdrawn, the final one is from Kerry McCarthy.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
In that case, I thank the Minister for what is clearly a very genuine response to the concerns expressed today. What has been said about the culture within the NHS, revealed in this review, has echoes of the Bristol heart babies scandal, and it is tragic that parents must still fight to have their voices heard now. One of the things mentioned by families contributing to the Ockenden review is the desperate need for longer-term support following experience of baby loss. I know from my constituents that the NHS has struggled to provide that during the current pandemic. What more can we do to ensure not just that parents are listened to at the time of losing their baby, but that they are supported from then onwards, too?
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, sincerely, and for her important question. Baby loss is something that we discuss in this House—rightly so—and we are discussing what happened at Shrewsbury and Telford, because many parents there lost their babies. The report makes a recommendation that the care and support that parents are given following a bereavement are strengthened, and that measures are put in place to ensure that the right package is there. Many charities work in this area across the UK—I will just mention Baby Lifeline, Sands and others—and have themselves put in place both practical and emotional measures to help parents at such a time. It is the worst time, in anyone’s life, to lose a child. We say that so many times in here, and it is our responsibility, both in the Department and in society as a whole, to hold those parents and to help them through those awful times. I thank the hon. Lady for her question—this is something we take very seriously in the DHSC.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for her statement and her full responses to all the issues that were raised by right hon. and hon. Members. We will now have a three-minute suspension for the safe entry and exit of right hon. and hon. Members.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Thursday 10th December 2020
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 View all United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 10 December 2020 - (10 Dec 2020)
14:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 356 / Noes: 259 - Question accordingly agreed to.
14:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 357 / Noes: 259 - Question accordingly agreed to.
14:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 358 / Noes: 260 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to consideration of the message from the House of Lords on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which is to be considered in accordance with the order of the House of 14 September.
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 48B and 48C. If any Lords amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Before I call the Minister, I should say that hon. and right hon. Members will be aware that we have one hour for this debate, which means that I will impose an immediate five-minute time limit. However, that may end up being four minutes, depending on how long the Front Benchers take. I just want people to be aware of that.
After Clause 1
COMMON FRAMEWORKS PROCESS
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 1B, 1C and 1D.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 8B, 8C, 8D, 8F, 8G, 8H, 8J and 8K, but disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 8L, insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 13 and 56, and proposes amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendments 8L, 13 and 56.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 14 and 52 to 54 but does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 55.
That this House does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 44.
That this House does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 45, and proposes amendment (a) instead of the words left out by the Lords amendment.
That this House does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 47, and proposes amendment (a) to the Bill consequential upon the Lords amendment.
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 48B and 48C.
That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 50B, but disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 50C.
That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 51B.
Paul Scully
I will try to be brief in going through the amendments—but with some detail, Madam Deputy Speaker—to make sure that others can speak.
I am glad that, since our last debate on the Bill on Monday, there have been a number of very positive developments. I am delighted that the peers in the other place and the Government have worked together constructively to agree on a number of areas. However, it is clear that there are still a number of outstanding issues, which I will address today. I will set out the Government’s rationale and I call on this House to support the Government’s proposals.
I want to start with some of the positive developments, notably on part 5 and Lords reasons 14B, 45B, 52A, 53A, 54A and 55A. The Government have been clear throughout that they were committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. We were also clear that as a responsible Government we could not allow the economic integrity of the UK’s internal market to inadvertently be compromised by the unintended consequences of the protocol. That is why, through clauses in the Bill, we sought limited and reasonable steps to create a legal safety net by taking powers in reserve, whereby Ministers could guarantee the integrity of the United Kingdom and ensure that the Government were always able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.
We sought those measures to guard against the possibility of not reaching agreement with the EU at the Joint Committee. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his EU counterpart have reached an agreement in principle, I am pleased to say that the clauses that provided for the safety net are no longer needed and the Government are removing them from the Bill: that is, clauses 44, 45 and 47.
I am pleased that the other place has now also agreed to clauses 42, 43 and 46 and consequential amendments, which are purely about protecting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK customs territory and internal market, delivering unfettered access in line with the Northern Ireland protocol and codifying in legislation existing practice in terms of the Foreign Secretary notifying the European Commission on state aid.
Alongside that, and in line with the agreement in principle, we have tabled a new clause that will require the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to set out guidance for public authorities on how the state aid provisions of the protocol will work in practice, as well as consequential amendments as a result of removing clauses 44, 45 and 47. Guidance must take account of any declarations made by the EU and the Joint Committee, which would include the proposed EU declaration that forms part of the package agreed in principle by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I call on the House to agree with the Government’s approach in this area.
I turn now to amendments 1B, 1C and 1D. Yesterday, noble Lords in the other place once again commended the importance of the Government’s continuing co-operation with the devolved Administrations on the common frameworks programme and reiterated their support for it. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord Hope for his considered intervention yesterday, and for all his thoughtful work on the Bill. However, while his new amendments would clarify the interaction between divergence agreed under common frameworks in the market access principles, they would still potentially undermine the certainty that the market access principles are designed to provide for business, because of the possibility of differing interpretations of what is permitted under an agreement. Moreover, as I set out on Monday, the amendments could create a broad exclusions regime. In itself, that denies businesses and consumers much needed clarity about the terms of trade within which they operate.
I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the House that common frameworks are processes for negotiation and reaching agreement, and are not in themselves a policy outcome. Wholesale exclusions from the market access principles of agreement reached through the common frameworks process could therefore lead to the unacceptable risk of harmful trade barriers being erected across the UK. Such barriers could not be erected under the EU system unless justified and notified to the Commission, and they are undesirable in our own UK internal market. For those reasons, I respectfully suggest that the approach put forward in the amendments is not appropriate.
I have said previously that the Government are committed to completing the delivery of the common frameworks programme and protecting these areas of co-operation to the benefit of jobs, people and livelihoods. We welcome the support of hon. and right hon. Members here in achieving that. However, amendments 1B, 1C and 1D have considerable drawbacks and I therefore call on the House to disagree with them.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 8L. I remind the House that, in drafting the Bill, and clause 10 specifically, the Government designed an exclusions approach that 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 it can continue to operate for the particular conditions, where they are needed, under the bespoke constraints that are relevant to those circumstances. Let me repeat the point for emphasis: we agree that there is a need for an exclusions regime, but one that is carefully drafted and provides certainty for business.
I am therefore disappointed that the other place has again voted to upset that careful balance with an altered, but still fundamentally flawed, expansive list. It would render the protections and benefits of the internal market proposals under part 1 meaningless. This would allow unnecessary trade barriers and unjustifiable costs to businesses and consumers.
Amendment 8L captures all kinds of public policy objectives and only requires a new regulation to make a contribution to any of the aims in the list. That means that almost any regulation that the UK Government or the devolved Administrations propose in the future could be excluded from the scope of the market access principles. I therefore call on the House to disagree with amendments 8L, 13 and 56, and agree with the Government’s amendments in lieu.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Minister refers to the Government amendment, which also refers to consultation and consent. Yesterday, the Senedd voted to withhold consent from the internal market Bill. Its provisions regarding consultation are meaningless. When he says that Wales will be consulted, what we hear is contempt. Will he admit that to press ahead regardless, against the express will of the people of Wales and Welsh democracy, is to follow, as Lord Thomas put it in the other place, the
“discredited principle of ‘Westminster knows best’”?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2020; Vol. 808, c. 278.]
Paul Scully
We want to work with the Welsh Senedd. We want to work with the Welsh people. We want to work particularly to ensure that Welsh businesses have certainty, and English, Scottish and Northern Irish businesses as well. That is why we need to work at pace to ensure that we have an internal market that works for all come 1 January.
Let me turn to amendments 48B and 48C. It is right, as we leave the transition period, that 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 once again that this power is in addition to the devolved Administrations’ existing power. 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 ensure 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.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
If the desire is to work collaboratively, why on earth are the Government rejecting these amendments, which simply ask for consent from the devolved Administrations? That would be collaboration.
Paul Scully
I have talked about the fact that we have spoken with the Scottish Government and continue to do so and we are very open to that. What has been frustrating, in terms of collaboration, is that although we have collaborated on common frameworks, the Scottish Government have pulled away from discussions about the internal market, and that started to cause this detachment. But we do want to hold out our hand to make sure we can continue to collaborate in the future to complement, as I said, the existing powers.
I want to touch briefly on the UK shared prosperity fund. This power means that the UK Government can make good on our commitment to the UKSPF. The UK Government intend to work with the devolved Administrations and with 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, we have confirmed that the devolved Administrations will be represented on the UK SPF governance structures. The Government will set out further details of the objectives and administration of the shared prosperity fund in the UK-wide investment framework, which will be published in the spring. We will continue to engage the devolved Administrations as we develop the investment framework in advance of its publication.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I appreciate that the Minister was as brief as he could be, given that he took interventions, but I think we will have to start with a time limit of four minutes rather than five minutes.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I will try to be as brief as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to say to the Minister that we should note the progress made in the removal of the law-breaking clauses from part 5. What has essentially happened here is that the Joint Committee set up to deal with the outstanding issues on the Northern Ireland protocol has dealt with the issues on the Northern Ireland protocol. We are in a slightly through-the-looking-glass world here. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this week described Maroš Šefčovič, the Vice President of the Commission, and his team as displaying
“pragmatism, collaborative spirit and determination to get a deal done that would work for both sides.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 847.]
These are the same people the Prime Minister described in his Second Reading speech in September as being
“willing to go to extreme and unreasonable lengths”.—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 42.]
He also said that they had engaged in an “extraordinary threat” and refused to take the “revolver off the table”.
There are two conclusions we can draw from this sequence of events. The first is that Mr Šefčovič has changed his whole character, attitude and personality in three months; the other is the Prime Minister has a man who will make up any old nonsense for political advantage. I tend to the latter view.
Edward Miliband
I am going to make some progress; lots of people want to speak and there is not much time.
With the law-breaking powers that undermined our reputation in the world gone, we are left with the legal but, I believe, deeply flawed proposals for undermining our shared governance at home. I am glad that the other place has, by large majorities, stuck with the insistence on upholding the devolution settlement, particularly in respect of common frameworks. I say to the Minister that this is absolutely critical to the kind of country we want to build post Brexit. We want a functioning UK internal market, but we believe that can be achieved in a way that upholds high standards and allows devolved Governments both to have a voice in setting those standards and to make choices in devolved areas appropriate for each nation. The principle is clear: we have a system of governance based not any more on power hoarded at Westminster but on power shared. That should be respected.
All of that brings me to Lords amendments 1B, 1C and 1D. I hope that in the course of the coming days the Minister, with his colleagues, will reflect on this: the Government say that they support common frameworks, that they are a great innovation and that they are proud of them—and they are a good innovation in many senses—so why not give them legislative backing?
This is quite an arcane debate, so I wish to make it as simple as I can and return the example of single-use plastics, which I mentioned on Monday, to show the difference between the common frameworks approach proposed by Lord Hope and others and the Government’s approach. Environmental policy, including on plastics, is a devolved question. Under the EU rules we currently have, the Welsh Government, for example, could ban the production and sale of single-use plastics in Wales; under the Bill as it stood when it went to the other place, the Government of Wales would not be able to ban their sale because the UK Government do not propose to ban such plastics themselves. Because of the market access principle and the way it is implemented, the lowest standard in one Parliament will be the standard for all, which means that Welsh shops will have to stock these plastics. I do not believe that that respects the devolution principle. The power may be formally devolved, but in essence it is rendered ineffective by the approach taken in the Bill, which takes control back to Westminster. If the Minister can explain why it does respect devolution, perhaps he should do so, but I have not heard a good explanation.
What is the alternative to that? The alternative is the common frameworks approach, which provides a different way forward by attempting to find consensus for high standards among the four nations while respecting devolved powers and the ability to diverge through agreement. That is what Lord Hope’s amendments seek to do, which is why we support those amendments and will, indeed, seek a vote on them.
Lords amendments 8L, 13 and 56 also seek to preserve the ability for there to be higher standards in different nations, where they can be justified. Again, this is about our vision for the future. Instead of a race to the bottom, we want to see a race to the top on standards. We have seen this over the course of devolution: on the smoking ban, plastic bags and a whole range of issues, we have seen experimentation in different nations drive up standards. I say to the Minister that both sets of amendments are the right thing to do to respect the devolution principle, and I believe they are consistent with the internal market that we want to see.
I turn briefly to Lords amendments 48B and 48C, which would oblige agreement with the devolved Administrations before there was spending in devolved areas. If anything, this is a clearer and more simple test of the Government’s real intentions. They say that they believe in devolution. The city deals are worked out jointly with the devolved Administrations; the Government are taking enormously wide powers in the Bill on spending in devolved areas. If this is not about hoarding power to Westminster, the Government can surely agree to the proposal that such spending should have the consent of devolved Administrations. This is about the principle of shared governance. I make the point that that was certainly the case in relation to EU structural funds. The Minister set out some proposals on the shared prosperity fund, but the Bill proposes much wider powers in relation to spending in devolved areas. If this is not a power grab and is not about hoarding power to Westminster, surely it is possible to say, “Yes, this spending should be agreed with the devolved nations.” If the Government refuse to accept the amendment, they slightly give the game away.
I think there is a big picture here, which is that, as I said on Monday, all of us who believe in the United Kingdom must, I believe, go the extra mile to protect devolution. I think it is incredibly important. It is the key to keeping our United Kingdom together, in my view. While we welcome the removal of the offending parts of part 5, this Bill just does a bad job of doing that, I am afraid, and I think the other place is telling the Government that loud and clear. I am very struck, by the way, that the Conservatives who voted for the amendments yesterday—Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Dunlop, to take two examples—are people who are steeped in this issue as Conservatives and are incredibly keen to protect both the devolution settlements and the Union.
I say to the Minister that we want the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to reach the statute book. It must happen, however, in a way that does not ride roughshod over the way we are governed. I hope very much, for the sake of the United Kingdom and for the sake of respecting the devolution settlements, that the Government will reflect on this over the coming days.
Sir William Cash
In a nutshell, I am concerned about the fact that the Government have not insisted on this disagreement with respect to the notwithstanding clauses. I do not have time to go into all the detail, but I would simply say this. They remain needed, and I have put down amendments this afternoon to the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill for next week for the same reason.
The first thing is that this is to do with sovereignty and with judicial powers. It is to do with the fact that the notwithstanding clauses, with the use of the words “notwithstanding” and “whatsoever”, actually deal with the job effectively, and we should not take them away when we do not even know what the text from the Joint Committee is and we have just in effect been told that decisions are taken. There is this new clause talking about guidance. Guidance on what—on what agreement? We have not seen it, and we do not know what it means. I shall therefore almost certainly abstain on that at the very least.
The second thing is the question of what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said yesterday—he knew perfectly well when he used the word “Factortame” what he meant. It is what I have been talking about in respect of, for example, the quashing of Acts of Parliament: the ability of the courts under the rubric of European law to be able to take action to strike down UK law. Those principles may be retained—indeed, I believe it is more than possible that that would actually happen. There is a necessity to ensure that it does not happen when we have had a referendum, we have had Acts of Parliament and we have had section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Act) passed, all of which enables us to be able to provide for these notwithstanding clauses.
We should not remove these clauses on the basis of a jeu d’esprit or leave them out on the basis that everything is now all right in respect of these absurd allegations over breaches of international law, which are complete nonsense. Nobody has put forward a single argument in the House of Lords to substantiate the allegation that there is a breach of international law. In fact, the reality is that article 46 of the Vienna convention deals with these matters, and it is therefore perfectly proper for us to keep the clauses. I believe that we need to retain them not just as a safety net or as belt and braces, but because it may well turn out to be necessary to avoid, for example, either the House of Lords or the courts, in extremis, taking action the effect of which would be to undermine the Brexit process. That is the key issue. It is about sovereignty, which the British people have made clear is what they want—the same applies to the red wall seats, as the Labour party knows only too well.
The bottom line, therefore, is that I want an assurance from the Minister that measures will be taken in legislation—in primary legislation—to restore those notwithstanding clauses. I have discussed this with our team in the Whips Office today. I hope the Minister will simply say, “Yes, we will take note of what my hon. Friend has said, and indeed will give effect to it if we find that, at the end of this weekend, it is necessary to return those clauses to the taxation Bill and also, if necessary, to this Bill,” but without prejudicing the safety of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill in its entirety as it stands at the moment.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
This shabby, shambolic, pernicious Bill should never have seen the light of day. It has already been delivered a historic defeat in the Lords—they rightly tore it apart—yet this Government overturned all their amendments and sent the Bill back. No sooner had they done that than there came the press release—as ever, bypassing this House—to say that the Government would be retreating from breaking international law with clauses that should never have been in the Bill in the first place, and that have only served further to diminish this Government and the UK’s already tattered international reputation. They are now reinstating these amendments.
Of course, it is not just the other place that this Tory Government ignore; it is almost everybody. When it comes to devolution and the nations of the UK, they are still determined to ignore the democratically elected Parliaments. As we have already heard, both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd have voted to withhold legislative consent on this Bill, yet this Government say that it is about working with the devolved Governments. It is not.
Lords amendments 48B and 48C pretty much deal with the shared prosperity fund that we have heard about. Under these amendments, the Government would have to agree with the devolved Governments on the way in which and where funds would be spent for matters within the devolved competences—roads, health and education, for example. The Government have said that the devolved nations will be represented, but Lord Thomas did not fall for that smoke and mirrors approach from the UK Government. He noted that,
“the clause without my amendments would enable the UK Government to spend in devolved fields and bypass the devolved Governments and Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who have been elected to be responsible for those fields. It would, in effect, hollow out the devolution settlements.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1293.]
It is disgraceful that we still do not have details of the shared prosperity fund, just weeks before we leave the EU. I was asking about this in 2017, and we have still not had anything from the Government.
Lords amendments 50B and 50C set out an attempt to agree a common framework, which is a regime that can govern the control of subsidies. Lord Thomas warned that, without this,
“Having changed the settlement for a policy that they have not yet devised, the Government then wish simply to consult…and then announce their decision. That is what I would call ‘way one’—the UK Government way.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1309.]
The SNP will not accept this brazen power grab. State aid must remain a devolved competence.
We welcome the changes through motion C1 in the Lords. The amendment removes the law-breaking clauses from part 5 of the Bill. Lord Judge said:
“They were constitutionally improper and a constitutional aberration. They subverted the rule of law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1277.]
They have even been knocked down by former Tory leader, Lord Howard.
Drew Hendry
I am not going to take interventions. We are very short on time, so I am going to press on; sorry.
Lords amendments 8B to 8L, 13A and 56A 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. Lord Stevenson said:
“The purpose of our amendment is to preserve the potential for managed policy divergence that is central to the devolution settlement.”
Again, the UK Government just ignore that. Lord Stevenson also noted:
“The Government have failed to explain properly why their list of exceptions is so much more restrictive than that of the EU—well, we can probably work that one out”. —[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1268-69.]
Let us not forget that this covers a huge range of effects for people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland:
“environmental standards and protection…animal welfare…consumer standards, including digital and artificial intelligence privacy rights…employment rights and protections…health and life of humans, animals or plants…protection of public health…equality entitlements, rights and protections.”
It has a massive impact on Scottish public society.
Lords amendments 1B, 1C and 1D seek to protect the role of the common frameworks in the Bill. The Minister thanked Lord Hope, but he was the one who pointed out that
“if there really is a will on the Government’s part to make this system work, a solution can be found.”
He also said:
“Traders from other parts of the UK who had no regard for the higher standard could simply ignore it, irrespective of how simple and easy it was to comply with. That is not where we should be going.”
He concluded:
“A balance needs to be struck here, if devolution is to be respected.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1249-50.]
Time after time after time, Members of the Lords pointed out the massive disrespect and contempt the Government have for the devolution settlement. Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town warned the Government
“to be very careful about clawing back decisions from our now quite long-established devolved settlements.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1256.]
The Scottish Government, by the way, remain fully committed to the common frameworks process, as this Minister knows. I cannot use the language I would like to use in this House about what the Minister repeated, but he knows that the Scottish Government have remained 100% committed to the agreement that was set up to take the process through, and he should correct the record.
This Bill is unwanted and unwarranted and unashamedly undermines devolution. It is an attack on the democratically elected Scottish Parliament and the vast majority of the Scottish public who value it. Since 2014, promises to them have been routinely broken in this place. Their votes and their views have been ignored over Brexit. Now, Scotland will be the only country not to get what it voted for in that referendum. They will in the next one. They know that. The only way to protect their rights and their Parliament is for them to take the next logical step and for Scotland to become an independent nation.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted that it was unwise, if I can put it charitably, to have certain clauses in this Bill that might have impugned our international reputation for supporting the rule of law. I welcome the Minister’s approach and that of his colleague Lord True in the other place. The Bill is better off without those clauses. I had sought at the very least to ensure there was a parliamentary lock should such clauses ever be needed, but I hope that through the agreement achieved in the Joint Committee, thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, they are not needed at all. It is better, therefore, to leave the Bill clean in that way to serve the other important purposes that it does have to achieve.
That is why, with all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), I trust that the Minister and colleagues will firmly resist any temptation to try to reinstate such clauses, which would be unnecessary, provocative in more ways than one, and unhelpful to the purpose we all seek to achieve.
I read with care the speeches of two former Lord Chief Justices and the former leader of my party, my noble Friend Lord Howard of Lympne, who himself was a distinguished Queen’s counsel with many years in practice before he came into this place. They certainly were not talking nonsense; they were making legitimate and fair points about areas of concern, even though I perhaps was more content to go with the view of David Wolfson QC, who was quoted by Lord Naseby, that the taking of such clauses into the Bill was not of itself a breach of international law until such time as they were brought into force. We are none the less better off not going down that route, so I hope the Minister will resist any temptation to put anything of that kind back into this Bill or into the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, because that would muddy the waters needlessly, legally and politically.
We are going to require political goodwill on all sides to make the coming days and weeks work. Were it ever to be necessary to take such extreme measures in such extreme circumstances that might occur, immediate primary legislation on an emergency basis could of course be done, and that would give the parliamentary lock that I was concerned should exist, but through another form. It is not necessary for us to go down that route now, because, frankly, to try to reinstate the clauses would be fatal to the progress of the Bill, and that would not be in the interests of the Government or anyone else. I thank the Minister for the way in which he and his colleagues have approached this matter.
Sir Robert Neill
Nobody else has been giving way, with every respect to my hon. Friend. Other people want to get in. I have said what I have to say. In fairness, he and I could happily go on all day about this in a friendly manner of disagreement, but I think possibly that is for outside the Chamber, rather than in it. I say that in the nicest possible way.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will call Mr Scully to close the debate no later than 2.30 pm.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today, having been unable to do so on Monday.
Because of the international law-breaking clauses, I believe that insufficient attention has been given to how this Bill affects the devolution settlements, which is a matter of great regret. Throughout its passage, my colleagues and I have been keen to work constructively on that aspect. Now that the law-breaking parts have been taken out of the legislation, I hope we can ensure that the voices of the devolved nations are listened to.
At earlier stages I tabled amendments to ensure that the devolved Administrations had input into the membership of the Competition and Markets Authority, following the precedent set by the Scotland Act 1998. The Lords have made amendments to the common framework and the functioning of the Office for the Internal Market, and on engagement with the devolved Administrations—amendments that build on the devolution settlement rather than undermine it.
I have found the Government’s rationale for refusing these changes to be highly frustrating. A case in point is the interaction between the common frameworks and the UK internal market. Why do we need this legislation when the common market frameworks have buy-in from all the devolved nations? The Government tell us it is because the internal market deals with cross-sector issues, whereas the common frameworks deal with specific sectors. Yet when the Minister appeared before the Scottish Affairs Committee, I asked him whether he could give an example of a cross-sector issue that the Bill will help to solve. He could not. When he wrote to the Committee on this matter—I am grateful to him for doing so—he said:
“We would refer you to pages 81-83 of the White Paper, which sketch out a cross-sector example in the form of an illustrative supply chain in the agri-food area.”
I think that says it all. The Government cannot provide a real-life example of an affected product that is cross-sector. Indeed, the implication in the White Paper is that there are no common frameworks in those different sectors. I do not see how, if the common frameworks are in place, there should be an impact. Therefore, there is no need for the Bill’s provisions.
The Government’s refusal to support Lords amendments on common frameworks, in particular amendments 1B, 1C and 1D, is therefore frustrating, but I am also concerned by the Minister’s response to the Committee on the role of the Office for the Internal Market, which will have huge powers. The worry is that parties involved in trade deals—the example I gave in the Committee was that of US investors—could sue the devolved Administrations or indeed the CMA. The Minister’s response to that point was:
“The CMA is therefore able to accept reporting requests from bodies and individuals with relevant concerns connected to”
the operation of the internal market,
“including those from outside of the UK.”
Although the letter then suggests that such reports would not interfere in devolved competences, can the Minister confirm that, by submitting a request to the CMA, foreign investors could potentially interfere with devolved Administrations? If the CMA refuses such a request, could those foreign investors then challenge that in the court?
The Minister has insisted that is not a political Bill, but given that the Paymaster General just this morning was unable to confirm to me whether the Government would bring forward international law-breaching clauses in future business, such as the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) referred to, if the outcome of the EU negotiations is no deal, then it is clearly nothing but.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
First, I welcome the fact that the provisions in clauses 42 and 43 safeguarding Northern Ireland’s position within the internal market and its unfettered access to that internal market, and also within the customs union, have been maintained. I am not grateful to the Lords that they have not removed them; it would have been a scandal if they had decided to abandon Northern Ireland in that way.
However, I say to the Minister that if we are maintaining those clauses to safeguard Northern Ireland’s position within the UK market, with unfettered access, and the UK customs territory, thereby ensuring no barriers to trade in the form of tariffs and so on, then the means to deliver that must be in place, because it is still under threat, regardless of the agreement reached in the Joint Committee. Some of these issues are under review. Some businesses in Northern Ireland will still be subject to EU tariffs; therefore, there is a tariff barrier between Northern Ireland and GB. The means of safeguarding and delivering on the commitments made in the Bill are therefore important. What I am surprised about, though, is that the Government have accepted the Lords’ removal of the clauses on state aid.
Alan Brown
We all know the Prime Minister does not believe in devolution, and neither does the Leader of the House, who made more derogatory comments about it this morning. In fact, over the years, the Prime Minister’s comments are nothing less than anti-Scottish. I accept that the Government do believe in an abstract of the Union, but more important to them is Westminster sovereignty and the fact that we in the devolved nations should do what we are told and be grateful. It is quite clear that there is a huge resentment that the people of Scotland and the people of Wales vote for Governments who are non-Tory.
If this Government have any scintilla of respect for the Union and for devolution, they would accept these regional amendments that have come back from the House of Lords. Instead, what we have heard from the Minister is platitudes about collaboration and working with the Government, but in actual fact the Government will not allow the devolved Administrations to have consent. They will ignore the legislative consent motion votes in other Parliaments, so, actually, that is Westminster imposing its will on the devolved nations yet again.
Amendment 48 seeks to ensure that any Westminster spend in devolved areas is undertaken with the consent of the devolved Governments. What is there to argue about that? If we are talking collaboration, the Government should just accept this simple, reasonable amendment. The Scottish Tories always tell us that they want both Governments of Scotland to work together—as they call it. We were promised the best of both worlds in 2014. Well, this simple amendment would make a statement about the fact that the Tory Government are willing to work in collaboration with the devolved Administrations and show them the respect that they deserve.
If the Scottish and Welsh Tory MPs vote to strike out the amendment, they should hang their heads in shame, and it would show that it is all bluff and bluster when it comes to respecting devolution. In fact, doing so is confirmation of the Lords assessment that devolution is simply an inconvenience to the Tories and they are ignoring the advice from Lord Dunlop not to use their own votes to overturn these Lords amendments. It is absolutely disgraceful that we still do not know what the shared prosperity fund will look like. Again, the word “shared” seems a bit of a misnomer, given the attitude of the Tory Government. Why are we moving into a consultation phase after all these years? It is a disgrace that they have mucked about and mucked about, and nobody knows what will replace these vital European funds—funds that have helped many regions in Scotland to make up for a lack of spending from Westminster over the years.
If the Government do not agree to the formalisation of common frameworks, once again, that shows there is no real intent to work collaboratively with the devolved Administrations. What is wrong with formalising common frameworks? The Minister saying that it will cause uncertainty beggars belief. It does the opposite of cause uncertainty—it provides a clear way forward for us to work together. It seems to me that, yet again, this is another way for Westminster to impose its will on the devolved Administrations.
We know that there are too many free marketeers in the Government, and the fact that they will not allow state aid to be devolved or to be part of common frameworks suggests to me that there will be a race to the bottom in the future, when this Tory Government pull subsidies. There is a pretence at the moment that the argument with the EU is about how the Government want to provide more state aid—who’s kidding who? We know that in the long run, free marketeer rules will win, so it has nothing to do with supporting industry.
We have had 313 years of the Union and Westminster rule. We have only had 20 years of devolution. It is now clear to more and more people what has had the biggest impact on inequality and holding Scotland back, and it is not the 20 years of devolution. We look forward to independence, because more and more people realise that it is the only way forward.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I rise to support the Lords amendments in respect of devolution. Northern Ireland is allegedly sorted out now, and the international lawbreaking parts of the Bill have gone, but what of Scotland? According to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, businesses in Northern Ireland will enjoy “the best of both worlds”: access to the single market and, at the same time, unfettered access to the rest of the UK market. Presumably this means that when Scotland becomes independent and a member of the European Union, Scotland too could have the best of both worlds: access to the single market and to the rest of the UK market, with no hard border and no infrastructure on the border. We shall see, but one thing is for sure: the Conservative party can never again be allowed to get away with claiming that Scottish independence means that a hard border with England is inevitable.
Scotland has yet to vote for independence, but that is only a matter of time. In the meantime, we want to protect what we have. Scotland did not vote for Brexit, but Scotland did vote for devolution in very significant numbers in 1997. This House should not use Brexit, which Scotland did not vote for, to undermine devolution, which we did vote for. The Lords amendments are designed to protect some of the essentials of the devolved settlement. It is very telling that Lord Hope, who I count as a friend and who is a former Lord President of the Court of Session, former Deputy President of the UK Supreme Court and also a Unionist, said that initially, when he heard SNP politicians talking about a power grab, he thought it was an exaggeration, but after reading the Bill, he agreed with us. That is not a nationalist—that is a Unionist, so Government Members would be wise to listen up.
Others in the Lords did not fall for the Government’s sleight of hand in the Bill either. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, Lord Thomas said yesterday:
“the clause without my amendments would enable the UK Government to spend in devolved fields and bypass the devolved Governments and Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who have been elected to be responsible for those fields. It would, in effect, hollow out the devolution settlements.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1294.]
Lord Adonis warned:
“This Bill is deliberately intended to cut across and undermine the devolution settlements because the Prime Minister does not agree with them”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1294.]
The game’s up, and Government Members should realise that the heads of voters in Scotland do not zip up the back. Devolution is very popular in Scotland across parties. It is supported by the vast majority of voters in Scotland. Even some Scottish Conservatives—some, not all—support the current devolved settlement. Donald Dewar set it out carefully, making a delineation between reserved and devolved powers, and that is what this Bill is driving a coach and horses through. We must not forget today that Scotland’s Parliament—the democratically elected voice of Scotland’s people—has voted against the Bill by a margin of 90 to 28 MSPs.
I say to the Minister that we are sick to the back teeth of the Government’s disingenuous words, saying that they listen to the Scottish Government. Listening is not enough; they have to have respect for the democratic voice of Scotland, which is expressed through our Parliament. Our Parliament has said it does not want this Bill, and if the Government do not listen, then a vote for independence is inevitable. I say, “Bring it on.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To sit down no later than 2.30 pm, Mr Tim Farron.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). The Government’s position throughout this Bill, as it is on every other piece of legislation, is directed at an audience. The audience that was listening to their intentions to break international law was an international audience. While of course it is welcome that those clauses have been withdrawn, it is ludicrous that they were ever on the table in the first place. International opinion of the United Kingdom has been measurably affected by that as a consequence.
The fact that Britain is a country that is prepared to break its word and break international law so flagrantly—for whatever purpose Government Members might think they have behind that—is heard, noticed and remembered. As a consequence, Britain’s standing in the world is reduced, Britain’s influence in the world is reduced and Britain’s sovereignty is reduced. That is why the sovereignty myth being peddled by the Government at the moment is so far off the mark of reality.
I will focus my comments in the moments ahead of me on the issues to do with mutual recognition and the differences between the four nations of the United Kingdom. Mutual recognition is embedded in this Bill and we seek to remove it, because it is about setting the United Kingdom’s formal negotiating position using the standards that are the lowest among the four nations. As we go and have a negotiation on food, farming and other trade issues with other countries, we will use the standards of whichever of the four nations has the lowest as the common standard across the United Kingdom.
That is appalling for two reasons. It is a race to the bottom when it comes to standards in agriculture and in other matters as well, and it is a threat to the integrity and the survival of the United Kingdom. Both those realities hurt my communities in Cumbria, first because of the impact on farming. The fact that the British Government continue to refuse to write into legislation minimum standards—particularly on animal welfare and environmental standards—leaves our farmers open to being undercut by cheap imports from other countries; people talk in particular about the United States, but there are other deals as well.
That is hugely damaging to our proud record of high-quality animal welfare and environmental standards and ethics in this country. Alongside that, the Government’s decision in 28 days or so to start removing a vast chunk of farm incomes in England through the basic payment scheme undermines family farming in this country to the extent that it will reduce our capacity to feed ourselves and fundamentally change the landscape of places such as the Lake District. That is wrong, and we need to ensure that those standards—our proud, high British agricultural standards—are written into statute.
However, from my perspective and that of most people here, it is also massively regrettable in how it undermines the integrity of the United Kingdom. In Cumbria, we share a border with Scotland. Animals raised in Dumfriesshire are sold at market in Cumbria, and animals raised in Cumbria are sold at market in Dumfriesshire. The border is pretty meaningless to most of us on either side of it. To undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom in this way, and to play into the hands of those who would want the United Kingdom to be split up, is utter folly from the Government. Some 95% of Cumbrian farm exports are to the single market, but the single market that matters most to us is the United Kingdom single market. My great fear is that Conservative Members increasingly know little, and care less, about what it would take to keep the United Kingdom together.
I run the risk of offending some people around me, but I say this to the English nationalists on the Government Benches whose modus operandi to win the elections of the past few years has been to blame all the ills of the country on people outside our borders: that has done you a lot of good in terms of electoral results in recent years, but it can happen to you in reverse, as nationalists north of the border point to the nationalists on your Front Bench and decide to make a call that it is time to end the Union. That is why we need to uphold the Lords amendments: because we believe in the future of the United Kingdom.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
A few references to “you” there, Mr Farron—you should know better.
Paul Scully
I appreciate everybody who has taken the time to speak today. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) spoke about the “notwithstanding” paragraphs in the Bill. Clearly, we have made the arrangements. We have found an agreement with the Joint Committee, and I sincerely hope that that will continue through to the next stage, which will be getting a free trade deal, on which the Prime Minister is working very hard with Lord Frost and his counterparts in Brussels. We will always make sure that we look after unfettered access for Northern Ireland into GB, which comes to the points that my hon. Friend made.
Sir William Cash
I did ask for an assurance in general terms that the necessary measures would be taken in primary legislation if things were to go wrong for the future. That is all I am asking for. It is not very much, but it is really important in relation to the potential striking down in legislation.
Paul Scully
I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I think we will give the appropriate measures and protections, whatever form that comes as—if it is indeed needed; I hope that it is never needed in the first place. We will look to make sure that we protect Northern Ireland and its unfettered access.
My hon. Friend talked about state aid rules in Northern Ireland. They will apply to Northern Ireland as agreed under the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, but they are not the same state aid rules that apply today, because there are new flexibilities of service providers. We welcome that agreement in principle in the Joint Committee, which was about managing the risk of reach-back into Great Britain and guards against the Commission taking an extreme or irrational interpretation of article 10 of the protocol. That means that there is no longer a need for the safety net.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) talked about the common frameworks and Scotland’s involvement. I hope I was correct in saying that I believed that the Scottish Government pulled away from discussions about the internal market, not common frameworks. I hope that is clear; if I did mis-speak, that was exactly what I meant to say.
We have now had 90 hours of scrutiny on this Bill across both Houses. I reiterate that I am grateful for how right hon. and hon. Members in this place have debated, scrutinised and engaged on the Bill. I said on Monday and again emphasise that we have been and will continue to be reasonable in discussions on this Bill. Since Monday, we have had a lot of good, positive movement and agreement and we welcome that, but ultimately, Government need to balance this with the need to deliver a Bill that provides the certainty that business wants and needs to invest and create jobs.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Perhaps somebody from the SNP could inform the Chair privately who its Tellers might be, should they go afterwards.
Question put.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 11.
We will not be suspending, because the Dispatch Boxes were sanitised during one of the Divisions.
The Future of the High Street
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the high street.
There is no shying away from the fact that this pandemic has clearly had a devastating impact on the great British high street and on the businesses that occupy it. I have great sympathy with anyone whose business or job has been endangered by this pandemic, and I want to reassure the House that this Government are unwavering in our commitment to support our high streets and town centres in the weeks and months ahead. I am personally very passionate about our high streets and town centres. They are so much more than places to shop. They are where we meet our families, friends and neighbours, and where communities come together to work and to socialise. They are a focal point within our local areas. They are, of course, also home to thousands of people who are just as keen as the local businesses that occupy them to see their high streets bustling and thriving.
Prior to the pandemic, our high streets were already going through a significant evolution, with changing consumer habits and changes to what people are wanting to see on their high streets. People are shopping online more frequently, and our high streets are having to adapt to the 21st century to become more than just retail hubs. Since March, we have seen an acceleration in the trends that our high streets were facing. Online shopping has risen from pre-pandemic levels of about 20% to a high of 33% of total retail sales in May. Footfall has also decreased as a necessary consequence of the effort to protect public health, which is why businesses have been unable to trade as they normally would. We are proud to see so many businesses and communities coming together to support their local high streets. In my own constituency, independent retailers, businesses and local groups have come together in co-ordination with the business-led Rochester city centre forum to provide a covid-safe experience in the run-up to Christmas. Although closed, some outlets have created fantastic window displays and decorations and are offering click-and-collect services and working together to support the high street.
Kelly Tolhurst
I know that a lot of people are keen to speak, so I should perhaps continue a bit further.
We value the support of trade bodies and representative organisations that are working with their members and the Government to plan for recovery. It is clear that covid-19 has dealt a major blow to the high street, as evidenced all too clearly by the well-known retail chains—including Debenhams and Arcadia Group Ltd—that have gone into administration.
The Government have put in place a range of support measures to assist businesses on the high street. We have provided a comprehensive package of support worth £200 billion, including the eat out to help out initiative to help to protect 2 million jobs in hospitality. We have also provided cash grants of up to £25,000 for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses with a rateable value of between £15,000 and £51,000; more than £50 billion in business loans; the coronavirus job retention scheme; and the deferral of income tax payments.
Sir William Cash
My constituency is extremely grateful for the moneys that have been provided for the high street, but does my hon. Friend agree that when consultations are taking place and project developments are being created, people in the high street in places like Cheadle in my constituency require proper consultation and should get proper consultation before matters are taken any further?
Kelly Tolhurst
I agree with my hon. Friend that local high streets are a valuable asset in our local communities and it is absolutely right that local businesses and stakeholders should be consulted and that we should get their buy-in. Any high street development should always be supported by local businesses and stakeholders.
We have acted quickly and our package of economic support is one of the most generous and comprehensive in the world. The Government announced in the spring that the business rates retail discount would be increased to 100% and expanded to all eligible properties across the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors for 12 months. We have sought to bring a much needed breathing space to business tenants by bringing forward a moratorium on commercial evictions and restrictions on statutory demands, and by winding up petitions.
The use of commercial rent arrears recovery has provided landlords and tenants with time and space to agree reasonable adjustments to rents and lease terms, including terms for the payment of accumulated rent arrears. I am pleased that so many stakeholder bodies have signed up to the voluntary code of practice to encourage constructive dialogue between tenants and landlords. We will continue to work urgently to identify further measures of support that can be put in place to assist them during this time.
We recognise that our high streets and the businesses located on them need to adapt to the changing way in which consumers are using high streets, so we are supporting areas by funding investment in infrastructure and place. Our £3.6 billion towns fund and the future high streets fund competition will create jobs and build more resilient local economies and communities as we begin to recover from the impact of coronavirus. We are now in the final stages of assessing the proposals from the shortlisted future high streets fund applicants and expect to announce the outcome of the competition soon. We have brought forward £81.5 million from the towns fund for investment in capital projects that will have an immediate impact. Each of the 101 towns selected to work towards a town deal has received accelerated funding dependent on their population.
The new £4 billion levelling-up fund for England that was announced in the spending review will be open to all local areas and allocated competitively. To support levelling-up opportunity across the country, we will prioritise bids to drive growth and regeneration in places in need—those facing particular local challenges and areas that have received less Government investment in the past.
A call for evidence was published on 21 July for the fundamental review of business rates, inviting stakeholders to contribute their views on ideas for reform in all elements of the business rates system, including future reliefs. Government are now considering the responses to the call for evidence, and the review will conclude in the spring.
We are also ensuring that our planning system is ready to support our high streets and communities in recovering from this pandemic and changing consumer habits. We have introduced reforms that create a new “commercial, business and service” use class, which encompasses a wide range of purposes, allowing businesses to attract people to high streets and town centres. That includes offices, shops, cafés, gyms and other uses that are suitable in town centres. The new class also allows for mixed use, to reflect changing retail and business models. The reforms also create new “learning and non-residential institutions” and “local community” use classes, ensuring that valued local assets such as community shops and libraries are protected. Businesses will have greater flexibility to adapt and diversify more quickly to meet changing needs and circumstances.
However, the success of a high street is about more than just funding. It requires local people to be empowered with the tools and resources they need to help their town centres and high streets adapt for the future. It is about having an ambitious vision for the future that the whole community can buy into. That is why Government are supporting local leadership through the high streets taskforce, which is doing this in four ways: building local authority capacity by providing on-the-ground experts; improving place-making skills through access to training; improving co-ordination nationally and locally, to ensure that high street plans reflect the needs of their communities; and improving the use of data and best practice.
The taskforce is being run by a consortium led by the Institute of Place Management. Over the next four years, it will provide expert guidance to those working in local authorities and business improvement districts, while supporting town centre managers and community groups to help their high streets adapt. In response to the pandemic, the taskforce published a covid recovery framework to inform local places in planning their response to the pandemic. I know that a number of high streets have found this useful and that St Helens, Norwich and Solihull have been among the early users of the framework. The taskforce will be providing in-person expert support to those high streets that need it most, offering expertise on subjects such as planning, design and place making. We continue to explore what more can be done to help our high streets and town centres quickly recover and adapt.
While covid-19 has posed huge challenges for our high streets, we have also seen some inspiring examples of businesses adapting and communities rallying round to support their local independent shops through the pandemic. For some communities, this lockdown has led to a reconnection with the local. We know that footfall has returned to our district centres at a quicker rate than it has in our larger town and city centres, with people wanting to shop and socialise closer to home. Research from PwC and the Local Data Company also suggests that independent shops have fared better than chain stores over the course of the pandemic. That may give a glimpse into the future of our high streets as places of commerce but also unique spaces that reflect the needs of the local community.
That has been underscored by my Department’s experience of running the Great British High Street awards. What linked all our winners was a unique offering and sense of belonging, and it is this sense of local community—this intrinsic link between our high streets, our town centres and our society—that we will re-establish and strengthen as we emerge from this pandemic. I believe that we can renew our mission to help our high streets adapt, not only to support their recovery from the effects of covid-19 but to help them continue to evolve and flourish for generations to come.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
A considerable number of Members have put in to speak, so I am afraid that we will start with a time limit of three minutes for all Back Benchers. If any Back Benchers who are on the call list wish to withdraw, they should get a message to the Speaker’s Office or come to the Chair and inform me. Please do not assume that the list is exactly as it was, as a number of Members have withdrawn already, and if you miss your place, you will be put to the very bottom. I call Steve Reed.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
As today is the first day of Hanukkah, I would like to wish everyone in the Jewish community chag sameach.
I am afraid that the Government are standing by as Britain’s high streets decline. Footfall on our high streets was down by 10% under the Conservatives even before the coronavirus hit, and about one in 10 high street shops were already standing empty. Since 2010, the Conservative Government have presided over the closure of 773 libraries, 750 youth centres, 1,300 children’s centres, and 835 public toilets. This Government are devastating the vibrant high streets that are the heart of our communities and of our British way of life.
Mary Portas, who led a Government review of the future of British high streets, now has this to say about the Government:
“They need to wake up. It’s shameful that they have still not readjusted their thinking on how Amazon and the delivery giants should be paying equivalent rates of tax online. It’s shameful they’re not doing anything about it. Their slowness in understanding, their tardiness, is ridiculous.”
She is angry because the Government have done nothing to address the massive disadvantage that high street businesses face compared with online retailers. Labour has repeatedly called for a root-and-branch review of business rates to make the system fairer and help high street shops to compete with online tech giants. Debenhams has recently gone into liquidation, with a potential loss of 13,000 jobs. Arcadia has gone the same way, putting 12,000 jobs at risk, with the loss of leading brands like Topshop, Burton and Dorothy Perkins from our high streets. Retail is clearly changing as shopping moves online—a process speeded up by the pandemic—so it is all the more astonishing that the Government have done so little to level the playing field between bricks-and-mortar shops and online retailers.
We all owe a debt of thanks to retail workers for all they have done to keep the country going through the pandemic. They have put themselves at risk to keep our shops open and the shelves well stocked, so what a disgrace it is that the Government are rewarding so many of them with job insecurity and job losses. The covid-19 pandemic has deepened the emergency on our high streets. Since the economic crisis began in March, up to 20,000 shops have closed and 200,000 people have lost their jobs in retail and hospitality, but instead of offering the help that is needed, the Government are refusing to properly support businesses under the highest tiers of covid restrictions.
Hospitality businesses and their supply chains are in particular trouble. Some 5,500 pubs and bars have already closed in the 10 years since the Conservatives came to power—that is one pub gone every 14 hours that they have been in government, for a full decade. This sector now urgently needs support to survive; otherwise our high streets will be further blighted with the closure of more pubs, bars and restaurants. After struggling to survive the pandemic for nine months, businesses are now in a far weaker financial position. For many that rely on the Christmas period, trade is dramatically down this year.
It is astonishing that in these circumstances the Government have chosen to cut business support compared with what was available earlier this year. Analysis by the House of Commons Library shows that 99% of hair and beauty salons are receiving less support than in March, along with 95% of cafés, 92% of gyms, and 77% of pubs and restaurants. Do we really want to emerge from this crisis with so many of these vital small businesses closed down or boarded up?
The Government’s planning reforms further threaten the viability of our high streets. Earlier this year, they forced through changes that give developers sweeping powers to permanently remove shops from our high streets, creating dead zones by converting retail units into low-quality flats that can then never reopen again as shops or community spaces. Back in March, the Government promised to fully compensate councils for getting communities through the pandemic, but they broke that promise. That breach of trust leaves councils less able to support the economic recovery in our high streets. According to the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, councils face a £1.1 billion covid funding gap, leading to in-year cuts and job losses at right now, and there is worse to come next April, with a £4 billion funding gap that means more cuts, more job losses, and less support for economic recovery for struggling businesses and struggling high streets.
If that was not bad enough, the Government appear to be on the brink of the greatest act of vandalism ever inflicted on the British economy in peacetime, with the chaos and catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit pushing up costs, cutting off supplies, and closing down exports. The abiding image of this Government will be a boarded-up shop on a rundown high street. The Prime Minister was not joking when he said “eff business”, because that sums up this Government’s entire approach. The Conservative-led Local Government Association estimates that the Government have cut £15 billion from council budgets over the past decade. The towns fund puts back less than a quarter of that devastating loss. It is better than nothing, and we welcome the funding for towns that have received it, but what is less welcome is why so many deserving towns have not benefited at all. Those high streets, and there are hundreds of them, have been left to slide further into decline because Conservative Ministers deliberately carved them out of receiving any funding. Towns such as Heywood, Halifax and Sunderland surely deserve better than this.
There is a better future for our high streets if only the Government would seize it. The British people want their high streets to be vibrant, lively and thriving places that they can feel proud of. There is a better future where high streets can take advantage of the change in shopping habits to break free of the straitjacket of uniformity. We could encourage more small local businesses by levelling the playing field on business rates. We could create more community spaces, instead of forcing the closure of libraries and community centres by continually slashing council funding. We could work with developers to create more shared work spaces and touchdown desk spaces that reduce the need for commuting, instead of creating dead zones where the shops used to be.
In all the darkness of the pandemic, one of the bright spots for many people has been the rediscovery of a strong sense of community. What an opportunity we have to build back better, to reinvent our high streets for the future as the beating heart of those communities, but instead we are stuck in a cycle of levelling down under an incompetent Government without a vision that matches the ambition of the people of this great country.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Such is the depth of feeling on this issue of many right hon. and hon. Members that it has been well over-subscribed. Many may get up to talk about their high streets, but no high street has the international repute of my main high street, Lord Street in Southport, which was the basis on which the Champs Élysées was built—the most glamorous street in the world.
Before I go into further detail on that, may I just add that we have great shopping high streets: Ainsdale, Churchdown and Birkdale. You know that, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you have shopped there yourself and took away some great gifts for the people whom you know.
I would just like to thank the Minister and the Government for all the support that has been given throughout the covid crisis. It has been invaluable to many businesses in enabling them to stay open, and we need to move forward into the future with more sustained support. One thing that we all know—this is absolutely clear—is that the internet is the biggest challenge to our high street. It has already been said that a fifth of sales and a third of retail sales during the pandemic have been online. If we were to reverse that trend, there are things that we need to do. We need to have a look at business rates. Business rates need recalibration because it is absolutely clear that, under the current model, businesses will not be sustainable. If we get to grips with business rates, it gives those businesses on our high streets a thriving chance.
When we look at the future of our high streets, we have not only to look at business rates, but to increase footfall. Getting people into our towns, villages and cities is absolutely vital to their survival. The mess that we see in London, where roads are closed and people are prohibited from going down streets, is happening elsewhere. It is happening in my local area as well. I point out to the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) that my local Labour council is stopping people from going down streets, from getting to the high street and from getting into the places that they want to get to. People want ease of access. Having worked in retail for 20 years, I know that ease of access is the best way to get people into our towns and cities.
I say to the Minister that we do need to intervene when it comes to parking charges. The biggest issue for every retailer in my town is parking charges. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 says that parking charges should be proportionate, and not undermine the vitality of our towns. In my town, those charges do just that, and I want this Government to intervene on that.
We have a town deal, which is great. Not just Conservative towns, but Labour towns, too, will benefit from this significant funding stream. In our town, this will be matched by the private sector, which has committed more than £300 million if we get the £50 million that we put in for.
Last week, we all went out, I hope, to celebrate Small Business Saturday. That should not be an annual celebration; it should be a way of life, and we should all support our local businesses weekly.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I do not think there can be any doubt that high street businesses and workers have suffered immensely throughout this pandemic. Despite support, many businesses have sadly gone under. We have already heard about the calamity that has befallen the Arcadia Group and Debenhams, and I might as well mention the Edinburgh Woollen Mill, where 21,000 jobs are at risk. Those collapses have knock-on effects—the supply companies will lose an estimated £250 million in business from the collapse of Arcadia alone—so the vitality of our high streets is crucial to all of us.
It is a truism to say that many aspects of our lives have gone online during the pandemic—working from home and shopping from home, most obviously. That has given those who have been fortunate enough to do that a better work-life balance, and perhaps it has simply accelerated trends that were already in evidence in how we use our high streets and town and city centres. The pace has been quickened.
The change presents a number of challenges for our infrastructure—most notably, how the transport network is configured—and for the footfall in our town and urban centres. We can expect a great deal of upheaval as the way we use those centres to work, rest and play changes in the time ahead of us. It is therefore imperative that we allow the inevitable transitions that are about to take place to happen in a way that does not leave the centres of our towns, cities and smaller communities entirely at the mercy of market forces, with property assets stranded in the hands of those who are unable to develop them or adapt what they own, or who find themselves hide-bound by planning and development objectives that prevent them from responding appropriately to the new reality.
Direct investment from the Government is one way that we can try to facilitate some of those changes. The Scottish Government have invested £4 million for towns, smaller settlements and business improvement districts, and a further £18 million from its economic stimulus package to add to existing funds in the town centre capital fund. Business improvement districts, which bring together local small businesses to work together in the common interest and improve the overall urban environment, have had a tremendous impact. To bring footfall back, we need to bring people back, create a vibrant streetscape and ensure our towns, villages and city centres are as accessible as they possibly can be for absolutely everyone. We must ensure that the services that we desire to access physically are within easy reach of all, whether they own a car or however they transport themselves about. Everything must be within easy reach and as accessible as it possibly can be.
If we want vibrant urban centres, we need a vibrant economy. The UK economy grew by just 0.4% in October. The SNP has today called for a £98 billion fiscal stimulus to match the scale of those that other equivalent European countries have already put in place. The best way to ensure that businesses recover is to allow them to do what they would ordinarily seek to do, so we need to do all we can to help them survive, thrive, adapt and emerge on the other side.
I will talk about some of the measures that we need. We need to stop money leaving businesses. Business rates have been mentioned already. That is what has allowed many retail, leisure and hospitality businesses to cling on in this time. It is absolutely imperative, notwithstanding the review that the Minister spoke about, that that sort of relief for business costs is allowed to continue.
The Scottish Government are absolutely committed to carrying on with that, but because of the fiscal framework, an equivalent commitment needs to happen in England before that money feeds its way through the Barnett formula to Scotland to allow that to happen. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance in Scotland has written to the Chancellor about that to seek clarity about the approach to non-domestic rates in England and future reliefs. I do not believe that a response has arrived yet, but I hope that a favourable response is forthcoming very soon.
We also need to ensure that money goes to people to maintain demand. It was only after immense pressure and the need for a lockdown right across England that the furlough scheme was extended. Although we obviously all have great hopes for the vaccine, the Government must be absolutely clear that if, heaven forbid, further lockdowns are needed, that support will remain for individuals. The £20 uplift to universal credit must be made permanent. We should also look at increasing statutory sick pay to enable people to buy the things they need and keep that demand in the economy.
I have mentioned the vaccine, which will obviously be key to giving people the confidence to come back into our urban centres. I know that the Government have shown a marked aversion to level playing fields over the last few days, weeks and even hours, but we certainly need one in our retail environment. Online retail has certainly brought many benefits to people, particularly through the pandemic, through home shopping, and it has allowed lifestyle businesses to thrive in better times. However, if we get this wrong and do not rebalance taxation between physical and online retail, it will hollow out our town centres. My party has consistently campaigned to close tax loopholes and end corporate tax avoidance. If we can close those loopholes and get a better balance, we could pay for the consequences of the pandemic without burdening and punishing workers, while also maintaining the health of our high streets.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Given the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about online retail giants not paying their fair share of tax, does he welcome the extensive action that this Conservative Government have taken, introducing a world-leading digital services tax and leading the international work in the OECD that we need to ensure a long-term resolution to make sure the internet giants pay their fair share of taxes?
Richard Thomson
I absolutely welcome anything that ensures a better balance of taxation, and that example shows the importance of co-operating internationally. Much time has been taken up in this House pursuing a theoretical sovereignty, but we may be about to find some of the limits of the practical sovereignty we can get. However, certainly I am all in favour of making people pay what they can in taxation and doing so on a collaborative international basis.
That brings me neatly on to my next point, which is about tax-free shopping. The Government have announced their intention to withdraw tax-free shopping. That will have a deleterious impact on our airports, particularly our regional airports, and also have a massive impact on tourism. Much of the tourism traffic that comes into all parts of the UK is led, at least in part, by the opportunities for tax-free shopping.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point, which I intend to follow up in my speech. Does he agree that the withdrawal of the VAT rebate will affect all parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in Scotland, including firms such as Johnstons of Elgin, where manufacturing and retailing will be affected?
Richard Thomson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I look forward to hearing that aspect of his speech. I believe the change could affect anything up to about 33% of sales for the company he mentions, but overall, as well as imperilling the opportunity to develop routes from regional airports, a total of about 40,000 jobs and over £1 billion of investment could be at risk. It is little wonder that the French financial newspaper Les Echos has argued that the UK is in danger of shooting itself in the foot here.
Earlier I talked about business rates, and wholesalers have also been missed out. They are absolutely critical to the supply chain for many of our smaller communities. They have been given some direct support from the Scottish Government, but have missed out on support from the UK Government. I encourage the UK Government to look at including wholesalers in the support available to that part of the sector.
In conclusion, high streets in communities of all sizes face challenges on a number of fronts. We have heard some from the speakers so far; no doubt we will hear new aspects as the debate continues. But with the right Government support, at local government and national Government levels, our town centres have the opportunity to thrive as places where we work, rest and play, and effect the necessary transitions in how land and buildings are used. In Scotland, we would obviously rather the Scottish Government were able to do all that is necessary in that regard, rather than just some. Following some of our earlier debates, it would be far better if, instead of grabbing powers from Holyrood through the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, the UK Government were instead transferring powers to the Scottish Government, particularly financial powers and borrowing powers, so that they can get on with doing all that is necessary, instead of having to wait for it to happen elsewhere.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. There will now be a three-minute limit on all remaining Back-Bench contributions.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Lockdown has given us all a preview of life without our high street shops, and has brought that shuttered vision closer to becoming our permanent reality. The pandemic has accelerated pressures that were already threatening the future of high street retail, in particular small independent shops. It has also demonstrated that we cannot simply replace high street shops with online commerce; it is self-evident that we cannot get a haircut online.
Online shopping does not have the capacity in storage or delivery to carry the entire retail sector on its back, but we must address its competitive advantage. The digital services tax introduced earlier this year has helped level the playing field, but it does not rebalance the burden of business rates, and although relief has been helpful, businesses in Cheadle would welcome it if the Minister considered a more permanent solution.
To truly thrive, high streets need local communities and local involvement to build the right infrastructure and plan for the future. The future high streets fund and the towns fund, through which Cheadle has already been allocated £500,000 in the accelerated scheme, will help. High streets should be accessible, with parking and electric charging points for the cars of the future and good public transport links. That is why Cheadle’s towns fund bid includes a new station connecting it with nearby communities.
Covid forced businesses and employees to do things differently; by moving out of the office and into home working, communities have rediscovered their local high streets. For many, the shift to home working will be permanent. That presents an opportunity for future high streets and businesses in the Zoom towns of the future to do things differently too.
I do not believe that we should rush to restore the pre-pandemic status quo, as it was not working before for many of our high streets, but we need to build back better and reimagine for the future. Retail expert Bill Grimsey has used his 45 years of retail experience to offer thought-provoking ideas for making our high streets succeed amid the tech revolution. His reviews have informed the reports of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, of which I am a member. They highlight the importance of local authorities, viewing high streets as community hubs bringing together not just retail but entertainment, the arts, leisure, health and education. That will require support for our arts and culture sectors, and the funding we have already given must be followed up as we emerge from the pandemic.
It is important that we get behind our local high streets, our local high street shops and our businesses. Without them, the vision of closed-down communities and closed-down high streets will be a permanent feature of our local economies, and we must avoid that.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson).
Over the past 10—even 20—years, we have seen the rise of out-of-town retail parks, supermarket superstores and, of course, internet shopping. As we have heard from several other Members, now is the time to look at business rates, at potentially introducing an internet sales tax and at addressing parking charges around high streets.
One solution for creating demand on our high streets is to have more people living around them. In the Black Country, there is a real need to protect our green spaces as we build the extra homes that we require. We can achieve that with a brownfield-first policy, but also by getting more developments and converting the upper floors of retail spaces around our high streets. It is very sad that in Wolverhampton our beautiful department store Beatties will soon close its doors, but it will survive as mixed retail and residential accommodation.
To future-proof our high streets, they need to offer things we cannot access from other retail options. Service industries continue to prosper—beauty salons, hairdressers, pubs and cafés—and I would like to see the service offer expanded. Modern consumers are more likely to spend their money on experiences and socialising, perhaps learning a skill or attending an event. I would like to see bakeries offering cake decorating classes and people heading to the high street for music lessons or choir practices. They can evolve as community hubs, as well as retail spaces.
This Small Business Saturday, I met Andy Street at Three Tuns in Oxley to talk about regeneration and the need for high streets to be attractive places to spend time in. I warmly welcome the Government’s towns fund, which will help to regenerate our cities; Wednesfield in my constituency should benefit. I would like to especially thank Jay, Nicola and Max at Elegant Frames, Lavandula Blu and Juicy Fruits—local businesses in Wednesfield—for giving up their time to contribute to the high street fund debate. They are typical of our fantastic small businesses.
Surrounding such existing businesses with an increased leisure, retail and social opportunity will protect them for the future. They offer us a level of customer service we do not find in large retailers. I thank many of my small businesses, which were absolute heroes during the pandemic. They innovated with telephone orders and home delivery to vulnerable people who needed to stay at home. If this year has taught us anything, it is the need for human contact and interaction. I am hopeful that, as we recover, we will value our high streets as community spaces and that they will prosper in future.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Ballymena in my constituency has for years traded under the strapline of the best shopping town in the country. I have the pleasure of sitting on the town centre committee with many retailers from the town centre, and I cannot help but be enthused by their undiminishable spirit and desire to make sure that, no matter what crisis is thrown at them, they will rise above it. They have demonstrated that throughout the crisis period faced by the retailers on our high streets. We have to salute them for that spirit of optimism and for keeping going on, no matter what.
Those retailers tell me very clearly, however, that there is a huge crisis; we have already heard from other Members about footfall being down considerably. I am told by 80% of the businesses in the town centre in my constituency that takings are down by over 70% during this period. Put simply, traders cannot afford to continue if that trend is allowed to continue. Our town centre has turned very quickly into a place where we have empty shop units, which look like missing teeth from a sad face. Whenever we see that, it shows there is a huge crisis in the town centre.
We also see the Government spending money on gimmicks. I drove up a street in Belfast the other day. Huge roadworks were going on, with a road sign saying, “New road layout in operation for social distancing traffic”. I kid you not. I have retailers in my constituency saying, “Spend the money, but spend it sensibly. Don’t put it into rubbish like that.” Let us see this money being invested properly in our high street.
There is absolutely no doubt that covid has had many unintended consequences. Unfortunately, it has, in many ways, turbo-charged the potential demise of the high street. People have moved on to the virtual high street and are spending their money there. We want to make sure that our high streets get back their café culture: that culture of being able to shop there, of allowing charities to collect money, and of being a real part of the community and having that social interaction.
I therefore ask the Minister to put in place a strategy, a plan that puts: banks behind the eight ball and makes them wish to help retailers; addresses the issue of rate relief long term; encourages and champions the development of our high street; promotes people living in our town centres, as has already been said; and sees their growth once again. We stood and said, “Let’s save the NHS.” Retailers want to hear the Government now saying, “Let’s save our high streets.”
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I wish to devote the bulk of my speech to dealing with the decision by the Treasury to withdraw duty-free shopping in this country and VAT rebates, the so-called VAT RES, or, as some in the popular press have dubbed it, the “tourist tax”. I fully support the Chairman of the Treasury Committee’s call for a comprehensive reassessment of the matter. Indeed, in its hearing on 1 December, the OBR said it had given the policy its highest possible uncertainty rating.
The OBR also said it had no confidence in the Treasury numbers, that HMRC had no data of its own on the cost of VAT RES, that HMRC was wrong to assume that introducing a 20% tax would have no impact on visitor behaviour and that the OBR had assumed a price inelasticity of 1.9. Finally, the OBR said that there had been no consideration of the knock-on impact on associated sectors such as hotels, and no taking into account of any falls in VAT from fewer and shorter trips from wealthy visitors to this country. We must be crazy to want to deter wealthy overseas visitors from coming here to stay in our hostelries and from spending a lot in our shops.
There is a common perception that this measure only affects Oxford Street and Bond Street; in fact, as I said to the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), it affects the entire United Kingdom. It will affect companies such as Mulberry, Burberry, Church’s, Johnstons of Elgin in his constituency and, in fact, the whisky industry in Scotland. That is losing jobs. It is estimated, as he said, that up to 40,000 jobs across the UK could be lost by this decision, which will affect regional airports, manufacturing in Blyth, Yorkshire and Somerset and high-value shopping areas such as Edinburgh, Dundee, London, Manchester and Leeds.
I call on the Treasury to think very hard about this decision. Even if the hon. Member for Gordon and I are wrong, and the decision does not cost 40,000 jobs, it may still cost half that—20,000 jobs. The Red Book states that the decision may cost half a billion pounds—the industry does not think it will—but that is chickenfeed compared with the loss of those jobs.
In the second part of my speech, I will speak to my constituency. In Cirencester, the biggest town in my constituency, 41 shops have closed or are about to close. In all my small town centres, half a dozen shops are going to close because of covid—that is about 60 shops, at least. As I did in a question in the House last week, I call upon the Minister and all tiers of central and local government to come together to have a massive exodus on to our streets when it is covid safe to do so. That can be done through a range of measures. The Minister was right. We are pleased that the Government have put so much money into our high streets through the towns fund, but we also want other measures such as car parking, broadband and rates reform.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
This has been a terrible year for our high streets, with covid-19 restrictions affecting over 95% of the UK, and many people working from home and choosing to shop online. A perfect storm has formed, which has forced many high street shops, pubs, restaurants and cafés to close and has left others to struggle. We should remember that our high streets were struggling even before anyone had ever heard of covid-19. In the seven years up to the end of 2019, footfall in our high streets had fallen by 10%. Over the past decade, there has been a 21% rise in online retail sales, which have soared to 33% of all sales during the pandemic.
Last Friday, I visited a florist, a fishmonger and a delicatessen—all small independent businesses in my constituency of Enfield, Southgate—and they told me they were struggling. Some of their concerns, aside from accessing the covid-19 business grants, included business rates, high rents, unfair competition from online competitors and the physical state of high streets.
We should remember that going to the local high street to shop or eat was never just a transactional activity; it also had a social side to it. It was a focal point for the local community, and it needs to become that once again. The whole high street experience needs to be radically different from online shopping. I am a big fan of pop-up shops, but they often have to overcome bureaucratic obstacles to set up. The state of the high street also needs to be improved. Local councils are best placed to deliver both those asks.
I heard the Minister talk about the local high streets taskforce. The £3.6 billion towns fund is welcome, although it will not help all towns, but when compared to the £15 billion that the Local Government Association estimates has been cut from local authority budgets in the past decade, it is a case of putting a sticking plaster over a gaping wound.
As consumer habits evolve and change, the high street also needs the flexibility to change, too. That is why I urge the Government to rethink any relaxation of planning laws and permitted development rights to make it easier to convert retail and office space into accommodation. To make our high streets sustainable, there needs to be a critical mass in footfall. By reducing the number of retail units, that critical mass hits a tipping point beyond which there is no return. The Government have said much about levelling up, but unless they level up taxation for online transactions, the high street will forever be at a disadvantage, unable to compete with the online tech giants.
In conclusion, our high streets are struggling and we need urgent action to support them, not only through the covid pandemic, but beyond. To do that, we need to support not only our small retailers and the hospitality sector, but local councils and communities. We need to have a long-term vision for our high streets, and make sure that the one in 10 empty shopfronts is open and ready for business, allowing our high streets to thrive once again.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Cheadle, in my constituency, also falls within Staffordshire Moorlands District Council. I asked for Cheadle to be included in the Government high street project, and I am glad that was agreed. However, SMDC has decided to package an additional set of contentious objectives into the mix outlined in its Cheadle town centre projects report to its cabinet on 6 October. This includes many of our main community assets, with the prospective closure of the South Moorlands leisure centre and of the community Cheadle Hospital, and prospective housing on our town centre car parks. I asked before the cabinet meeting for proper consultation, but my request to have a statement read out was refused. I proposed a local referendum on all this. The district council commissioned two sets of consultants in 2016, without discussion or engagement with the affected community. The lack of transparency on the brief and objectives used to commission these reports and on the full reports themselves is of great concern.
What is clear is that a plan from 2016, predating the reports, does not align with Cheadle’s community aspirations. The reports have cost £60,000, without proper consultation, and it is taxpayers’ and my voters’ money that has paid for them. The cabinet at SMDC has produced a stakeholder panel and delivery board within the prescribed set of limited options. The reports prescribe a stakeholder panel that omits key users of the facilities and is subservient to the delivery board; it contains only one member of the stakeholder panel, so the outnumbering is at least three to one. The delivery board has priority over the stakeholders. There is a set of prescribed options extracted from the yet-to-be-seen full reports. There is no assessment of the costs or environmental impact of demolition. There is already a petition of 4,400 signatures for the retention of the leisure centre. I ask the Minister to take appropriate steps to ensure and guarantee proper consultation for my constituents, and to hold SMDC to account. It is part of my constituency. I have two other councils in my area, Stafford Borough and Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, and I have not had difficulty with them in this respect. I ask the Minister to take note and ensure that value for taxpayers’ money is properly achieved and that we have proper consultation. That is what we are asking for, because if we can have proper consultation, these projects—this levelling up—will all work, because people will know that they are getting the results that they have expected. It is terribly simple; it is just called proper consultation. Can we make sure we get it?
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Let me take a moment to praise those of my constituents and elsewhere who are in the frontline of retail and our high streets; it is a rewarding job but it can be tough. I spent many years as a retail employee on the shop floor, but I cannot imagine the difficulties they have had to face this year.
Without doubt it has been an incredibly difficult time for those working on the high street, and for businesses there. In the highlands, some 90% of registered businesses are small businesses. They are not just places we go to shop, be entertained and enjoy ourselves; they are absolutely part of the fabric of what we have in our high streets, towns and villages, and in the city they are much loved institutions. We are talking about innovative people who develop businesses that always give us a warm welcome. Obviously, they are joined by national retailers on the high streets, but with the recent demise of some of the big players they lose the opportunity for additional footfall. So we need in future to concentrate heavily on what we do to provide support. This has now become an urgent issue for us all to pay attention to.
We have heard time and again in the Chamber that the demise of the high street is not new and that it is something that we have seen coming, but it has been accelerated to the nth degree. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), who spoke about the Scottish Government having done everything they can to provide necessary support. There is a madness in cancelling the duty free allowances from the UK Government, and they must take more measures so that we can take more action ourselves, especially over simple changes to the borrowing rules to help those who need it.
The high street is not dead. It simply needs to evolve. In my constituency, independent retailers are some of the best examples of innovation, and they are reaching out to their customers—many through their own websites now. I urge us all to do what we can. I hope that the light at the end of the tunnel will be us becoming more conscious consumers. We want to support the right businesses doing the right thing. Ethical and local purchasing, and an increased awareness of our own carbon footprint, should naturally drive us to our own independent retailers. There is lots that the UK Government can do. The Scottish Government must do more. Local authorities must work together with business communities, developers and residents to redesign our high streets, and businesses themselves should be recommending each other to other businesses.
There is much more I could say, but three minutes is not enough to cover this subject in detail. We must all do more to support the high street and retailers in our local communities.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
As everyone has acknowledged, high streets have had a tough time for several years because of the shift to online shopping, and that trend has been intensified by the covid outbreak. Throughout my time in Parliament, I have tried to campaign in support of local town centres such as High Barnet, New Barnet, East Barnet, Hampden Square, Whetstone, Friern Barnet and all the other small shopping parades in my constituency. I pressed for reductions in business rates, and was pleased to be able to help persuade the previous Chancellor, Philip Hammond, to do that in two successive Budgets. But I do think that the Government need to go further to reform the system in order to reduce business rates for small independent retailers, and to ensure that the big online retailers pay their fair share of tax.
I welcome the introduction of the digital services tax and the international work being led by the UK Government on this important issue, but if our high streets are to survive and thrive, we need urgently to get to the end of this covid crisis. The Government’s programme of covid support has been bigger than anything ever attempted in our nation’s history, including an 18-month business rates holiday, furlough for 9.6 million jobs and £11 billion in business grants. But the only way to safeguard the future of our high streets is to get hospitality businesses fully reopened, especially the wet pubs, which have suffered the greatest restrictions over the longest period. We now have rapid mass testing and the delivery of the vaccine, so I urge Ministers to get covid restrictions lifted the moment that it is safe to do so, including the controversial 10 pm curfew. Let people get back to the pub for a few drinks with their friends and family once again—and please, please, please do not put London into tier 3.
If our high streets and town centres go into terminal decline, it would be a huge loss to our society and our communities. If we value them, we need to use them. Therefore, I encourage everyone, in a covid-secure way, to head out to their local shops, restaurants and pubs, both in the run-up to Christmas and in the months to follow. Our local businesses and high streets need us. It is time to back Barnet and give them our support.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I thank my union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, for campaigning so powerfully to support our high streets, particularly the retail workers, who are all too often among the lowest paid and employed on precarious contracts. As a former retail worker on the shop floor, I take a great deal of interest in the future of Britain’s high streets and the health and prosperity of our town and city centres.
This is a crucial debate, at a time when our high streets have been stretched to breaking point by the latest lockdown and by the failure of this Government to provide meaningful financial support, resulting in the closure of tens of thousands of businesses, millions being forced into unemployment and the deepest recession in our history. The unique character of the high street is important to our communities, and its survival is vital for our local and regional economies.
Let us take Stockport market in my constituency, where people have been trading for more than 750 years, and which can trace its history back to the middle ages. It is part of the fabric of our town; if hon. Members are ever in Stockport, it is well worth visiting the beautiful Market Hall when it is in full flow on trading days, and taking time to speak to the traders who make the town tick. I often stop by O’Mara’s café to speak to the owner, John, when I am out and about in the constituency, as well as those working so hard in Stockport’s Market Hall.
Indoor markets such as the one in Stockport are full of small, independent traders, who make our communities unique and offer a diverse alternative to the clone towns that we have seen spring up across the UK in recent years. Stockport Council has an exciting vision for our town centre, with a £1 billion investment programme that will see new homes, new forms of transport, leisure outlets and jobs. I pay tribute to the council staff who have worked so hard to make that a reality. If hon. Members are not aware of the Stockport Mayoral Development Corporation, they should look it up; it is a blueprint for the future of town centres, with mixed retail and housing.
Unfortunately, the reality is that without meaningful support, the efforts of council staff will only delay the inevitable. The lack of support for these traders from this Government since the start of the covid pandemic is nothing short of scandalous. The grants and furlough scheme have proved to be little more than a drop in the ocean, leaving the vast majority of small businesses and traders struggling with rent payments and fixed costs. It should come as little surprise, then, that USDAW researchers revealed that there have been more than 200,000 job losses and 20,000 store closures this year alone in the retail sector.
The sad demise of the high street is the result of an unlevel playing field rigged in favour of online retailers, who have little in the way of overhead costs such as shop rents and are able to undercut high street retailers. The recent collapse of Arcadia Group put 12,000 jobs at risk and further hollowed out our high street. That followed the closure of Sainsbury’s on Warren Street in my constituency, which saw a further 87 hard-working staff put at risk just days before Christmas and the new year, despite Sainsburys’ having announced record profits in recent months. I am pleased to hear other hon. Members suggest an online sales levy, which could be set at 1% of online sales and would raise around £1.5 billion. The money generated by that could help to offset a cut in retail business rates of around 20%.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The need to rejuvenate our high streets is an issue that I am sure unites this House across party and across regions, whether we represent small towns or a major metropolis. I also think there is probably a fair amount of consensus about how to do that. I will talk briefly about my vision for high streets and about business rates and the VAT RES.
The reality, as many colleagues have said, is that the high street is changing and there are many shops that, sadly, will not be viable going forward, so we need to recreate the concept of the high street. That will mean more leisure, more hospitality and, indeed, even more housing. The high street needs to become a destination and an experience, rather than simply a shopping event.
Turning to business rates, I believe we need fundamental reform—indeed, I believe we need a significant reduction in business rates. If we look back to 1990, business rates and corporation tax were both at 35%. Corporation tax is now at 19%, but business rates are at 51%. There is no rationale for that discrepancy. If we think about it, business rates are a fixed cost; they have nothing to do with the profitability of a business. I strongly recommend that the Treasury review business rates, and I think doing so would be in the Treasury’s long-term interests, because we need to preserve jobs on our high street. As the Chancellor says, it is all about “jobs, jobs, jobs”.
In my own constituency, we are particularly affected by business rates. The one tiny borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the neighbouring borough of Westminster make up 10% of the entire country’s business rates, just because our property values are so high. However, the cash flows in our shops are basically the same as the cash flows in shops all around the country, so we need that review. I have only 20 seconds left, so I just want to say that I strongly urge the Government to review the VAT retail export scheme. At a time when we are global Britain looking out, we need to be attracting international visitors to our high streets, our hotels and our restaurants. Our high streets have hope, but they need our support.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The town and village centres in South Lakeland, in the lakes and in the dales and the communities around, them are spectacular places. They are part of our hospitality and tourism offer, as well as serving the communities that are permanently with us, but the impact on hospitality and tourism in the last nine months has been colossal, and the impact on the town and village centres of the south lakes has also been colossal.
The health of the retail, hospitality and tourism sectors in those towns and villages is absolutely essential, and as we move through the next few months towards what is hopefully the conclusion of the covid crisis, I want to urge the Government to be far more generous towards those businesses, because many of them are at risk and many have already gone out of business. I have seen a sixfold increase in unemployment in my constituency. At one stage, we were the furlough capital of the United Kingdom. Those businesses in our town and village centres throughout South Lakeland are healthy and have a future, and I would like the Government to back them so that when the recovery comes, we have not dead businesses that are empty and unable to step up to the plate, but lively, vibrant businesses that are ready to lead the recovery.
I join those who are saying that business rates are crucial. They really are, and the Government should not pat themselves on the back too much over the digital sales tax. Business rates net £25 billion a year. The digital sales tax, according to the Government’s best estimate, will raise £0.5 billion a year. What we need is the full-scale abolition of business rates, their replacement by taxes on revenue and sales, and measures to ensure that the online giants are no longer being subsidised by independent shops in our communities up and down this country. I was talking to a constituent of mine, a business person who owns a number of businesses. He told me that the rateable value of one of his premises, which he is having to close, was £250,000. The rent that he pays on that business is a fifth of that. This distorts the price of operating physically in our town and village centres. That is why business rates must be abolished, and this is the moment to do it.
I also want to make the point that while the independents are crucial—we have loads of them in the south lakes—so are the chains. When Beales closed down in Kendal, it removed footfall from the rest of the community as well, so let us make sure we support our high streets and town and village centres for our independents, but also for our chains.
Finally, in rural communities such as mine, where one in four people work for themselves, the economy is like an ecosystem. The health of the town and village centres—their poor health at times—is made worse by the fact that 4,500 people in my community are being excluded from support by this Government. The Government’s failure to back those people, many of whom who run their own businesses and who should be the backbone of any recovery, is costing them and their families, and it is also costing our town and village centres.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
We used to be a nation of small shopkeepers. I no longer think that is the case, but thank goodness for our wonderful Asian community who keep all our little shops going.
When I was the Member of Parliament for Basildon, we had the largest covered shopping centre in Europe. Then that accolade moved to Thurrock Lakeside. Then it went to Bluewater, and then to Gateshead, but it is no longer really cool to have covered shopping centres.
In our household, I tend to do the supermarket shopping, and the reason for that is that I like to see what I am buying and I like my bargains. But like everyone else, we have been hit by the double whammy of online retail shopping and the effects of the coronavirus pandemic.
Amazon flights come into Southend airport. We have five of them during the night, so they are not doing local residents much good because they are disturbing them. They are wonderful for Amazon, of course, but Amazon, along with other large online retailers, has taken advantage of the pandemic to grow its business while still avoiding paying taxes or just paying a fraction of the taxes it should, based on the money generated by its UK sales. Our Government should certainly see if they can apply a bit more pressure. High streets, Southend included, have more and more empty shops—we cannot exist just on charity shops—and although the business rates holiday has helped, it needs to be extended beyond March.
Independent retailers should be at the heart of any high street, and I am privileged to have the Broadway in Leigh in my constituency. My predecessor Paul Channon, and his father Chips Channon, used to shop regularly in Leigh Broadway with the late Princess Margaret. We have a wonderful range of quirky, creative and unusual shops and galleries, which attract visitors from all over Essex. As in other colleagues’ constituencies , however, department stores are difficult to sustain now, and our high street was hit when we lost Keddies. Losing Debenhams is another big blow.
Local councils need to do more to assist the retail industry. Southend council has led the way by offering free parking for shoppers in the run-up to Christmas. Convenient parking in high streets is vital to continued success, as the majority of shoppers who visit those businesses physically tend to be older people who do not wish to shop online—we cannot all shop online, frankly. Their needs should be recognised, and the drive to ban the car from shopping centres should be reversed.
In order to maintain a thriving local retail economy, the Government and local councils should work together to ensure that the business climate and the infrastructure are there to support it. In Southend, there are plans to concentrate the retail outlets in a smaller area, and to have some high-quality housing, but the best thing that the House of Commons can do is to join together and shop locally.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Like many other hon. Members, earlier this year on Independents’ Day, I spent the day visiting local shops in my community: businesses such as Stobo’s fruit and vegetable shop in Crawcrook, Simply Local in Sunniside or the Paris Dress House in the Metrocentre—a whole range of them. Last Friday and Saturday, Small Business Saturday, I visited places such as TLC Laundry Services on the high street in Birtley. Unlike many constituencies, Blaydon has many small towns and many small parades of shops. It is vital that we do not forget those smaller groups of shops when we talk about our high streets, because they are the centre of our local communities.
I am particularly keen to talk about retail and shopping in the high street, because in my constituency of Blaydon, 28% of jobs are in the retail sector—I used to say that it was about a quarter, but the latest figure from the Library shows that it has increased as a proportion—and there are many more than that in hospitality on our high streets. So our smaller retail centres are hugely important, although in Blaydon we also have the Metrocentre, which, if I may correct the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), I believe is still the largest covered shopping centre. That, too, is hugely important to us for jobs, although it is going through some difficult times, like the rest of retail.
In fact, the House of Commons Library tells me that there are 520 retail sites across Blaydon, centred in Blaydon, Birtley, Whickham, Ryton, Crawcrook and Sunniside, each with a range of retail, leisure and hospitality. As we have heard, all of them face challenges from the internet and covid-19. It is vital that we support those businesses to keep going. I also want to say something in support of charity shops, because they are now an important part of our high street and themselves face difficult times because of covid-19.
Finally, the retail workers who work in those shops are key workers. They are the people who were on the frontline, ensuring that we got the food. They stocked the shelves so that we were able to carry on during the lockdown, and that was often without recognition or a lot of safety features. Today, I hope that we will recognise the work of those shop workers in keeping our communities going.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
As the Minister so rightly said, our high streets are not just economic units that provide much-needed prosperity and create valuable jobs; they are at the heart of our communities. They are key to local identities and they bring people together. When our high streets and town centres are strong, our communities are stronger. When our high streets struggle, it puts additional pressures on our communities. We see this in high streets around my constituency, whether it is in Kingswinford, Brockmoor, Pensnett or Netherton, but perhaps the struggles facing our high streets and town centres can best be seen in Brierley Hill, the largest town centre in Dudley South.
When Brierley Hill high street grew and thrived either side of the second world war, the local economy was based largely around the Marsh & Baxter sausage factory in Brierley Hill and the Round Oak steelworks. As those two major employers declined through the ’70s—the steelworks was replaced by the intu Merry Hill shopping centre in the mid-1980s—instead of there being a large customer base, there was suddenly competition on the doorstep, which again provided enormous numbers of jobs but put further pressures on high streets. Since then, even Merry Hill has faced increasing competition from the move to online retail and the pressures that that has brought.
If high streets such as Brierley Hill are going to succeed, they need to be able to adapt to modern shopping trends and the realities of the economy in the 21st century, not what we might wish we could turn our local economies back to. This is where the future high streets fund is so important, and it is why I think that Brierley Hill’s bid for that fund is such a strong one. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to visit Brierley Hill with me to see why it is such a strong bid and so desperately needed.
Our high streets will need to be able to offer something that online retail cannot. That means an experience. A large part of that is hospitality, and, as the Minister knows and has heard, hospitality has faced particular problems through this pandemic. It is important that it is allowed to reopen as soon as it safely can, but short-term support is needed. In particular, as we look at Christmas, it seems ludicrous that we are sending families together, in household bubbles of three households, into the most dangerous places—private homes—instead of allowing them to mix in those three household bubbles in well regulated hospitality venues.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I spent Small Business Saturday celebrating small businesses in Bath, but this is a very challenging time for our high streets. Many landlords are trying their best. British Land, which owns the SouthGate shopping centre in Bath, has deferred £40 million of rent and cancelled £3 million in rent owed by its smaller retailers and restauranteurs, but the council, which is also a major landlord, cannot do the same. The money that it receives from rents helps to pay for social care, bin collections and investing to make Bath a net zero city.
The truth is that covid-19 has merely accelerated changes that were already taking place, and if we want to give shops and high streets a future and are serious about saving retail jobs, we must fix what is not working. The problem is overhead cost differences between running a high street business and running an out-of-town online business. It is cheaper to sell online or, to put it another way there is not a level playing field, and that needs fixing.
The pandemic has shown us the great social value of our shared spaces. The report “Health on the High Street”, which was co-authored by the NHS, says that our experience since covid has galvanised the idea of the high street returning as a community hub. We need to think differently about how we design and create vibrant, thriving high streets. Not only do we need, therefore, an immediate reset of a level playing field between the high street and online businesses, but Government must start to recognise the community benefit of our high street. There has been a lot of discussion about the mental health damage from the pandemic, and I am sure that high streets will play an important part in the future wellbeing of our citizens.
In Bath, the council has done everything it can to support small businesses, but there is a limit to what is possible without further support from central Government. I ask once again for the Government to follow through with their promise to local authorities, so that they do not have to choose between supporting their high street and providing essential services.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
This Government must continue to expand the agenda for our high streets. Having left the EU and, soon, the transition period, we have a unique opportunity to frame a radical new agenda regarding reform of the planning system, the rate system and VAT and encouraging innovation. I know that the Government are focusing closely on what they can do to provide better opportunities for our small independent businesses, but I want them to do more. I want to see the Government broaden the focus of their levelling-up commitments to consider how best to support smaller towns and high streets, such as Ashbourne, Bakewell, Matlock and Wirksworth in my constituency. It is important that the areas that do not benefit from the Government’s excellent headline schemes, such as the towns fund, are still considered in their plans and objectives.
On the high streets of Derbyshire Dales, we have a fantastic, diverse range of businesses such as Hambridges Butchers in Matlock, the Bakewell Cheese Shop, Quirky Antiques in Matlock, Peak District Yarns in Tideswell, the Green Man complex in Ashbourne and, last but not least, Carly Hair in Wirksworth. These businesses are the backbone of the high street and need our backing. These are hard-working entrepreneurs. They need to be free of red tape, and they need to be encouraged to thrive. We need to abolish car parking fees in this sort of town environment, and we need broadband everywhere, even in rural high streets.
Following our departure from the EU, it is our responsibility here to help our small businesses, because they need to be free to help themselves. I hope that this Government and this House will take a lead in encouraging national support for British foods, services and products. I have stuck to my time limit this time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have one final plea: please can we get Derbyshire Dales out of tier 3 soon?
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
My home city of Coventry was placed in the most restrictive tier, tier 3. That news came after weeks of steadily declining transmission rates, and my constituents cannot understand why their high street businesses are suffering from financially crushing restrictions when in places such as London, where covid rates have risen steadily for weeks, businesses are only under tier 2. Coventry’s high street matters just as much as Oxford Street, and that truth must be reflected in how the Government choose to apply covid-19 restrictions, instead of the last-minute, non-uniform way they have done it so far.
While it is true that the high street faces difficulties due to a long-term shift in the way that people shop, many high street businesses are in less immediate danger of being supplanted by modernising trends than they are by the lack of pandemic-related support. As Coventry has opened more museums, restaurants and other high street businesses, the Telegraph Hotel was meant to open in October to accommodate an expected increase in tourism. After lockdown-related delays in its opening, it had to stay closed because of tier 3 restrictions and cancel the hundreds of reservations already made through Christmas. The Telegraph spent millions of pounds to not only preserve the beautiful post-war newspaper building it occupies but to construct outdoor terrace space to make it covid-safe. Concerned about the uncertainty of future guidelines and unable to access covid funds, its business is suffering.
Businesses such as the Telegraph are not just part of the high street; they attract customers to their neighbour businesses as well. We must do what we can to support them and not hang them out to dry. An antique sleigh ride outside the Transport Museum is an annual Coventry high street attraction. Because of the pandemic, sleigh rides will not be feasible this year. However, one businessman in Coventry invested £50,000 in a virtual reality sleigh, so that people out shopping could take covid-safe turns on the VR sleigh ride. Unfortunately, under tier 3 restrictions, he was told to cancel the operation.
It is of course crucial to ask what we can do to ensure the future of our high streets. However, in my city, resilient business owners with dedicated business improvement districts and networks of supportive neighbours have already been coming together to find ways to preserve the experience-driven businesses that keep high streets at the centre of our community. Perhaps one of the most important things we can do to help them is not to stifle them in their efforts. Moving forward, I call on the Government to provide a business support package that reflects the level of business need and the severity of restrictions in different areas.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Coventry city centre is the beating heart of the city—a place that provides community, culture and character—but, like other city centres, it is struggling. Long-running trends of empty high streets have been exacerbated by this pandemic. Just before it hit, IKEA announced the closure of its flagship store in the city, and now it has been joined by the likes of Debenhams in facing closure. Across the country, more than one in eight high street shops now stand empty. Last year, 57,000 retail jobs were lost; this year, the figure is 200,000. While Coventry City Council is investing heavily in the city centre, right now shops, pubs and restaurants are struggling under tier 3 restrictions. I voted against the Government’s measures, in part because the economic support is totally inadequate. So again, I say to the Government: give businesses and people in tier 3 the financial support they need to weather this storm.
While this pandemic has pushed workers into poverty and forced small businesses to close, for mega-corporations and their super-rich owners it has been an opportunity to exploit. They are using this public health crisis to entrench their dominance, drive out competition and grow their obscene wealth. Take, for example, Amazon and its billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos. Now with a corporation worth more than $1.5 trillion, Bezos’s wealth has soared since March. It is up $66 billion in the last eight months, meaning that he could give every single Amazon worker a bonus of $105,000 and he would still be as rich as he was at the start of this pandemic.
This grotesque wealth and Amazon’s growing dominance are of course connected with our struggling high streets, because Amazon has not got where it is by playing fair —quite the opposite, in fact. While workers and small businesses pay their tax, Amazon’s tax dodging is pretty legendary. Just last year, on revenues in excess of £13 billion, Amazon paid just £14 million in corporation tax. Its profits are up 35%, but its tax bill just by 3%. This is not a level playing field, so it is no surprise that small businesses and high streets cannot compete. Its employment practices are no better. From being forced to urinate in bottles to meet targets to almost daily calls to the emergency services to treat exhausted staff, Amazon’s workers describe being treated like “robots”. It is their labour that makes the company’s wealth, but it is Bezos who takes the wealth. To level the playing field, it is time we put an end to these unfair practices. It is time Amazon paid its fair share of tax, respected workers’ rights and paid a fair share. For the sake of our small businesses, workers and the public purse, it is time to make Amazon pay.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I would like to thank retail workers across the country who, while the rest of us retreated to the safety of our own homes, rolled up their sleeves, went out there, applied the restrictions and got on with it.
I earned my spurs at Woolworths, and I am only too well aware of the fall of our high street giants. I have the honour of co-chairing the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail, and, having met some of the retailers, I have seen at first hand the challenges they face, but also the incredible passion they have to find solutions to these problems. Our high streets and town centres are changing, but continue to have an important role at the heart of our communities. They are a focal point that brings people together and gives our settlements identity, and are the place where many youngsters get their first job.
There is no denying that our high streets need to adapt, change and be repurposed, and I am glad that the future high streets fund and the town deals are allowing this to happen. Retailers across the country have welcomed the incredible package of support available during the crisis. I am glad that the Government have committed to a fundamental review of the age-old, all-consuming issue of business rates. The business rates holiday has been a lifeline for many retailers, and we must not whack them with the full pelt of business rates in April. We need to act now to assure retailers about what will happen next year, but also look at how we fundamentally reduce the long-term burden on our high streets. We need to be ambitious in the review, we need a significant reduction and we perhaps need to differentiate between sectors and geographies.
A lot has changed in the past five years, but the valuations that we use to determine business rates have not. We cannot go on taxing people based on historical rental values; at the very least we must ensure that any levy is based on current and regularly assessed values. Business rates deter investment, and businesses are forced to consider them alongside the viability of any extension or improvement to their premises. Let us reduce the burden, encourage investment and go for growth.
Our high streets are changing, not dying: there are great examples of innovation that must be celebrated and encouraged. I recently met the Booksellers Association and heard about its growing membership as more independent bookstores, such as the amazing Drake in Stockton, open throughout the country. I have seen at first hand the emergence of a micropub scene in Stockton, going against the grain, filling empty shops and bringing life to the town centre, and the emergence of enterprise arcades such as the Pop Up shop in Yarm or the Fountain shopping centre in Stockton—emporiums of amazing independents, offering up their goods and having a go to see where their retailing dreams lead.
Shopping cannot be replaced by clicking—you cannot feel it, touch it, see it or smell it—and there is no replacement for customer service, expertise or banter. Let us support our nation of shopkeepers, back our high streets and shop local.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Our identity is drawn from the places where we live and our high streets are very much part of that, so the eerie emptiness of our high streets at this time must present a new opportunity to re-imagine our high streets.
York has the worst-hit high street in the country, so we are really feeling the pain. Some 65% of York is made up of independent businesses, and Indie York is calling on the Government to do more to support them —not least because of the high rateable value in our city. I say to everyone in my community: please shop local this Christmas and visit our virtual high street.
In a nutshell, this is where the problem sits: where property is owned by private landlords, many are more interested in their investment portfolios than the location and in maintaining high property values and a high investment return for themselves. That really damages our high streets because the high rents only top up their balances, in turn pushing up the value of high streets through rents, rateable values and business rates. This false economy must be challenged if we are to build back better.
One frustration is that the covid grants and loans have slipped through the hands of businesses to landlords—and often straight into their offshore bank accounts, as they are overseas investors. This has neither helped our communities nor brought value to the taxpayer. How much taxpayers’ money is now sitting in tax havens as a result of these payments? There are no obligations to help local shops and businesses through this difficult time—not least when overseas investors are twice as likely to have vacant premises on our high streets. The Government should not only review this scandal but legislate to address it.
So many colleagues have mentioned business rates today, and I have held debates on how we can reform business rates. The fairest way is to move to a turnover tax or a profit-related tax that would include all businesses.
Let me turn to the issue of how we should move our high streets from business improvement districts to community improvement districts. Bishopthorpe Road in York has had the secret of growth and has created a really vibrant high street because it has been about community first. That model is being replicated elsewhere across York.
We also need to look at the opportunity to put into our city more places for families, such as Explore York, our library, where people are not allowed to whisper but can certainly enjoy the Lego table, the craft table and knitting in the corner—and even reading a book. As we see in York, our entrepreneurs and business owners are really keeping our high streets alive.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
The recent Small Business Saturday best-dressed shop window competition and wonderful Christmas lights in Loughborough have provided the vital publicity needed to encourage local residents to support small local businesses at this difficult time. Having been out and about last Saturday, it is clear to me that the town is a safe place in which to shop and that residents are doing the right thing to keep everyone safe. The Loughborough BID has established an online shopping service called shop.loveloughborough.co.uk for all the small independent shops in the town centre so that they can trade online in a professional manner.
Many high street businesses were struggling even before the start of the covid-19 outbreak, so we must all work together to keep our high streets alive. There is no better example of this than in my constituency, where a range of partners have come together to increase footfall, backed by an application for £32 million of town deal funding from the Government. All the proposals that have been put forward in the town deal are intended to create a destination. I raised the importance of this in revitalising our high streets in my response to the Government’s “Planning for the future” White Paper, which set out a number of positive proposals to ensure that the planning system adapts to the new realities of consumer behaviour. I particularly welcome the proposals to make it easier for commercial properties to include residential space to create a greater vibrancy in towns, and the desire to use brownfield sites in development. It is clear that a great deal of work is already under way to benefit our major towns.
As an MP, I am committed to supporting all the high streets in my local area, not just Loughborough town. Given that Office for National Statistics data has identified that high street hubs in towns are 36% composed of retail addresses, compared with just 29% in the rest of the country, I would welcome the Minister’s comments on what more can be done to ensure that even our smallest high streets have the support they need—and of course business rates need to be reduced.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
As we have heard, this debate is not just about the economics of business. Our high streets are about more than just pounds and pence and GDP. As we have heard from many hon. Members across the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), this debate is about the importance of the idea of place—identity—to communities up and down this country. Our high streets are not just the locations that employ our workers, build our economy and provide goods and services; they are embedded in the very culture and heritage of this nation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) eloquently pointed out, high streets are not just about transactional value but social value. They are part and parcel of all our lives. Whether we live in South Shields or Bradford West, growing up and visiting the high street is part of our way of life.
Of course, much of this debate has been about the economic health of our high street, as hon. Members across the Chamber have discussed. The coronavirus crisis has had a unique impact on many aspects of life globally by speeding things up that were happening already, and the high street is no different. Covid’s chilling effect on physical retail has dealt a further blow to a sector that was already under threat, and, in turn, has accelerated decline on high streets that were already struggling because of the neglect by consecutive Conservative Governments. As Members have said, since 2012, footfall on the high street has been down by 10%, and one in 10 high street shops were standing empty even before the pandemic. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) pointed out that since 2010 the Government have presided over the closure of 773 libraries, 750 youth centres, 1,300 children’s centres, and 835 public toilets.
Naz Shah
Due to time limits I will not give way—I will make progress.
Some 5,500 pubs and bars have closed in the past 10 years, since this Government have been in office. Because of the Government’s neglect, our high streets were already standing on the edge of a cliff, so why are they surprised that a crisis like the covid-19 pandemic pushed them over? As we have seen in the past few weeks, high street stalwarts like Debenhams and brands like Topshop, Burton and Dorothy Perkins have gone into administration or liquidation, putting more than 14,000 jobs at risk. Since March, up to 20,000 shops have closed and 200,000 people have been put out of work, but despite all this, the Government are refusing the levels of support they gave in March. As has been highlighted, 99% of beauty salons, 95% of cafes, 92% of gyms and 77% of pubs and restaurants are receiving less than they were in March.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North pointed to the challenges that small businesses are facing from the threat posed by online retail and the Government’s total failure to level the playing field through addressing business rates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South pointed out repeatedly, this is about levelling the playing field. The Government talk a lot about levelling up, so perhaps the Minister will reflect on the fact that the business rates burden is hitting the north and the midlands hardest, as a report by WPI Strategy, written by former Treasury economists, found in October. The report told us that 77% of constituencies in the top 10% with the highest business rates burden are in the north and the midlands, compared with just 18% in London and the south. That is because the tax rate does not mirror economic performance, so for areas facing economic challenges, the burden is much higher.
Back in March, the Government promised to compensate councils fully for getting through the pandemic. They broke that promise, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies now estimates that the covid funding gap is £1.1 billion this year and £4.4 billion next year. That means more job losses, more cuts, and in turn less spending and less support for businesses. We know that there is light at the end of the tunnel with the arrival of the first new vaccine, but the reality is that businesses face a long and bleak winter unless the Government provide the support that they need now. That could mean that there are fewer high streets for people to visit, vaccine or no.
It is important that the Government learn the lessons from the past. Rather than neglect the sectors that need support, they must act now. The lessons from 2010 will be forgotten if the Government’s austerity drive chokes off business recovery. Since 2010, we have seen not only a physical decimation of the high street but significantly lower levels of growth. The Government are in danger of repeating the mistakes of the past. Just this week, Laurence Boone, the chief economist at the OECD, said:
“We made the mistake in 2010; we need to learn from the mistake. We need to keep up the support for the people and those in and out of jobs. We must make sure income is supported…When you’re in a battle and you know the cavalry is coming, you don’t stop fighting. In fact you keep fighting until the cavalry is around. In fact you keep fighting while the cavalry is there.”
The country is fighting. Retailers on our high streets are fighting. The pubs on the corner, the restaurants in the highest tiers that have closed, the small, family-run businesses that have been part and parcel of our local towns and are struggling to keep their doors open—they are all fighting. They are all waiting for the cavalry to arrive, but the Government are leaving them to fight alone on the battlefield.
Kelly Tolhurst
It has been an absolute pleasure to listen to the passion that Members from across the House displayed when talking about the needs of their high streets and their hopes for them to flourish at a local level. Our high streets have a solid future, which will be born from the ambition and innovation that is taken forward by the diversity and strength of our local retailers, local businesses, local authorities and elected Members, who will work together in order to see their areas flourish and their high streets survive. They will provide community hubs and places where consumers, shoppers, visitors and residents want to spend their time. I believe that our high streets have a very prosperous future.
There is no doubt that the covid-19 pandemic has had a crippling effect on our high streets, small businesses and many sectors of our economy. It is only right that the Government have supported many of those retailers and businesses—particularly those on our high streets—in their endeavour to survive the pandemic.
I want to highlight a few things that the hon. Members for Croydon North (Steve Reed) and for Bradford West (Naz Shah) addressed. There was a lot of bluster and criticism of what the Government have done throughout the pandemic. The hon. Member for Croydon North talks about the fundamental business rate review, but it is this Government who have issued the call for evidence to look at the business rate review. That was not done by the Labour Government. This is not a new issue. Business rates are a perennial issue, and this Government are taking action. We will review that and listen to business up and down the country.
The hon. Gentleman talked about grants and money for local authorities to support our high streets, but the grants to local authorities given by this Government, representing nearly £12 billion, have supported just under 1 million SMEs. He talked about our not supporting councils. He knows that I respect him, as I have mentioned before, but it is a shame he did not take that attitude towards his own council’s reckless borrowing of £1.5 billion, which has put it in such a mess. That cannot be blamed on covid.
I want to quickly reflect on many of the points that my hon. Friends and hon. Members across the House have made. Business support has been a lifeline for many businesses and SMEs on our high streets during the pandemic. The Government gave a 100% rate relief for 12 months. I know that the Chancellor and the Treasury will be looking at what happens after that over the coming months, but businesses were being given—and are being given—a £3,000 per month grant, with an extra £1,000 for pubs this Christmas.
The £1.1 billion of additional restrictions grants for local authorities was also mentioned. Where that money is required has been down to the discretion of local authorities. Where that support is necessary, it is being delivered, and that is exactly what we want. We want high streets in thriving communities that are driven by the people who use them, and that is what we are doing. This Government are giving that flexibility and discretion, supporting our local communities to drive their centres forward.
That brings me to the Government investment that we are making through the future high streets fund and the town deals: 101 of the high streets that applied have got through to the next stage of the future high streets fund. That would represent an investment of potentially £831 million that this Conservative Government will be delivering through that competition, driven—I make the point again—by local people, local plans, and their ideas and dreams for their local communities to survive. That is what I want as a Conservative Member of Parliament and a Minister: to support local communities to deliver exactly what they want on their doorsteps. Through the towns fund, this Government are again making a significant investment—more so than any Labour Government, and certainly more in my area since I have been involved in politics.
I want to highlight a few other things that have been mentioned. I absolutely understand Members’ concerns about parking charges. I look forward to coming to the Champs Élysées of the north in the future, in my role as high streets Minister. I am also happy to meet with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), and other interested MPs, to discuss some of the issues that he has raised in today’s debate.
We are absolutely ready and prepared, and will continue to work with stakeholders, businesses and local representatives, to ensure that our high streets and our economy can bounce back as soon as we can move out of restrictions, which is something the Government are working very hard to deliver.
I want to pick up on a very important point that my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) made about the VAT retail export scheme. The Government recognise the contribution that VAT RES had made to international tourism retail in the UK. However, there was not a choice of maintaining the VAT RES as it is today. The choice was between extending the scheme to EU residents or removing them completely under World Trade Organisation rules. HMRC has estimated that refunds cost around £0.5 billion, for around 1.2 million non-EU visitors, which puts the issue into context, in that only one in 10 non-EU visitors is using the VAT RES system.
We will survive this pandemic, and our high streets will survive with the determination and dedication of all the men and women who are working in our businesses and shops. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Do you know, I have never heard that before, in all these years. It was a very good debate on all sides, and all the better for short speeches—to the point, and many of them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the high street.
Redirecting traffic from Cleveland Bridge
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Bath regarding Cleveland Bridge and the importance of protecting that historic structure. Online, this petition received 1,278 signatures.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of Bath,
Declares that Cleveland Bridge, a Grade II* listed structure, is unable to withstand vehicles over 18 tonnes as part of its function on the Primary Road Network; further that interventions are now increasingly needed to preserve the structure for future generations, as the law requires; and further that the Government has set out in its Road Investment Strategy that the A350 corridor could be used as the main north-south strategic route from the south coast to the M4.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward urgent work to adopt the A350 corridor as the main route from the south coast to the M4, and to consider redirecting east-west traffic from the A4 and Bristol, to the A420 north of the city, thereby protecting Cleveland Bridge from heavy freight traffic and enabling a reduced weight limit.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002637]
Encouragement of Terrorism Offences
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
At the outset, I feel that it is only right that I set out the motivation behind my request for this debate. I want this evening to take the House to the townland of Legananny, five miles outside Castlewellan in the parliamentary constituency of South Down in Northern Ireland—to a quiet, rural location, where both traditions lived together in relative harmony throughout much of the time now described by many as the troubles.
On 3 May 1985, William Heenan, a 52-year-old widower, went outside to feed some livestock in the yard. This was his home, along with his 12-year-old son, Sammy; sadly, William’s wife had passed away two years previous. It was the last morning that William would ever feed his animals. Sammy Heenan, William’s son, is now a grown man with his own family. I have known him for some time. He is a man of great character, great resolve and very strong faith. If his late father had grown old to see his son grow up, Sammy would have made him very proud. As a 12-year-old, Sammy’s life changed forever. This is his account of that morning in 1985:
“When I was a 12 year old child, I lived 5 miles north of rural Castlewellan. On that fateful morning on the 3rd May 1985 at 7am, I went out to find my father brutally murdered after I heard his final haunting and dying screams. He had been forced to his knees and shot twice in the top of the head at point blank range by a South Down PIRA gunman. The image of his face bloodied and unrecognisable as he lay on the ground that morning will be etched on my mind forever. After which I had to run to a neighbour’s house half a mile away to raise the alarm sobbing and in a state of utter despair.”
Sammy Heenan’s life story is replicated for many across Northern Ireland—mothers and fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, grandparents, friends: murdered by terrorists. The broken-hearted remain, to live a life with psychological and physical scars that will never heal, and it is for those victims that I have asked for this debate today. Despite the scars, despite the lifetime of grief and of anguish, despite the trauma inflicted on them that no one should face, there are those within our society who glorify the terror that caused that pain, and who revel in the actions of those who planted bombs or shot people in the head. Sadly, Madam Deputy Speaker, some of them are Members of this House.
A little over five miles from the very spot where the IRA murdered William Heenan, in the town of Castlewellan sits the McNulty-Magorrian advice centre. It operates as the constituency office of the Member of this House for South Down (Chris Hazzard). For your information, Madam Deputy Speaker, McNulty was killed in a premature bomb explosion during an IRA attack on Castlewellan RUC station in January 1972, while Magorrian died after being shot by the Army in August 1974; both were Provisional IRA terrorists.
Given that an office has been named after two terrorists and a Member of this House is performing his role from that office, one would think that this Parliament—the bastion of democratic principles, the very place where parliamentary democracy was founded—would stop such an affront to democracy. This House knows only too well the barbaric actions of terrorists: Airey Neave, Ian Gow and Reverend Robert Bradford were serving Members of this House murdered by members of the same terrorist organisation that we have a parliamentary constituency office named after in South Down. Yet action is not taken.
I have raised this issue with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who has responded by saying she has no grounds to investigate, and, likewise, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority says it is not a matter for it. By doing nothing, we facilitate—indeed, financially support—an MP who daily glorifies terrorists. I urge the Minister this evening to undertake to address this issue at the earliest possible opportunity.
In this instance, it is a case of doing what is right—of recognising the hurt and pain this causes innocent victims and saying, “This House will not facilitate or allow this to happen any longer.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I know that the Minister in particular understands this issue.
I know Sammy Heenan as well, so I understand the matter that my hon. Friend raises. Does she share the concerns of many others outside that family circle that the local council in Newry, Mourne and Down has named a playpark after Raymond McCreesh, one of the hunger strikers who gave their life—or committed suicide, depending on how we want to put it—at the Kesh, and who was a convicted terrorist? Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something wrong if Newry, Mourne and Down can name a playpark after a convicted terrorist? Should the House not take action against the Member for South Down?
Carla Lockhart
My remarks are larger than the Heenan family and the hurt caused to them. My hon. Friend is right that the glorification of terrorism anywhere is wrong and has repercussions for innocent victims.
When I told Sammy Heenan that I had secured this debate, he asked me to make this plea on behalf of him and the many victims of terrorism in South Down:
“How can we as a progressive society in 2020 continue to countenance the repugnant naming of an MP’s constituency office in the United Kingdom after two dead IRA terrorists? The symbolism attached to this office-naming is massive and morally obscene, thus inadvertently legitimising every terrorist act perpetrated against UK citizens. I implore this Parliament to exhaust every avenue in righting this grievous wrong, which continues to cause affliction to the innocent of our country. As a Parliament, please be cognisant of our traumatism and use whatever means necessary to ensure terrorist revisionism such as this ceases to be funded and tolerated.”
I cannot add any more to that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is important that, as we in Northern Ireland look to the future, those who want to revel in the evil deeds of the past, to seek to re-write that past and make acceptable the murder and mayhem terrorists imposed on our country, are not aided and abetted by our accommodation of such a perversion of what actually happened. To enable that in any way will only serve to bring about a generation who believe such heinous crimes to have been justified, acceptable and worthy of celebration.
Only this week, members of the County Armagh ladies camogie team—a Gaelic game, for those unfamiliar with the term—were videoed celebrating success on the pitch with repeated chants of, “ooh ah, up the Ra!”: a clear reference to the IRA, a proscribed terrorist organisation responsible for the killing of some 1,700 people. How utterly depressing. None of those girls was alive during the worst years of IRA terrorism, yet this chanting was part and parcel of their celebrations.
Closer to this place, earlier this year, London Young Labour tweeted a picture of the Falls Road mural dedicated to the IRA man, Bobby Sands. They wrote:
“On this day in 1981, socialist and republican Bobby Sands died as a PoW following a hunger strike during which he became an elected MP. We remember him and continue to fight for an end to imperialism and for a free and united Ireland.”
Madam Deputy Speaker, Bobby Sands was a bomber. Bobby Sands was not a prisoner of war. He was a terrorist—a man so consumed with hatred that he killed himself. Yet here we have a youth wing of the official Opposition in this place lauding this man. What does that say to victims?
There are many, many other examples of how this encouragement and glorification of terrorism happens in our society: the Policing Board member who describes the shooting of a prison officer in the head as one of the “best ops”; the Gaelic football grounds and competitions named after IRA men; and the Northern Ireland Executive Ministers who attend glorification events. Madam Deputy Speaker, if Members of any other party in this House were to do that for any terrorist event or organisation, it would not be accepted.
I have a young son, Charlie. I want him to grow up in a society that has values, that has respect for the rule of law, and where people are at peace with one another. Yet I look at a society today where the very encouragement and glorification of terrorism goes largely unchallenged. In such a society, real reconciliation cannot happen. For in such a society, those who suffer most, our victims, are not respected—they are insulted. Until this stops, until those who engage in this behaviour cease and recognise the hurt and the wrongs they do and have done, we will never have that real peace we crave.
The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing the debate, and on the very powerful and poignant speech she delivered to the House this evening. Her comments on the brutal murder of William Heenan will have struck a chord with all who have heard the debate tonight. The loss and impact on his son Sammy Heenan, and on the rest of the family, is lifelong. I am sure that all in this House would wish to convey our deepest and sincerest condolences for his and their loss, and for all the pain that they continue to suffer.
Certainly, as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I have met too many who continue to suffer that pain and that loss. We still collectively need to do much more to be able to look to Northern Ireland’s future with a positive sense of the amazing place that it is and the incredible people there who make it such a special place, while equally knowing that the legacy of the troubles and of the past still runs very deep and knowing the pain that it continues to cause. Therefore I understand and hear that sense of the need for us to be able to look to a future beyond all of those troubling issues.
I speak as the Security Minister, and therefore look to these issues of national security across all parts of our United Kingdom. I was struck by the emphasis that the hon. Lady gave to issues relating to this House, which brought to mind the response that she received from the Leader of the House recently during business questions when she highlighted this point. The Leader of the House underlined that very clear message, saying:
“We should remember and commemorate those who were killed”,—[Official Report, 26 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 993.]
drawing to mind the shields within this House to remember Airey Neave and Ian Gow, and stating that commemorating those who committed murder is absolutely not what we as a House should do. I understand that it is in that sense that the hon. Member for Upper Bann approaches all of this.
I want to look at the work that we do as a Government across the United Kingdom, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would join me in recognising the work that happens here and now. What do I mean by that? I mean the work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, MI5 and others, who work tirelessly to keep people safe and have our full support for the immense contribution they make on a daily basis. I commend all those who, sometimes quietly, sometimes out of sight, help to deliver safety and security for the public in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That ongoing work by the police and MI5 means that most people in Northern Ireland, mercifully, are not directly affected by the severe terrorist threat that endures.
It remains unacceptable that, decades on from the Good Friday agreement, there are still groups who are using and hiding bombs and bullets in residential areas, putting their own agendas above the rights of the community who want to live and thrive in peace. Where terrorism, paramilitary-style attacks and attacks on the community endure, so, too, will our efforts to tackle them. We will always do everything in our power to ensure they do not succeed.
I take this opportunity to commend the recent successes of Operation Arbacia, an ongoing Police Service of Northern Ireland-led operation into the activities of the New IRA, which has involved collaboration with partners such as MI5, Police Scotland, An Garda Síochána and the Metropolitan Police Service. In August, the Police Service of Northern Ireland arrested 10 people, all of whom have now been charged with a range of terrorism offences under the Terrorism Act 2006. Violent dissident republicans cause substantial harm to communities and the fabric of society. These arrests, I believe, are a welcome step in maintaining peace in Northern Ireland and keeping people safe from criminality and violence.
We have robust UK-wide legislation to counter the threat of terrorism and protect the public. The legislative framework was established in the Terrorism Act 2000; it was updated and strengthened in the post-9/11 era, again more recently to respond to the threat connected with the Syrian conflict and individuals travelling from this country to join terrorist groups, and then again following the attacks in the UK in 2017. Our framework provides a coherent approach, including an ideology-neutral definition of terrorism, which determines the scope of other terrorism powers and offences.
On the particular issue raised in this debate today, the Government are clear that statements that encourage or glorify terrorism are unacceptable and that individuals who make such statements should be liable for prosecution. It is an offence under section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 for an individual to intentionally encourage members of the public to engage in terrorism or be reckless as to whether their statements will encourage it. That applies whether or not any person is in fact encouraged or induced to engage in terrorism as a result of the individual’s statements.
The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 updated the section 1 encouragement offence in three ways: closing a gap that existed whereby the offence would not necessarily be committed in a case where someone radicalised or sought to encourage a child or vulnerable adult to carry out an act of terrorism; ensuring extra-territorial jurisdiction applies fully to the encouragement of any act of terrorism, meaning that a person may be prosecuted in the UK for conduct that took place outside the UK that would have been unlawful had it taken place here; and increasing the maximum penalty available following a conviction from seven to 15 years’ imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of the offence. That is an appropriately broad offence of encouragement, which also covers the glorification of terrorism and ensures that perpetrators can be prosecuted appropriately.
In addition, our counter-terrorism legislative framework includes the separate offence under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 of inviting support for a proscribed organisation. The 2019 Act extended the offence by making it clear that it is illegal to make statements in support of a terrorist organisation or to be reckless as to whether others will be encouraged to support the organisation.
Jim Shannon
I am always mindful of the Minister’s exceptional contribution when he was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I thank him for that. The council that represents my area is Ards and North Down Borough Council. It wanted to name a leisure grounds and playground after Blair Mayne, who is a hero of the second world war. It was called in because of the legal process in Northern Ireland, yet Newry, Mourne and Down District Council was able to name its play park, where children play, after a convicted terrorist who died by his own hand in the Maze. Is that right? Is that council not accountable under what the Minister has said, and can it not be made to change that name and remove it?
James Brokenshire
I appreciate and respect the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He will understand that I am not familiar with all the circumstances or indeed whether it would be appropriate for me as a Minister to try to determine what a particular community would do, but obviously he makes an important point on how we reflect on the issue of building strong communities and looking beyond division and that sense of difference. Indeed, we should not be looking backward to the issues of the past, but looking forward to what I believe can be a positive, outward-looking, exciting future for Northern Ireland and all the young people who have not been touched directly by those issues of the past that sadly still, through family and through the impact of things such as paramilitarism and separation, touch Northern Ireland in this way.
James Brokenshire
I can see the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, and I will give way to her.
Carla Lockhart
I genuinely thank the Minister for his efforts in Northern Ireland; he did a sterling job when he was Secretary of State. The crux of this, in my mind, is the victims of South Down, where I believe this House has a responsibility, while councils sit within the Northern Ireland remit. This House needs to take action against a Member of this House who has an office named after two convicted IRA terrorists. I know that the Minister is bringing his remarks to a close, but could he clarify how we can have this investigated and, ultimately, overturned?
James Brokenshire
A number of the issues of which the hon. Lady speaks are, in essence, matters for the House and equally for some of the external bodies that maintain standards in relation to the House. I do not have direct oversight or responsibility for those particular organisations. I think I am correct in saying that the Leader of the House has that relationship on issues of policy. I will certainly draw her comments to the attention of the Leader of the House, which is probably the most appropriate way that I can approach this.
I hope the hon. Lady will have heard from me the emphasis that we give to confronting terrorism in all its forms and its glorification. Our approach to terrorism makes it illegal to make statements in support of a terrorist organisation, or to be reckless as to whether others will be encouraged to support such an organisation. It is rightly for the police and relevant prosecution services to decide whether any offence has been committed and whether it would be appropriate to bring charges in the circumstances. That is rightly a matter for the independent law enforcement agencies, not this House.
In conclusion, I would like again to sincerely thank the hon. Lady for raising these issues and all those who are working to tackle the threat of terrorism across the United Kingdom—all of the United Kingdom. Whatever their ideology or motivation, terrorists seek to undermine our way of life, but our message is clear: we will never compromise on the values that they hate. We will not allow them to encourage or glorify terrorism and push their warped view of the world on others, and we will maintain our relentless determination to tackle terrorism in all its forms.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
For clarification, I will ensure that this matter, in so far as it relates to a person who has been elected to this House and is therefore perhaps a matter for Mr Speaker, is drawn to Mr Speaker’s attention.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West ) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
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) | Mark Tami |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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 |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (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) | Mark Tami |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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 |
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes ) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) | Anthony Mangnall |
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 |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | David T.C. Davies |
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 |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) | Anthony Mangnall |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
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 |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (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 |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
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) | Mark Tami |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Draft Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing. You are all sitting in places that are marked, so I thank you for that. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I ask you to observe social distancing particularly when you are leaving. Thank you.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes, and to serve under you.
As the Committee will be aware, this statutory instrument is technical and will give the Government a tool they may need to alleviate any disruption at the border that arises after the end of the transition period. The instrument must be understood in the context of the current regime for managing the safety and security risk of goods entering and leaving the United Kingdom. The UK is guided in this regard by the World Customs Organisation’s SAFE framework of standards to mitigate risks associated with the import and export of goods. SAFE stipulates that before goods arrive in or depart from a territory, data must be collected and risk assessed by customs authorities. This data is submitted in the form of entry and pre-departure declarations. These declarations are currently managed through the Union customs code, retained in UK law after the end of the transition period by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
While we have been part of the EU’s safety and security zone, these declarations have been required only when goods are moving into or out of the EU. When the transition period ends on 31 December 2020 goods moved between Great Britain and the EU as well as the rest of the world will require these declarations. As part of the staging in of customs controls, the Government have waived for six months the requirement for the submission of an entry summary declaration for movements into Great Britain from the EU or another territory where such a declaration is not currently required.
Before goods are moved out of the country, carriers are obliged to submit safety and security information to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for risk assessment. As well as managing risks that involve the movement of weapons and illicit goods, the information is used to regulate other international obligations, such as the rules governing the movement of live animals. The information is normally contained in a customs export declaration. In cases where a fiscal declaration is not required, such as businesses repositioning empty trucks or packaging, a stand-alone exit summary declaration is required.
The SI will give HMRC commissioners the ability during the six months of the staging-in period to publish public notices waiving the requirement for safety and security declarations for goods exported from Great Britain. A public notice could also be used to alter the pre-departure timing requirement for the submission of declarations. The powers can be used only to alleviate border disruption that may arise, and only during the staging-in period. The powers can be deployed in a targeted way: for example, the Government could use them to waive the safety and security export declaration requirement for a specific sector, or a port, or for a given time period. The powers would be used only where it was necessary to ensure the smooth flow of goods across the border. The Government would consider the balance of risks of border security with the impact on border flow before introducing a waiver. The Government will update Parliament as appropriate when making use of the powers, if any are in fact used.
The Northern Ireland protocol means that there are no safety and security requirements for goods moved between Northern Ireland and the EU. Under the protocol, EU UCC—Union customs code—rules will apply in Northern Ireland. The public notice powers provided by this instrument would not affect safety and security requirements for goods exported from Northern Ireland. The movement of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the world will be subject to safety and security requirements.
As I have said, the Government would use these powers only where absolutely necessary to preserve the smooth flow of goods at the border and after due consideration of any risks arising from their use. The powers, which are time limited and can be deployed in a targeted fashion, will help to give the Government the appropriate ability to respond to manage disruption at the border if that should arise at the end of the transition period. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes.
The Minister, for whom I have great respect, as he knows, describes these regulations as technical, but I must differ from him. I think they are more than technical. They are very significant and a graphic example and symbol of the mess the Government have got themselves into as we approach the end of the transition period. I say that because through these regulations the Government are acknowledging that they cannot guarantee that the current safety and security requirements on exports can continue to be met without causing disruption to border security. They have put themselves in the invidious position of having to introduce regulations that compromise our security to guarantee the free flow of goods at the border.
The regulations respond to that dilemma by granting HMRC the power to waive the need for these pre-departure declarations, or to modify the time limit for their submission. In tabling these regulations, the Government are openly acknowledging that they are taking powers that, if used, would water down the safety and security requirements we have in place for exports through our ports. The explanatory memorandum that accompanies the regulations —these things are normally pretty dry explanations of the technicalities involved—is clear about the possibilities. Paragraph 7.4 states:
“There may be risks associated with using these powers…for example, to border security.”
There you have it. The regulations are not technical. That is not an allegation from me. It is not an allegation that the Opposition have made. It is a quote from the Government’s own explanation of what they are doing.
What exactly are these risks that the Government have identified? What exactly are the risks that the regulations could enhance? Why have the Government found themselves proposing a policy with such potential consequences? What a trade-off to put the country in to, really. To avoid disruption to trade, we have to take measures that potentially put our border security at risk. I repeat that that is not an allegation from me; it is the Government’s own explanation, before the Committee right now, of what they are doing with these regulations.
At the moment, as the Minister said, pre-departure declarations enable the UK to meet international standards for safety and security relating to the movement of goods, following the World Customs Organisation’s SAFE framework. The organisation began in 1952 as the Customs Cooperation Council and the UK was a founding member, yet today’s regulations would hinder our country’s ability to support the SAFE framework. We are literally opting out, on a temporary basis, of something called SAFE. That is what the Government are doing.
What does it say about the Government’s management of this process that in order to help business avoid the impact of disruption to exports at the border, they are taking powers to risk our border security in this way? Why should the price of free-flowing trade be the introduction of a smugglers’ charter that increases risks to us all? The regulations say that this will only be the case for up to six months, ending on 1 July next year, but can the Minister guarantee that? Can he guarantee that he will not be back here or that the Government will not extend the waiver beyond the first six months of next year in some other way? What if there is ongoing friction at ports? Will Ministers continue to waive the requirements for these declarations in the future?
What discussions has the Minister or the Treasury had with the Home Office about this in order to minimise the impact on border security? He mentioned weapons, I believe. Will he clarify what he meant when he mentioned weapons and how the regulations will affect them?
The volume of pre-departure declarations is likely to be greater after the end of the transition period because they will need to be made for goods exported to the EU as well as the rest of the world. What extra capacity is being put in place at HMRC from 1 January to process this uplift in pre-departure declarations, thereby helping to reduce the likelihood of the security and safety requirements creating border disruption?
It is often said in this House that keeping our country safe and secure is the first duty of any Government. It is often said because it is true. It is an indictment of the party that used to call itself the party of law and order that in government it has laid regulations that Ministers openly admit will compromise our border security. What an indictment of the handling of this situation. The powers, if exercised, would have that effect. That is the admission that the Government made today. I therefore have to disagree with the Minister’s view that the regulations are just technical measures. They are a graphic example of the mess that the Government have found themselves in.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes.
I share the concerns voiced by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). I have scored out three questions that I was going to ask that he has already asked, so I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on the border security concerns that the right hon. Gentleman rightly raised.
I am not sure if anyone at all outside Government thinks that the Government are in any way, shape or form ready for 1 January. The very fact that this SI is before us today shows that they clearly expect chaos at the borders from January, yet they are pushing on regardless. Yesterday’s related troubling announcement of a suspension of lorry drivers’ hours regulations has drawn concerns about the safety implications of that decision. Lorry drivers are potentially paying the price for the UK Government’s Brexit chaos and the delays, which this SI seeks to—to use the Minister’s word—alleviate. I should add that that was yet another important Department for International Trade announcement made without a parliamentary statement and parliamentary scrutiny, but I digress; that lies outside this Committee’s scope.
HMRC estimates that it may need to process 270 million customs declarations from 2021, compared with 55 million currently—a 500% increase. In June, the Government announced that, regardless of whether they agree a trade deal—that looks less likely by the day—new checks on EU goods entering GB would be phased in over six months from January 2021 to give firms “time to adjust”. However, the National Audit Office has been scathing. It says that there is still “uncertainty” over where new border infrastructure will be located and whether it will be ready. It is concerned that traders will not be ready for the full checks on UK exports that the EU plans to implement from the start of 2021. It is also concerned—I cannot read my own writing; my high school teachers at would not be surprised—about operational issues that require resolution, including ensuring that hauliers can use a planned online service allowing them to declare that they have the correct documents for the EU border and thus obtain a permit to drive on certain roads in Kent. The NAO cites the Government’s latest worst-case scenario planning figures, which estimate that 40% to 70% of lorries crossing the channel will not be ready. Have those figures changed? Are they now more likely to represent the best-case scenario?
The Public Accounts Committee has also been scathing and accused the Government of “taking limited responsibility” for the nation’s preparedness as the clock ticks down. Last month, Rod McKenzie, policy director for the Road Haulage Association, told a Scottish Parliament Committee that his industry had
“been badly let down by the UK Government from beginning to end.”
He also noted that the information given to hauliers to help them to implement the international permits they will require in the event of no trade deal being reached had been “quite often totally incomprehensible”. That description of the Government’s approach over the past weeks, months and years is an apt place to conclude my remarks. We will not oppose this sadly all-too-necessary SI, but we mourn the need for its existence.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Opposition spokesmen for their comments. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East says this is not technical. Of course, by “technical” I do not mean that the law may not have some impact. Of course, this is a power that we do not anticipate necessarily having to use; it is a tool that the Government think is advisable to be used in some very constrained and particular circumstances in the event of unanticipated disruption. We are going through a major change in our trading arrangements. It is sensible to make contingency arrangements.
The right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that when it comes to safety and security declarations, data is not gathered by the UK in regard to trade with the EU, because we have been part of the EU internal customs and internal market. From that point of view, nothing changes. He and others have asked whether there will be some great compromise to security. We do not anticipate a great compromise to security.
Mr McFadden
The Minister has just said that nothing changes in terms of relations with the EU because we are part of the single market. From 1 January, we will not be part of the single market so quite a lot changes.
Jesse Norman
No, what I have said is that, since we do not gather data at the moment, what we are doing is continuing a system that already exists for a period of time—or we would be if we put in place these powers—and that does not represent a change from what we do at the moment as we do not gather the data at present. As I have already said, our trading arrangements of course do significantly change.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Home Office, and I can reassure him that of course these measures are developed in consultation and consideration and discussion with the Home Office. The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, seemed to be having a few operational issues with his own handwriting—I am not quite sure if that is true—so he is well placed to speak on operational issues. Let me just say one thing: as far as I can tell, the numbers that he quoted were from external organisations, the NAO and so on. It is for them to comment on whether the numbers they come up with should be updated. From the Government’s standpoint, the numbers are as they have been published. With that in mind, I invite the Committee to support the motion.
Mr McFadden
The Minister has not answered a couple of questions that I asked. One was whether he can guarantee that there will not be an extension of these provisions beyond the first six months of next year, and the other was the question of weapons that he mentioned in his opening remarks. Can he explain exactly how these regulations will affect the export of weapons?
Jesse Norman
Sure. What I was saying, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, as regards duration is that they last for six months. Of course, to seek a guarantee in such circumstances is a classic political request. No guarantees can be given, but we certainly do not anticipate extending the regulations. They are specifically designed to be a contingency tool to be used in specific circumstances, for specific purposes, and for a time-limited period.
In relation to weapons, all I said was that the existing arrangements had in part the goal of monitoring the transfer of weapons. As I have said, data gathering does not at present exist on the safety and security declarations, and that will not change as a matter of fact for a period of time, but of course Border Force and other agencies that are concerned with the flow of goods across the border continue to be engaged, and from that perspective we think that the border remains well defended and well supported. Of course, we have made significant infrastructure investments in order to make sure that that is the case.
Question put and agreed to.
11.50 am
Committee rose.
Draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Draft Health Protection (Coronavirus, testing requirements and standards) (england) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind Members to observe social distancing, and to sit only in places that are marked as available. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Health Protection (Coronavirus, Testing Requirements and Standards) (England) Regulations 2020.
Jo Churchill
The draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 will remove covid-19 test services from Care Quality Commission regulatory requirements. Existing exemptions result in certain covid-19 testing providers being within scope of CQC regulation, and other providers being exempt. We want to tidy this up by removing this requirement, while introducing a requirement to apply to the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. This will simplify the complex regulatory system for covid-19 test providers.
The second statutory instrument, the draft Health Protection (Coronavirus, Testing Requirements and Standards) (England) Regulations 2020, will impose requirements on private test providers to become accredited by UKAS and to reach specified stages in the process towards accreditation within a specific timeframe that starts on 1 January 2021.
Last week, the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency recommended authorising Pfizer-BioNTech’s covid-19 vaccine for use. While we wait for vaccine deployment, testing and contact tracing remain among the most effective ways of controlling the spread of the virus. The more rapidly we can identify people at risk of infection, the more effectively we can reduce the spread of the virus and get life back to normal. During the pandemic, we have built the largest diagnostic network in British history via Test and Trace, but we will defeat the virus only if the public and private sectors work together.
The private sector has a critical role to play in achieving this, and has shown its value time and again throughout the pandemic. It is at the forefront of testing innovation and is keen to support Test and Trace. It is vital that we look to open up our economy, and that NHS Test and Trace suppliers are focused where we need them most, taking pressure off the NHS. However, people must also be assured of the safety and reliability of services. The Government therefore support developing the private testing market, so that we can ensure that everyone has access to simple, effective, high-quality, affordable and reliable tests and test services, whether from a Government or private provider. As the demand for testing continues to grow, the need for public confidence in testing remains as important as ever. We need to support the system so that providers can enter quickly and efficiently, and so that we can meet demand without compromising the quality of testing services or undermining customer confidence.
There is a requirement in England for parties to register with the CQC if they are involved in the removal of bodily cells, tissues or fluid samples, or the analysing or reporting of those samples, for covid-19 testing. That requirement is subject to a number of exemptions. Notably, it depends on the type of covid-19 test sampling and analysis, and on the entity undertaking the sample collection. That has resulted in inconsistencies around requirements, and a degree of confusion. Test providers have voiced concerns about the complexity surrounding entry to the covid-19 testing market, and we have listened.
The first statutory instrument before the Committee will remove the requirement for covid-19 testing providers to register with the CQC by exempting covid-19 testing from being a regulated activity under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. As the CQC is an English regulatory body, this does not apply to any other nation in the UK. The removal of the requirements will prevent confusion over regulations from causing restrictions in total testing capacity, which we are keen to ensure is sufficient. It is vital that we neither restrict testing capacity nor compromise on quality. The change from CQC to UKAS will provide the necessary agile but robust requirements to ensure that testing capacity is not restricted.
I turn to the second statutory instrument. UKAS is the sole accreditation body in the UK, independent of but appointed by Government. Accreditation by UKAS is the recognised gold standard for organisations that offer test services. Recognising the time it can take to gain full UKAS accreditation and the urgent need for high-quality private testing, on 27 November my Department and UKAS launched an adapted three-stage UKAS accreditation process for private test providers, ensuring that new and innovative providers can be accredited faster without compromising on rigorous safety standards.
The instrument requires providers that provide tests commercially to undergo this staged UKAS accreditation process within the specified timeframes. All providers offering test services to the English market will need to gain stage 1 applicant status by 31 December. After 31 December, new entrants to the testing market will be required to achieve UKAS applicant status before offering any test to the English market. The instrument also requires providers to achieve stage 2 UKAS appraisal and stage 3 UKAS accreditation status within a given timeframe.
Employers that provide test services only to their own staff, and organisations that supply tests at no cost, will not be required to gain UKAS accreditation. I would, however, advise that they endeavour to do so, thereby ensuring that their tests are of the highest possible standards.
From 15 December, international arrivals will be able to opt in to testing to release, and all test services used for this purpose will be required to work towards completing, and to have completed within the timeframe, the three-stage process.
Before I set out my final justification for the regulations, let me thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which scrutinised them so quickly. I want to explain how tests for the presence of antibodies are covered by the regulations. Current forms of tests for antibodies are not covered by CQC legislation and will not be covered by UKAS legislation. The regulations do not leave any regulatory gap with regard to testing for antibodies, as no legislation existed, but test providers for the presence of antibodies to covid-19 can choose to apply for accreditation if they wish.
The new UKAS accreditation scheme will simplify the process of looking for a commercial test for the presence of covid-19. Consumers will be able to identify providers capable of delivering a quality end-to-end service. From booking to sample collection and reporting results, individuals and businesses will be able to get the assurance they need. We strongly advise that consumers and organisations procure test services only from gold standard providers that have started their journey through the UKAS accreditation, and a list of all those providers will be available on gov.uk.
In conclusion, this legislation will simplify the testing landscape for test providers and regulate the market with consistency. This will help to protect consumers and help test providers. We are enormously supportive of employers who have already chosen to begin testing their staff. They help reduce pressure on the NHS and ensure that Test and Trace can focus on situations where it is needed most. But wherever testing is done, it must be done properly, using the right test for the right purposes. These regulations will help the public to identify the right test services for their purposes. They will also help test providers to enter the market at a time when their services are vital to the country. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is pleasure to debate these draft regulations under your chairship, Ms Rees. As we have heard, the two sets of regulations combine to replace the CQC registration requirements for covid-19 test providers with end- to-end accreditation through UKAS. The explanatory memorandum states that the change
“will allow testing providers to qualify for COVID-19 testing and analysis quickly and simply, allowing the market to expand more rapidly….it will also accredit a far wider range of COVID-19 testing-related activities”,
and will be cheaper. I have seen from the Government consultation feedback from stakeholders that that has been positively received, and have not heard of any strong reservations, so we do not intend to oppose the change; indeed, we support it. It is a good thing to do. It takes something quite complicated and newly emerging and makes it quite simple and effective.
I have points on which I seek assurance from the Minister. I am conscious that I tend to pepper my speech with these questions; it may be that not all of them can be addressed today, because some of them are granular, so I would appreciate it if those were followed up in writing.
As the Minister said, certain test providers were out of the scope of CQC regulation. If the service provider was taking blood samples via pinpricks or from veins, and the sample did not need lab analysis, it was out of scope; the same would apply if it was taking blood samples or external tissue with a swab, or just analysing or reporting such samples, and was already registered with the CQC for something else. There is quite a gap there, and an uneven playing field; it is possibly quite confusing.
With the market growing, and a growing number of technologies, a universal system is welcome. It also makes sense to broaden the system to cover all parts of these activities, end to end. That can only be of benefit, from a regulatory standpoint. Do the regulations mean that the end-to-end process will cover all entrants, and that all those undertaking those activities will be treated similarly? I wrote my speech before hearing what the Minister said; I think I heard her confirm that, but I want to make sure.
The staged process makes sense, in terms of ensuring quality at the beginning, and making sure that we do not have to wait long periods for providers to enter the market. Providers entering the accreditation process have to meet a range of standards, which include meeting Departments’ minimum standards for private testing, having a clinical director and meeting requirements under the Medical Devices Regulations 2002. I understand that the requirements were updated in November, a month after they were initially published. Is this the final list, or does the Minister intend to update them again?
Existing providers will need to achieve stage 1 by the end of the year. After that date, new providers must achieve stage 1 before they can deliver testing. Will the Minister give a sense of how long it will take a new provider to enter a market? Stage 2 will require existing providers to meet UKAS’s requirements to ensure that they are progressing towards full accreditation by the end of January, or new providers within four weeks of completing stage 1, if that is later. The 13 key requirements include having carried out a gap analysis in relation to the relevant International Organisation for Standardisation standard; having access to relevant clinical expertise; and having demonstrated meeting technical performance characteristics consistently. Can the Minister confirm that, having talked to providers, she feels that four weeks is adequate time to meet those requirements, particularly for new entrants to the market? What will happen if they do not? Will they get more time? Do they re-enter the system from the beginning? I would be interested to know what happens in the case of failure.
Stage 3 is full accreditation to the relevant ISO standard, whether for lab-based or point-of-care testing. Stage 3 must be met within four months or by 30 June next year, whichever is later. Of course, achieving the standard is really important, and goes a long way to assuring us about fundamental standards of quality and safety, but in such a fast-moving market, if the process takes about six months in total, that is quite a significant window.
Will the Minister share her assessment of the likelihood and the impact of testing providers entering the market at stage 1 or 2, and then failing to achieve stage 3? Are those stage 1 and 2 tests, in her judgment and that of the Department, robust enough to ensure that a risky product will not be out there for months? What safeguards prevent an unscrupulous or low-quality provider from re-entering the stage 1 process with a slightly different product, with no good-faith intention of ever achieving stage 3?
I have no doubt that those in the CQC will be the people who are most cheered by this. I suspect that, given the significant burdens on their time, they will not miss these responsibilities at all. Of course, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so the regulations will bring more responsibilities to UKAS. Again, I wonder what assessment has been made of the capacity for UKAS to effectively deliver this scheme—certainly at the beginning, a lot of people could be making applications—and of the resourcing implications of ensuring that UKAS can act effectively, in terms of the business interests, and safely in all our interests.
I am conscious that I have peppered a good dozen questions into my remarks, as I always do. These are important points of clarity, however, because this is such an important area. As the Minister says, we all hope and pray for the vaccine every morning, but in the meantime testing is the significant aspect. It is right, as we wish to do more things, that private businesses—the Minister used the example of businesses—want to do testing, for staffing purposes. However, it is important that we proceed in an effective manner. This is a market that is growing and has little precedent. Even a year ago, we had no idea that we would now need such a market in this country. Risks can come with that. What the Government are doing today to put a shape around that is very sensible; we just need to make sure that it works.
Jo Churchill
Thank you, Ms Rees; I will indeed. I will canter through the questions. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North knows, we work effectively together, and if I have missed anything I will come back to him.
The hon. Gentleman was right that all parts of the process, end to end, are treated similarly. I thank him for the measured view he took of what the measures seek to do, which is sort the market out, so the answer to his question is yes. He asked about the list. Yes, this is the final list. He asked about the process. Sign-up on 27 November through to 31 December is stage 1. Stage 2 is that existing providers have to meet the checklist of key requirements for the testing services by 31 January. New providers will need to complete this stage by 31 January or within four weeks of completing stage 1, whichever is later. Providing that the providers pass all assessments and are fully accredited for testing, the instrument will mandate that existing providers should meet stage 3 by 30 June or within four weeks, whichever is later.
We have worked very closely with UKAS to ensure that it has capacity to do this work within the four weeks. We have been assured that the current providers in the market can meet that. UKAS is a recognised mark of gold standard, and that is why we are working closely with it. Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have been working with it to ensure that people can access advice on quality assurance of tests and so on, and become accredited. What is being seen here is a slight lag to make sure that we get this right and introduce the legislation. As I say, my officials have been working with UKAS to ensure that we get the right balance. There are checks and balances in making sure that the adapted three-stage approach allows entry at speed, but also has a check. If a provider has not passed at four weeks, they do not get to move on any further. This preserves the gold standard, and UKAS embraces the innovation, but wants to make sure that its accreditation stays at that standard. Providers that continue to provide and have failed to meet the criteria will be committing an offence that is punishable on summary conviction by an unlimited fine.
If passed, we will review these regulations after six months to ensure that they are suitable and efficient. The hon. Gentleman and I have regular dialogues; if he has any input, I am always happy to listen to it.
That has probably cleared off the majority of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I thank him for his contribution to this important debate. The Government have been clear that the highest priority is saving lives and reducing the spread of the virus while aiming to get life back to normal as soon as possible. The measures and amendments that we have debated today are necessary and proportionate to ensure that everyone can access simple, effective, high- quality testing services that they can count on. Testing is not a silver bullet. It is not the sole solution to the pandemic. However, it is part of the broader solution, and it is helping us to protect jobs and keep businesses open.
Testing is enabling hospital treatment to continue and transport to keep running, and is keeping our children in education. It is vital that we continue to open up the economy, and that NHS supplies are saved for the situations in which they are needed most. To ensure that, we need to enable the provision of new, innovative tests that are as reliable and effective as possible. To that end, the services that wrap around them need accreditation. The regulations will ensure that. They will provide public confidence in testing, and support private providers in entering the market.
As I have said, we need to create an agile regulatory environment for testing providers. We can enable that by removing CQC regulatory requirements for them and replacing them with the gold standard of UKAS accreditation. The measures will simplify the complex regulatory system for test providers, and simplify the process of looking for a commercial test that is reliable, assured by providers, and gives individuals and employers essential assurances about the test that they procure.
In conclusion, this legislation will simplify the regulatory landscape for test providers and regulate the market in a consistent manner. This is beneficial to consumers and test providers alike. I reiterate my thanks to the covid-19 test providers for their pivotal work in the past few months. We review these regulations regularly and assess them in the light of developments. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, TESTING REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Health Protection (Coronavirus, Testing Requirements and Standards) (England) Regulations 2020.—(Jo Churchill.)
National Security and Investment Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Thursday 10th December 2020
(4 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 View all National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2020 - (10 Dec 2020)
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: †Sir Graham Brady, Derek Twigg
† Aiken, Nickie (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
† Baynes, Simon (Clwyd South) (Con)
† Bowie, Andrew (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
† Fletcher, Katherine (South Ribble) (Con)
Flynn, Stephen (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
† Garnier, Mark (Wyre Forest) (Con)
† Gideon, Jo (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
† Grant, Peter (Glenrothes) (SNP)
† Griffith, Andrew (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Kinnock, Stephen (Aberavon) (Lab)
† Onwurah, Chi (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
† Tarry, Sam (Ilford South) (Lab)
† Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Western, Matt (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
† Whitehead, Dr Alan (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
† Wild, James (North West Norfolk) (Con)
† Zahawi, Nadhim (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)
Rob Page, Yohanna Sallberg, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Thursday 10 December 2020
(Afternoon)
[Sir Graham Brady in the Chair]
National Security and Investment Bill
New Clause 1
National Security Definition
“When assessing a risk to national security, the Secretary of State may have regard to factors including, but not restricted to—
(a) whether the trigger event risks enabling a hostile actor to gain control of a crucial supply chain, obtain access to sensitive sites, corrupt processes or systems, conduct espionage, exert inappropriate leverage or engage in any other action which may undermine national security;
(b) whether the trigger event adversely impacts the UK’s capability and capacity to maintain economic security;
(c) the potential impact of the trigger event on the UK’s defence capabilities and interests;
(d) the potential impact of the trigger event on the transfer of sensitive data, technology or know-how outside of the UK;
(e) the characteristics of the acquirer, including its jurisdiction of incorporation and proximity to any state;
(f) the potential impact of the trigger event on the security of the UK’s critical national infrastructure;
(g) whether the acquirer in respect of a trigger event has a history of compliance with UK and other applicable law;
(h) the potential impact of the trigger event on the UK’s international interests and obligations, including with respect to the protection of human rights and climate risk; and
(i) the potential of the trigger event to involve or facilitate illicit activities, including terrorism, organised crime and money laundering.”—(Chi Onwurah.)
This new clause specifies a number of factors which the Secretary of State may consider when assessing a risk to national security.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Sir Graham. I am also pleased that the Committee is now moving to the new expanses of new clauses. I see that Committee members have come fully prepared to deal with the environment in which we find ourselves. I should say, Sir Graham, that the previous Chair said that we should be able to put on as many coats as we liked. I think that that is much to be desired. Unfortunately, I left my office in a rush and forgot to bring my coat, as well as the Houses of Parliament Christmas jumper in which I invested only yesterday, in anticipation that it might be needed today. We shall have to take the temperature as an encouragement to press on.
Had we known that, regardless of the title of the Bill, it was actually the National and Security and Investment, and any improvements to the Enterprise Act 2002 we feel it is necessary to make, Bill, we might have ranged somewhat broader in our new clauses. We chose instead to focus on what we felt was absolutely critical to the good functioning of our national security framework. New clause 1 seeks to set out some of the factors that the Secretary of State may have regard to when making assessments under the provisions of the Bill. We recognise some of the implications of including a definition of national security. The Bill is called the National Security and Investment Bill, even if it does go somewhat beyond that title.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I note that the hon. Lady uses the word “may” not “shall” in the new clause. Can she explain why she opted for “may” in this instance?
Chi Onwurah
I am grateful for that intervention. First, it shows that the hon. Gentleman is paying attention, which in itself is something to be welcomed. If I may say so, it also shows that he is taking lessons from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. We have considered the matter and this is the correct use of the term “may”. I shall go into more detail later, but this is not about prescribing what the Secretary of State must look at; it is about giving greater clarity, particularly to those who will come under the Bill’s remit. One of the expert witnesses put it very well. Those who will come under the Bill’s remit need to get a sense of what the Government mean by national security, not in a specific and detailed definition.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Would the hon. Lady not agree that there is danger that the new clause would start to try to define in a prescriptive way what a national security risk is, whereas the point of the Bill is that it enables the Government, the Secretary of State and the relevant parties to judge what is a risk? That goes back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk made about “may” and “shall”. As far as I can see, the new clause should use “shall”, given what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, but I accept the point about how such legislation is worded. There is a danger that, by listing all these clauses, we imply that other aspects of danger to national security are not included. I am not sure that it would achieve anything. In many ways, it might obfuscate rather than clarify, although I fully accept that her intention is to clarify.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which I think was made in the proper spirit of the Committee, by seeking to improve the Bill, help the Secretary of State, and help those who will be affected by the Bill to understand it. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that there is a trade-off.
During the expert evidence sessions, we heard both from those who felt that there should be a definition of national security and from those who felt that there should not. However, if my memory serves me, they all tended to agree that there should be greater clarity about what national security could include. For example, Dr Ashley Lenihan of the London School of Economics said:
“What you do see in regulations is guidance as to how national security risk might be assessed or examples of what could be considered a threat to national security.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 24 November 2020; c. 38, Q42.]
We also heard that in the US the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act 2018 provides for a “sense of Congress” on six factors that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and the President may consider—the term “may” is used well here—in assessing national security: countries of specific concern; critical infrastructure, energy assets and critical material; a history of compliance with US law; control of US industries that affect US capacity to meet national security requirements, which is very important; personally identifiable information; and potential new cyber-security vulnerabilities.
My argument is that if we look at examples from elsewhere, we see indications of what can be included in national security without having a prescriptive definition. That is exactly what the new clause tries to set out. It states:
“When assessing a risk to national security, the Secretary of State may have regard to factors including”,
and then it gives a list of factors, which I shall detail shortly.
The question, “What is national security?” is entirely unanswered, for Parliament, for businesses looking for clarity, for citizens looking for reassurance, and if hostile actors are seeking to take advantage of any loopholes in how the Secretary of State construes national security. I do have sympathy with the argument that we should not be prescriptive and limit the Secretary of State’s flexibility to act by setting down a rigid definition of national security that rules things out. That is the spirit of the new clause. It does not rule out the Secretary of State’s flexibility or set a rigid definition; it simply does what other countries have done well, as our experts witnesses have said, by giving a guide on some factors that the Government might consider, while allowing many more to be included in national security assessments. This is critical in order to give greater clarity to businesses puzzled by the Government’s very high-level definitions of espionage, disruption or inappropriate leverage.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The hon. Lady appears to be advancing two arguments simultaneously. On the one hand, I understand the argument about clarity, which is indeed something that many people would look for in this Bill. However, she also talks about flexibility and that we should not seek to tie the Secretary of State down to a particular, prescriptive definition at any point in time, which I think members on both sides of the Committee would agree on. Given that, I am genuinely confused as to why she would seek to advance this new clause, although I find its actual wording wholly unobjectionable. Perhaps the Minister will reply on this topic, because I think the record of these proceedings could provide that clarity without needing to press the amendment to a vote.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which I found very helpful. If he believes me to be presenting both sides of the argument at once, perhaps that is because the Minister has been doing the very same thing so often during the past few sittings. As the Minister has often said, there is a balance to be sought between flexibility for the Secretary of State and clarity for the business community and other communities. This new clause goes exactly to the point made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, and strikes that balance. That is why—I will say it again—the new clause does not prescribe what national security is, but it does not leave a vacuum into which supposition, uncertainty and confusion can move.
The new clause gives greater clarity to citizens worried about whether Government will act to protect critical data transfers or our critical national infrastructure. Are those areas part of our national security, even though they are not covered by the Government’s proposed 17 sectors? The new clause provides assurance in that case and—this is important—sends a message to hostile actors that we will act to protect British security through broad powers applied with accountability. It should be clear that we also need to consider how this Bill will be read by the hostile actors against whom we are seeking to protect our nation, and this new clause will send a clearer message as to what may be included in that.
The factors highlighted in this new clause are comparable to guidance provided in other affected national security legislation, most notably the US’s Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act 2018. Paragraph (a) would protect our supply chains and sensitive sites, in addition to acting against the disruption, espionage and inappropriate leverage highlighted in the Government’s statement of policy intent. We have heard from experts, and have also seen from very recent history—namely, that of our 5G network—that our strategic security depends not only on businesses immediately relevant to national security, but on the full set of capabilities and supply chains that feed into those security-relevant businesses. We cannot let another unforeseen disruption, whether pandemic or otherwise, disrupt our access to critical supply.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) look strategically at our national security, not with a short-term eye. We have heard consistently from experts that national security and economic security are not altogether separate. Indeed, they cannot be separated; they are deeply linked. A national security expert told us that a narrow focus on direct technologies of defence was mistaken and that instead we should look to the “defence of technology”. That was a very appropriate phrase, meaning not specific technologies of defence, but defence of technologies that seem economically strategic today and might become strategic for national security tomorrow.
The former head of the National Cyber Security Centre told us that the Government should have acted in transactions such as Huawei’s acquisition of the Centre for Integrated Photonics, rather than turn a blind eye because it did not seem to fit a narrow definition. We should not turn a blind eye any longer. With guidance from the new clause, the Government would act to protect our strategic security.
Paragraph (d) suggests a clear-eyed focus on the threats of modern technology. We are not competing against obvious physical capabilities alone; we are combating covert digital capabilities, too. We have heard about the critical role that artificial intelligence will play in our nation’s security and the regret expressed by many that DeepMind was allowed to be sold to Google when it was, and still is, a leading force in global artificial intelligence. We know that the context of artificial intelligence capabilities is grounded in large, diverse training datasets. The new clause would put British frontier technology interests first.
Paragraph (e) would take the Government’s analysis in the statement of policy intent and put it into action. It recognises that national security risks are most likely to arise when acquirers are hostile to the UK’s national security or when they owe allegiance to hostile states. The origin and source matters—I hope the Minister agrees with that. The former chief of MI6 told us about Chinese intelligence organising the strategic focus of both Chinese commerce and Chinese academic study in ways that are challenging to identify unless we have regard to the country of origin of those parties, which the Bill currently does not have.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentions Sir Richard Dearlove’s evidence to the Committee a couple of weeks ago. He made very clear that his opinion, as a former head of MI6, was that having a statutory definition of national security would be very prohibitive and do damage to what we are trying to achieve by getting this Bill on the statute book.
Chi Onwurah
Absolutely. That is why we are not seeking a statutory definition of national security. That is why we are seeking to include and to set out points that the Secretary of State may take into account. The hon. Member should recognise that the Government’s statement of intent is designed to give guidance as to how the Bill will work and be used in practice, and what might be taken into account. The guidance is there. It is just that it is very limited.
We are deliberately not seeking a prescriptive definition of national security. We recognise, as Sir Richard Dearlove did, that it can and must evolve over time. We are seeking to give greater guidance and to promote a better understanding of the remit of the Bill, so that it can be better interpreted and better implemented and so that all those who come under its remit can share that understanding. That is what other nations do. The new clause takes our security context seriously, and signals to hostile actors that we will act with seriousness, not superficiality.
Paragraph (f) bridges the gap between the Government’s defined sectors and focus and the critical national infrastructure that we already define and focus on in our wider intelligence and security work. It brings us in line with allies. Canadian guidelines list the security of Canada’s national infrastructure as an explicit factor in national security assessments. In Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States cases, Congress lists critical infrastructure among the six factors that the President and CFIUS may access.
The provision also acts on the agreement of the ex MI6 chief. In relation to having a critical national infrastructure definition in the Bill, he said:
“I would certainly see that as advantageous, because it defines a clear area where you start and from which you can make judgments”.––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 24 November 2020; c. 24, Q31.]
Some of the interventions have been about whether the new clause hits the right spot between prescribing and defining what national security is and giving greater clarity and focus. We would argue that the evidence that I have just set out shows that it does.
Paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) recognise that national security is about more than a narrow view of military security; it is about human security, clamping down on persistent abuses of law—as other countries do—and recognising that a party that consistently abuses human rights abroad cannot be trusted to do otherwise at home. It is about knowing that the single greatest collective threat we face, at home and across the world, lies in climate risk. It is about acting on illicit activities and money-laundering threats that underpin direct threats to national security in the form of global terror.
I recognise that many Government Members have recently raised the importance of human rights, illicit activities, money laundering and climate change in our security. In the statement on Hong Kong this week, the Minister for Asia acknowledged that human rights should be part of our considerations when it comes to trade and security but said that he did not feel that the Trade Bill was the right place for such provisions. I argue that today’s Bill is the right place for them because it deals with our national security.
The new clause would show the world that the UK is serious about national security. We must protect our national security against threats at home and abroad, and build our sovereign capability in industries that are the most strategically significant for security. We must view security in the light of modern technologies, climate and geopolitical threats. None of those constrain the Government’s ability to act; they simply sharpen the clarity of that action, and its signal to the world.
When we began line-by-line scrutiny, I spoke of my astonishment that the Government’s impact assessment referred to national security as an area of market failure that therefore required Government action. I hope that the Minister can confirm that he does not believe that national security is an area of market failure, but that it is the first responsibility of Government. The new clause sets out to give bones to that assertion and to demonstrate to the world that we understand our national security and the interests at play in promoting and securing it, and that we will act decisively in the interest of national security, taking into account this range of factors to protect our citizens, our national interest and our economic sovereignty, now and in the future.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central although I confess I was not quite able to pay attention to the early part of her remarks, because I was still reeling from the revelation that a born and bred Geordie is capable of feeling cold. I just hope that her constituents do not get to hear of it, or she might be in trouble at the next election.
Perhaps the aspect of the new clause that I am least comfortable about is the title. I think that is what is causing the problem. The title is “National security definition”, but what follows, thankfully, is not a definition of national security. Like a lot of people, I would love to be able to come up with a definition of national security that worked and was robust, but no one has been able to do that. The new clause, however, does not seek to prescribe what national security is, and despite what was said in some of the interventions, it certainly does not attempt to prescribe what it is not. It gives explicit statutory authority to the Secretary of State to take certain factors into account in determining whether and how, in his judgment, a particular acquisition is a threat to national security.
Chi Onwurah
I can only ascribe my lack of the usual Geordie central heating to being so far from home at the moment. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the new clause seriously, and I think he is right. The title misleads to the extent that we are not looking to define national security.
Peter Grant
If the hon. Lady thinks she is a long way from home—tell me about it.
There was discussion, and quite a lot of questions to some of the early witnesses, about whether we needed to give some kind of guidance on what national security is not. Some of us vividly remember—I think that the hon. Lady’s constituents will vividly remember—that there was a time when someone was a threat to national security if they were a coal miner who went on strike, or if they had a trade union membership card in their pocket and worked in the wrong places, such as in Government establishments that officially did not exist then. When we look at the honours that are still bestowed on the person responsible for those two abuses of the claim of national security, it can be understood why some of us are always concerned about giving any Government powers to act in the interest of national security unless clear safeguards are built in.
The other side of the coin is that I can foresee times when the Secretary of State might be grateful for the fact that the clause has been incorporated in the Bill. Let us suppose that someone wanted to take control of or influence a software company. I know that software is itself an area we would want to look at. We all know what can happen when the software that helps to control major transport systems goes wrong. We have all been affected by Heathrow terminal 5 effectively shutting down for hours at a time. When there is a major signalling fault caused by a software malfunction at one of the main London stations, the whole of the south-east can be clogged up for hours or even days.
Can that become a threat to our national security? I think there are circumstances in which it could. I can certainly foresee circumstances in which someone who wanted to damage the United Kingdom—for no other reason than wanting to damage its interests—might seek to do so by getting a way in that enables them to interfere with the code controlling software of the transport or financial services infrastructure, for example. It is not in the interest of any of us, at the point when a Secretary of State intervenes to stop such an acquisition, if the matter can be taken to court and it becomes necessary to argue that deliberately causing the national transport infrastructure to freeze is an attack on our national security. I cannot understand why anyone would want not to add a clause to the Bill to allow such an interpretation to be made if the Secretary of State saw fit.
Chi Onwurah
The hon. Gentleman reminds me that I should have mentioned either the impact assessment or the consultation response. I think the consultation response gives the deliberately induced software failure at Heathrow as an example of a failure of national security that the Bill would be able to circumvent by preventing hostile parties from owning that software company, without setting out how that would be part of the definition of national security that the Bill is seeking.
Peter Grant
I am grateful again for those comments. The hon. Lady has referred again to what is in the explanatory notes. Unless somebody has changed the rules, the explanatory notes are not part of the eventual Act of Parliament. In borderline cases, they may be used by a court to help to interpret what the intention of Parliament was when it passed a Bill, but as a general rule, the intention of Parliament is stated by the words in the Act as it is passed. If it does not say in the Act that a Secretary of State can take those factors into account, there will be an argument that will have to be heard and tried in court, if need be, that a Secretary of State should not have taken those factors into account.
Andrew Griffith
I do not know how familiar the hon. Gentleman is with the process by which the courts look at the definitions for judicial review, but one of the dangers of trying to write them down—I accept that it is “may” language, not “must”—is that the court will look at them. We could inadvertently circumscribe the degree to which the Act can be used. I know that is not the hon. Gentleman’s intention, but I have to say that, in practice—he might be familiar with how the courts work, particularly for judicial review—that is absolutely a legitimate consideration. That is one of the reasons why I would argue that the new clause should not be accepted.
Peter Grant
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am also looking at the following words:
“factors including, but not restricted to”.
Are those words completely without meaning? If they are, why is it that the Library has dozens, if not hundreds, of pieces of legislation currently in force that have those exact words included in them? Those words are there explicitly to make sure that the list is not intended to be comprehensive. The fact that the word “may” is in there is because it allows the Secretary of State to take the factors into account, but it does not require them to do it in circumstances where it is not appropriate.
The final aspect that I want to look at is the very last factor in new clause 1: money laundering. Everybody knows that money laundering is bad and that it is a threat to our economy; it is a threat to honest businesses and all the rest of it. If the only concern that the Secretary of State had about an acquisition was that it was intended to facilitate large-scale money laundering in the United Kingdom, can we be sure that a court would accept that, and that alone, as evidence of a threat to our national security? I hope it would. The way to make sure it would is to put it in the Bill right now.
We know there are very strong connections between the acquisition of huge amounts of property, particularly in London, by people who got rich very quickly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, large-scale money laundering and organised crime, with the money sometimes being laundered through London, and the growing effectiveness of the threat that the present Russian regime poses to our national security. The Intelligence and Security Committee report from about a year ago highlighted that very clearly.
We know that money laundering can become part of—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. A Division has been called in the House. In anticipation of there being at least three Divisions, I suspend the Committee for half an hour. We shall resume at 3.3 pm. Should a fourth Division be called, the Committee will resume at 3.13 pm. If everybody is back sooner, we can resume earlier.
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
On resuming—
Peter Grant
Even by my standards, it feels as if it is a long time since I stood up to start speaking, so I will bring my comments to a close, Sir Graham.
The examples that I quoted of a potential software threat to our critical transport infrastructure or facilitation of large-scale money laundering are just two examples where I think it would be to the benefit of the legislation to have those factors explicitly permitted for the Secretary of State to take into account when exercising the powers created by the Bill. I understand Government Members’ concern, but I ask them not to judge the new clause by their understandable and shared concerns about the dangers of having a precise dictionary definition of national security. I ask them to judge it by the additional certainty and reassurance it will give the Secretary of State that if they take those factors into account in all of our interests, there will be no question but that the court will uphold the decision. On that basis, I commend the new clause to the Committee. If, as has happened with depressing regularity, the Committee splits along party lines, I sincerely invite the Government to think seriously about tabling a similar measure at a later stage, because the new clause could improve the Bill substantially and it would be a great shame if it was lost simply for party political considerations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
I am grateful to Opposition speakers, the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Glenrothes, for their contributions and to my hon. Friends the Members for Arundel and South Downs, for North West Norfolk, for Clwyd South and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine for their excellent interventions.
On new clause 1, it will not surprise the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central that the Government’s position remains consistent with that of 1 December, when amendments relating to the new clause were discussed. Such amendments included, among others, proposals for the inclusion of a definition of national security in the statement made by the Secretary of State. The new clause seeks to create a new, exhaustive list of factors that the Secretary of State may take into account when considering whether something is a risk to national security.
Chi Onwurah
I am listening intently to the Minister’s response—given the great skills of the Committee he is taking the new clause in the right spirit—but it is not appropriate to say that we are presenting an exhaustive list when we specifically say, “this and other things”. It meant to be not an exhaustive list but a guide and a sense.
Nadhim Zahawi
I apologise. I will say instead that the clause seeks to create a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Secretary of State may take into account when considering whether something is a risk to national security for the purposes of the Bill.
The Bill as drafted does not seek to define national security. It also does not include factors that the Secretary of State will take into account in coming to a national security assessment. Instead, factors that the Secretary of State expects to take into account in exercising the call-in powers are proposed to be set out, as the hon. Lady rightly said, in the statement provided for in clause 3. A draft of the statement was published on introduction of the Bill to aid the Committee’s scrutiny efforts. The draft statement includes details of what the Secretary of State is likely to be interested in when it comes to national security risks. That includes certain sectors of the economy and the types of acquisition that may raise concern.
While it is crucial for investors’ confidence that there is as much transparency in the regime as possible, there is self-evidently a limit to how much the Government can and should disclose in that regard given that the regime deals explicitly with national security matters. Nevertheless, the draft statement goes into some detail about the factors that the Secretary of State expects to take into account when making a decision on whether to call in a trigger event.
The new clause would instead place in the Bill, alongside the statement, a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Secretary of State may have regard to when assessing a risk to national security. That raises a number of issues. First, it is unclear what the benefit is of including a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Secretary of State may have regard to directly in the legislation as opposed to in the statement.
Nadhim Zahawi
I will happily take the hon. Lady’s intervention once I have gone through these points.
Secondly, the new clause would not replace the statement; instead, it would appear to sit alongside it. The Government think that would probably cause confusion rather than clarity, although I have no doubt that the hon. Lady and the Opposition agree that clarity for all parties will be crucial to the regime’s success.
Thirdly, by stating what may be taken into account when assessing a risk to national security under the Bill, the new clause indirectly sets out what can be a national security risk for the purposes of the Bill, and therefore what comes within the scope of national security—many colleagues pointed out some of the evidence suggesting that we should do exactly the opposite of that—which could clearly have unintended consequences for other pieces of legislation that refer to national security. The Bill requires that the statement from the Secretary of State be reviewed at least every five years to reflect the changing national security landscape. Indeed, in practice, it is likely that it will be reviewed and updated more frequently. We think that this is the right approach, rather than binding ourselves in primary legislation.
Fourthly, but perhaps most importantly, I note in this list that the Secretary of State may have regard to an ever-broadening set of suggestions that Opposition Members wish to be taken into account as part of national security. On Second Reading, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), requested that an industrial strategy test be included in the Bill alongside national security assessments. I am afraid that an industrial strategy test is not the purpose of this legislation.
Peter Grant
The Minister comments on a speech by the shadow Secretary of State at an earlier stage of the Bill’s passage and on the undesirability of building an industrial strategy test into the Bill. I do not see an industrial strategy test mentioned in the new clause, so, for the purpose of clarity, is that part of the new clause that we are debating?
Nadhim Zahawi
I was referring to the shadow Secretary of State’s request on Second Reading that an industrial strategy test be included in the Bill.
As I was saying, factors that the Secretary of State may have regard to through the new clause are wide ranging. This is an important Bill about national security and national security alone. We do not wish to see an ever-growing list of factors for the Secretary of State to take into consideration. That would risk the careful balance that has been struck in this regime between protecting national security and ensuring that the UK remains one of the best places in the world to invest. The Government consider that the Secretary of State should be required to assess national security as strictly about the security of our nation. That is what the Bill requires. These powers cannot and will not be used for economic, political or any other reasons.
While I understand the objectives of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, for the reasons I have set out I am not able to accept the new clause. I hope the hon. Member will agree to withdraw it.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his response, not all of which was entirely unexpected. I also thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes for his speech and his interventions, which were very much to the point.
I feel that the Minister was, to a certain extent, doing what the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs accused me of doing—I did say that I had learned so much from the Minister—which was arguing both sides of the question at once. He seems to be saying that there should not be any definition, but that if there needs to be a definition, it is already there in the statement that the Secretary of State has set out. Indeed, I have been looking for that statement, because I did not recognise it from the way the Minister described it when talking about giving detail on the types of national security questions that might arise.
In fact—the Minister may want to intervene on me on this—he seemed to imply that that statement included a list of factors. I do not think that it does, but he seemed to say that the new clause is not necessary because there is already a list of factors in that statement, and that the statement and the new clause would be in some way contradictory. I do not feel that that in any way reflects what is set out in the new clause. The new clause contains a list of factors to guide the Secretary of State. It is not an exhaustive list, but it gives considerably more of a sense of the understanding of national security than is to be found in the Secretary of State’s statement of intent. The Minister said that that could be changed at least every five years, and he argued that the list in new clause 1 appeared to be growing—this is a new clause, so I do not think the list can have grown. Our national security has changed, and the factors that determine it have expanded significantly. If we look at cyber-security, at artificial intelligence, at the threats that are coming from many different areas of the world and at the different state and non-state actors, we can see that that is absolutely the case.
I will not detain the Committee further. National security is broad, and there is a reason for that. We want to set out guidance, and I think it is important to test the will of the Committee on this new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
New Clause 2
Report on impact on Small to Medium Enterprises
“Not later than 18 months after the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) a report setting out the impacts the Act has had on Small to Medium Enterprises and early-stage ventures, and
(b) guidance for Small to Medium Enterprises and early-stage ventures on complying with the provisions of this Act.”—(Peter Grant.)
This new clause would require the Government to produce a report setting out the impacts of this legislation on Small to Medium Enterprises and early-stage ventures, and to produce relevant guidance.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Grace period for SMEs—
“For the purposes of section 32, a person has a reasonable excuse if—
(a) the entity concerned is a Small to Medium Enterprise;
(b) this Act has been in force for less than six months.”
This new clause creates a grace period whereby – for alleged offences committed under Section 32 – Small to Medium Enterprises would have a ‘reasonable excuse’ if the alleged offence was committed within the first six months after the Bill’s passage.
Peter Grant
I am pleased to speak to the two new clauses, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South. Throughout our debate on the Bill, Members have spoken—sometimes with a surprising degree of cross-party consensus—of the need to find the right balance between protecting our collective national security and allowing beneficial investment into the United Kingdom to continue. New clauses 2 and 3 aim to give some recognition to the fact that among the Bill’s potential detrimental effects may well be a disproportionate detrimental impact on smaller businesses and early start-up ventures.
Smaller businesses often lack the resources to have their own in-house team of lawyers or other trade law experts, and they certainly cannot afford the services of the very experienced experts that gave evidence to the Committee a few weeks ago. They may be more adversely affected than a bigger business would be by delays in bringing in investment, because they do not have the same resources to fall back on. Compared with bigger businesses that may have more international connections, smaller businesses are unlikely to be as well informed about which possible investors or partners are likely to raise security concerns. There is a danger that small businesses could commit time and resources to negotiating deals, acquisitions, mergers or investments that a bigger business with a more global perspective would immediately know were non-starters. Small businesses may spend a lot of time on abortive deals and negotiations.
All the way through, I have said that these things may happen. I am not trying to reignite arguments about “may” and “must”, but at the moment nobody really knows what the impact of the legislation will be. We cannot possibly know until it has been in place for a few months, or possibly even a bit longer. What we do know is that when this legislation comes into force, we will rely massively on the growth of existing small businesses and the launch of new ones to drive our post-covid recovery. Big businesses will not do it, and they certainly will not do it on their own. We have all got a responsibility to avoid putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of small businesses who want to start to grow. If we do find that we have unintentionally put those obstacles in the way, we need to be able to remove them.
New clause 2 makes two simple requests—it has two simple requirements. The first is that the Secretary of State reports back to Parliament on impacts the Act has had on small and medium-sized enterprises and early-stage ventures, giving Parliament the chance—should it need it—to consider whether we have created unintended barriers to small businesses. The second requirement is for the Secretary of State to provide guidance to those same companies to give them a bit more certainty about what they need to do to stay on the right side of the law without having to spend money on expensive consultants or legal experts.
New clause 3 tries to minimise the potential damage that the Act could do to small businesses, particularly in the early days when they may be unused to some of the impacts. Clause 32 creates a new offence of completing a notifiable acquisition without reasonable excuse and without the proper authority of the Secretary of State. New clause 3 seeks to recognise that small businesses in particular may find themselves in the wrong side of that clause in the early days of the legislation, not through any malice or wilful neglect, but simply through ignorance, lack of experience or being too busy trying to run their business to be keeping an eye on what is happening in the Houses of Parliament. New clause 3 would effectively provide a grace period of six months in which a small business can put forward the fact that the legislation is new to be taken as a reasonable excuse, which would mean that neither they nor the directors were liable to criminal prosecution. It is critically important to bear in mind that nothing in new clause 3 would do anything whatever to dilute or reduce the effectiveness of the Bill in doing what it is supposed to do. It would not have any impact on the ability of the Secretary of State to take action to protect our national security. It would not have any impact on the exercise of powers either to block an acquisition or merger or to impose conditions on it, should that be necessary. It would not change the fact that if a small business during that six-month period completes an acquisition that should not have been completed, that acquisition would be just as void under the law as any other acquisition.
I understand that new clause 3 is a slightly unusual clause for a piece of legislation, but it would allow us to make sure that the Bill continues to protect national security to the fullest extent it can, but at the same time that we do not have businesses being scared to act in case they end up on the wrong side of the law. We would not have the possibility of the courts having to take up time dealing with prosecutions of small businesses or directors who genuinely meant no harm, but who just—
Andrew Griffith
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s conversion to the zealous promotion of free enterprise and the cause of small businesses, but would he extend his support to any new taxation measures, new business regulation or employment measures that are advanced by the Government? While I support the thrust, the principle and the philosophy from which he clearly speaks, I do worry that the new clause could create somewhat of a precedent, and I am not sure that all of his colleagues have fully thought through the profound implications for the application of the law on business in this land.
Peter Grant
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been a supporter of small businesses significantly longer than he has perhaps. I did make it clear that this is a way that we can protect small businesses without in any way compromising the integrity of the Bill. There is nothing in the new clause that will in any way weaken the effectiveness of the Bill and protecting our national security. I would be happy at another time to debate the reasons why, for example, employment measures in Scotland should be taken by the Parliament and Government elected by the people of Scotland rather than somewhere down here, but that is not a debate for today. I expect, Sir Graham, that neither you nor anybody else would be too pleased if we started to take up time this afternoon on that subject.
James Wild
In clause 32, there is provision to look at whether a reasonable excuse exists in an individual case. The hon. Member’s amendment would give a blanket exemption to any small business by dint of being a small business. Is the case-by-case basis not a better way to approach the issue?
Peter Grant
That is a valid point, but I do not think it is. The difficulty with the case-by-case basis is that it creates uncertainty and worry for the small business concerned. We are talking about a period of only six months. I do not really think that hostile overseas investors are waiting to pounce during those six months to gobble up small businesses in a way that will damage our national security. Let us face it: if they were going to do that in the first six months, they would be doing it now or they would have done it in the last six months.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the new clause is deliberately worded to explicitly recognise the importance of small businesses, particularly during this period. The Bill is likely to come into force at the exact time that small businesses will be trying to get back on their feet. They need all the help they can get. There is a danger that the way that the Bill could be implemented and enforced will be an unintentional barrier to their growth.
All that we are asking is that, for a short period, until smaller businesses get used to the new legislation, it does not allow them to go ahead with transactions that are otherwise prohibited and would otherwise be blocked by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will still have the full power to block those transactions or to impose conditions on them. It does not mean that an acquisition is legally valid if it would otherwise be void under the terms of the legislation. The only difference it makes is that it removes the danger of small businesses or their directors spending time defending themselves in court when they should be developing their business and helping to get the economy back on its feet. On that basis, I commend both new clauses to the Committee.
Chi Onwurah
I rise to speak briefly in support of additional support for SMEs. The hon. Member for Glenrothes is a champion of small businesses, which is a pleasure to hear. As he set out, and as has been set out in a number of the amendments that we have tabled in Committee, we are concerned to make sure that the seismic shift in our national security assessment with regard to mergers and acquisitions does not stifle our innovative but often under-resourced small businesses, which are such an important driver of our economy. New clause 2 reflects our intentions, particularly in amendments 1 and 11, to support and give further guidance to small businesses. I hope that the Minister and Conservative Members recognise the importance of supporting small businesses at this time through direct measures in the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central for setting out the arguments in support of new clauses 2 and 3, which both relate to the treatment of small and medium-sized enterprises in the regime.
On new clause 2, the Government are a strong supporter of SMEs and have sought to provide a slick and easily navigable regime for businesses of all sizes to interact with. We are creating a digital portal and a simple notification process to allow all businesses to interact with the regime without the need for extensive support from law firms, which is a particular burden for small businesses. Furthermore, there is no fee for filling a notification, unlike many of our allies’ regimes, which in some cases charge hundreds of thousands of pounds for a notification. Consequently, we do not expect this regime to disproportionately affect SMEs.
New clause 3 would create a grace period whereby SMEs would have a “reasonable excuse” defence if they committed an offence within six months of the Bill’s being passed. I can offer reassurance to the hon. Member for Glenrothes that we expect non-compliance to be very low, and we will be making every effort to keep it that way through, for example, effective engagement and outreach.
I can also advise the hon. Gentleman that for the purpose of estimating the cost to the justice system, the impact assessment suggests that for the most serious breaches of the regime, there will be a criminal conviction of any kind less than once a year. It is, however, crucial that the regime carries a sufficiently robust deterrent to ensure compliance. If there was a gap in enforcement with the absence of penalties, that could serve to undermine the deterrent effect of the regime in general, and therefore compliance along with it.
It is also crucial that the regime extends fully to SMEs. It is not just acquisitions of control over large businesses that might harm our national security, as we heard during the very good evidence sessions that we held. For example, imagine a takeover by a potentially hostile actor of a small start-up that had not yet gone to market or turned a profit, but had cutting-edge intellectual property that potential adversaries might use to undermine our security. Indeed, businesses of precisely that type are often seeking investment, and hostile actors could target them.
I should also refer to what is often SMEs’ role as acquirers, particularly for notifiable acquisitions. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Bill specifies that the acquirer is to notify the Secretary of State about notifiable acquisitions. Although most such acquisitions are not expected to give rise to a national security risk, the regime is predicated on the idea that some acquirers could do us harm, and that some might actively seek to do so. With the grace period that he seeks to put in place through the new clause, there would be nothing to stop hostile actors setting up an SME specifically to carry out notifiable acquisitions in the first six months of the regime’s operation, not notifying and then being immune from any penalties.
If and when the Secretary of State found out about such acquisitions, he could still call them in—I am sure that is what the hon. Gentleman was imagining—and, if appropriate, apply remedies. However, I hope he agrees that where the SME held sensitive intellectual property, that intellectual property would be long gone and transferred overseas before the Secretary of State could act.
We therefore need penalties to disincentivise that kind of dangerous behaviour, so while I fully appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause, such a grace period would create an unacceptable loophole that rewarded those seeking to undermine our regime. None the less, I recommit to the hon. Gentleman that the Government will continue to ensure that this regime is proportionate, and that SMEs and entities of all sizes can continue to thrive in this country while we safeguard our national security. I therefore hope that he will not press the new clause.
Peter Grant
I hear what the Minister is saying, but I am still not convinced that he was listening to all the comments from this side of the Committee. However, I do not seek to divide the Committee on either new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Complaints procedure
“(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations set up a formal complaints procedure through which acquirers may raise complaints about the procedures followed during the course of an assessment under this Act.
(2) Complaints as set out in subsection (1) may be made to a Procedural Officer, who—
(a) must not have been involved in the assessment and who is to consider significant procedural complaints relating to this section or another part of this Act; and
(b) may determine or settle complaints in accordance with regulations to be published by the Secretary of State within 3 months of this Bill becoming an Act.”—(Chi Onwurah.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a formal complaints procedure for acquirers.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
New Clause 5
High- and low-risk acquirers
“(1) The Secretary of State shall set out in writing descriptions of high risk and low risk acquirers by reference to the characteristics of those persons and their actual or potential hostility to the UK’s national security and national interest, and based on regular multi-agency reviews.
(2) Acquirers who meet the description of a high risk acquirer under subsection (1) must be subject to greater scrutiny by the Secretary of State in the carrying out of the Secretary of State’s functions under this Act.
(3) Acquirers who meet the description of a low risk acquirer under subsection (1) must be subject to lesser scrutiny by the Secretary of State in the carrying out of the Secretary of State’s functions under this Act.”—(Sam Tarry.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to maintain a list of hostile actors, including potential hostile states, and allied actors to allow differential internal scrutiny to be applied, based on the characteristics of the actors linked to the acquirer.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Opposition’s new clause 5 deals with high- and low-risk acquirers. It would require the Secretary of State to maintain a list of hostile actors, including potential hostile states and allied actors, to allow different internal security to be applied based on the characteristics of the actors linked to the acquirer. I will attempt to explain the exact thinking behind the proposal.
There has been widespread agreement inside and outside the Committee that we face a geopolitical context in which many—if not all—threats emanate from a set of hostile actors or states. In fact, the Government’s statement of policy intent for the Bill recognises that
“national security risks are most likely to arise when acquirers… owe allegiance to hostile states”.
Throughout this process, the Committee has heard from various experts, including experts on China, as well as from lawyers, intelligence chiefs and think-thank experts. They have told us that origin and state of origin should be important drivers of national security screening processes. Indeed, a number of our allies—most notably, the US—exempt some countries, including Canada, Australia and the UK, from some of the most stringent mandatory notification requirements, and include country of origin among the factors to be considered in assessing security.
In that context, it is perhaps quite concerning that the Minister and the Government have not caught up or been thinking about that. In previous expositions, they have simply maintained that national security is not dependent on a particular country. When we debated a similar provision earlier in this process, I think the Minister said the Government were “agnostic” about the country of origin. That could be a mistake, because national security is not exclusively dependent on a single country. It is short-sighted and, frankly, dangerous, not to see threats that are materially country-specific.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central said, the former head of MI6 told the Committee that, essentially, we need to wake up to the strategic challenge posed by China in particular. I will explore that a little more with some specific examples from around the world of China beginning to tap into start-ups long before they are mature enough to be acquired. In Sweden, for example, between 2014 and 2019, China’s buyers acquired 51 Swedish firms and bought minority stakes in 14 additional firms. In fact, the acquisitions included some 100 subsidiaries.
More worryingly, in 2018, Chinese outfits, two of them linked to the Chinese military, bought three cutting-edge Swedish semiconductor start-ups. There is the 2017 example of Imagination Technologies—a top British chipmaker—which was acquired by a firm owned by a state-controlled Chinese investment group. Before that, a Chinese firm also bought KUKA, a leading German industrial robot-maker.
Andrew Griffith
Although this is interesting, I fear we are drifting a tiny bit off the new clause, which does not refer to geography. Given the Opposition’s desire to continue to shade in any ambiguity with greater clarity and the definition in new clause 5, will the hon. Gentleman give his definition of what “regular” would constitute?
Sam Tarry
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The word “regular” would clearly need to be defined in a way that did not overburden the new part of the Department that would oversee the regime, but that would provide the information on a basis that enabled the Minister to make decisions, and to be scrutinised on those decisions regularly enough that the regime was effective and did not lead to oversights.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for his points on the new clause. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs may say that there is no reference to geography, but is it not the case that requiring a list of hostile actors might reflect geography as appropriate, and as the geography of hostile actors changes? Does the number of times that we have mentioned one country in particular—China—not indicate that geographical location can be an indicator of the likelihood of hostile actors?
Sam Tarry
Absolutely. This is not about being particularly anti-China, but it is the strongest example of where we have heard evidence of things that are under way. I will continue with a few more examples. I think this is important, because we are trying to draw back the curtain on exactly what is going on.
Simon Baynes
I perceive a similar issue in new clauses 5 and 1: being prescriptive in this way causes problems, because what happens if a new, potentially dangerous, acquirer appears on the scene who is not incorporated within the terms of the measure?
Sam Tarry
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which goes back to what the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said. That is why this needs to be looked at regularly enough to be on top of the process. Obviously, threats change. Countries rise and fall and their agendas and Governments change, but we know that in some instances countries are actively making moves to invest in technology companies in such a way that might not be caught by some of the provisions in the Bill. We feel that being more stringent here would allow the Secretary of State more powers to keep, in some ways, a better eye on exactly what is going on.
Perhaps I should explain a little what I mean by that. One of the things that we are trying to uncover and drive at with the new clause is the importance of some of the ways in which venture capital firms are being used, particularly by the Chinese and by some companies. For example, in Cambridge and Oxford—two important tech hubs for our country—start-ups are regularly invited to pitch ideas to the Chinese state investment company. Nothing particularly untoward is happening there, but it is quite interesting that Chinese investors are particularly interested in talking to emerging biotech, internet of things, artificial intelligence and agri-tech companies.
Why is China particularly interested in those areas? The publicly available “Made in China 2025” strategy to become an economic superpower says that the first three things that the Chinese are interested in are biotechnology, the internet of things, and artificial intelligence. It is quite clear that there is a specific move by the Chinese—this could be replicated by other countries, whether it be Russia or others—but it is not as obvious as, “This is a state company that is going to come in and invest.” They will be taking part in buy-ins of some of the companies. This is something that has already happened.
Peter Grant
Although I understand the intention behind the new clause, some of the wording concerns me. I supported new clause 1 because it was quite clearly permissive and expansive. This new clause is quite clearly prescriptive. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Secretary of State will be guided day to day, which is much more regularly than multi-agency reviews can happen? The Secretary of State will be guided day to day by advice from the security services and others, not as to the theoretical characteristics of an acquirer that might make them a threat, but as to the actual identity and track record of the acquirer and concern.
In particular, is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about requiring the production of a list of high-risk and low-risk characteristics, or that subsection (3) of the new clause in particular would create the possibility that, at some point, somebody who ticked all the boxes for low risk, but was still a high-risk acquirer, could prevent the Secretary of State from undertaking the scrutiny that was required? Can he even explain, for example, what he means by “greater” and “lesser” scrutiny? How would I interpret whether the Secretary of State’s scrutiny had been greater or lesser?
Sam Tarry
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Those are valid points, and part of what we are driving at here is to be more prescriptive. The feeling is that we essentially need to allow the loops in the net to be closed enough such that we catch some of these companies. We do not want a situation where a number of companies have portions of them being owned by, for example, China or another country, and do not fall foul of any of the provisions currently in the Bill. In time, that could mean that countries and entities that were hostile to Britain’s strategic goals ended up having quick and strategic access to things around nanotechnology, agriculture and a range of other areas where they had essentially got their hands into something that I think should be protected far more closely by the UK.
To give an example, in the US—this is already under way—a Palo Alto-based venture capital firm backed by the Chinese Government had dozens of US start-ups in its portfolio. On 15 November 2020, the Office of the US Trade Representative said that 151 venture capital investments in US start-ups had featured at least one Chinese investor—up from 20 in 2010. We are not saying we do not want Chinese investment, but what we do not want is a situation where we are unable to have a grip when we find that loads of our technology companies —our most cutting-edge firms—are essentially all part-owned by the Chinese Communist party or one of its subsidiaries. That is why we have been more prescriptive in many parts of the new clause.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some important points. One of the striking things about, for example, Canyon Capital Advisors is how the US authorities intervened when it was looking to take over a particular US tech company. However, when it came to Imagination Technologies, of course, the UK Government did not.
Sam Tarry
That is exactly the kind of example on which we are trying to use the new clause to provide more clarity and give more force to the Bill so it can deal with these sorts of thing. If, for example, public investment by Chinese venture capital groups in western countries—whether it be this country or others—is visible but is actually just the tip of the iceberg, that is going to be a real problem. One lesson that Richard Dearlove described clearly to the Committee was that we need to take a longer medium-term view that goes beyond just being the most free-market and economically attractive investment prospect, particularly given the rise of those geopolitical challenges. The Chinese are being explicit about what their goals are. They do not want to build Britain up; they want to take us for as much as they can get. This is about protecting ourselves and ensuring that those smaller things, which may just be going on under the net and may not hit some of the parts on mandatory notices, not the big headline-grabbing things, could be looked at.
I agree with an earlier comment made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes that one problem is that, while we need regular advice from intelligence services and of course it needs to come through to the Secretary of State, having a regularised timeframe in which we know that those things will get full scrutiny is incredibly important. Parliamentarians and the public will want to see if there are any patterns developing in types of investments and the way those investment vehicles are used to buy into some of the most advanced British technology companies.
This new clause does not require the Secretary of State to publish a list of countries; it simply requires that the Secretary of State, working with the agencies, maintains a list of state-driven risks, which feed into national security risks. Our drive, as the Opposition, is our concern that the Minister does not recognise the state-based nature of those major security threats.
If this new clause is accepted, it would provide those guarantees and the extra ability to bring together the agencies that would be able to compile that list of state-driven risks, which can then inform decisions. In that context, it is vital that the country is assured of the Government’s ability to act on intelligence and expertise in protecting British security against hostile actors.
Nadhim Zahawi
New clause 5 seeks to require the Secretary of State to maintain a written list of high-risk and low-risk acquirers, as we have heard, to allow differential internal scrutiny to be applied, by reference to the characteristics of the actors linked to the acquirer, and based on regular multi-agency reviews. I assume that the intention of the hon. Member for Ilford South is that this list would be an internal document, but I would be happy to discuss my concerns about publishing such judgments, if that would be of interest to him.
In order to exercise the call-in powers, the Bill already requires the Secretary of State to publish a statement, which we will discuss later, about how he expects to exercise the call-in power. This statement may include the factors that the Secretary of State expects to take into account when deciding whether to call in a trigger event. Guided by the statement, the Secretary of State will need to consider every acquisition on its own individual facts, as befits the complex nature of national security assessments. In my view, such a list as the one proposed would not, therefore, be the right way forward.
Mark Garnier
Has the Minister made an assessment of the resources that would be needed to look after a list such as this, not only to compile a list of hostile actors but to look after things like GDPR? There could be any number of legal challenges by companies that find themselves on this list unjustly. Perhaps the characteristics of a hostile actor may not individually be hostile, but a combination of several characteristics could be. It could easily exclude quite benign actors who accidentally fall into this. While the intention of the new clause is not unsound, it sounds like a hideous nightmare to administer.
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point, because, as he rightly says, factors other than the risk profile of the acquirer may determine whether an acquisition is subjected to greater or lesser scrutiny. It is also likely that any list would quickly go out of date. Entities in this space can change and emerge rapidly, especially if parties are attempting to evade the regime and the Secretary of State’s scrutiny. In addition, such lists being intentionally published or otherwise disclosed publicly could have significant ramifications for this country’s diplomatic relations and our place in the world, in respect of both those on one of the lists and those who are not on the list. Publishing the list may also give hostile actors information about gaming the system, to the UK’s detriment.
I would suggest that what the hon. Member for Ilford South describes would essentially be an internal and highly sensitive part of a national security assessment. While I appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to set out such details in writing. It is, however, entirely reasonable for the hon. Gentleman to seek to reduce the burden on business where possible, in particular if the acquisition presents little risk and can be cleared quickly. I have an enormous amount of sympathy with that aim.
Chi Onwurah
I do not intend to make a speech, but I wanted to intervene on this particular point. A part of the source of the new clause is the Minister’s own comments. He said that national security was not dependent on a particular country. He is giving a lot of reasons why there cannot be a list, because of different actors, but does he recognise that national security may relate to a specific country? Has he woken up to the risks that particular countries may pose?
Nadhim Zahawi
I assure the hon. Lady that Her Majesty’s Government do exactly that, but the Bill is deliberately country-agnostic. Indeed, to give parties predictability on small business and to provide for rapid decisions where possible, the regime has clear and strict timelines, as we have heard throughout the debate. Additionally, clause 6 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to exempt acquirers from the mandatory notification regime on the basis of their characteristics. Arguably, this places the strongest requirement on acquirers, such as where acquisitions by certain types of party are routinely notified but very rarely remedied or even called in. Taken together, these provisions are already a highly adaptable and comprehensive set of tools, so the list and its proposed use would be unnecessary and potentially harmful.
I shall touch briefly on national interests, which the new clause once again references. I have said before that the regime is intentionally and carefully focused on national security. That is specifically the security of the nation, rather than necessarily its broadest interests. This is therefore not the right place to introduce the concept of national interest, which would substantially and, we strongly believe, unhelpfully expand the scope of the regime.
In conclusion, with the strength provided by clauses 1, 3 and 6 already in the Bill, I am of the very strong opinion that the Bill already achieves its objectives. I therefore cannot accept the new clause and ask that the hon. Member for Ilford South withdraw it.
Sam Tarry
As I listened to the Minister, it struck me that one of the witnesses, Charles Parton from RUSI, said:
“Let us not forget that most foreign investment by the Chinese is state owned, so it is not just a fair bet but a fair certainty that any state-owned enterprise investing is fully politically controlled.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 24 November 2020; c. 17, Q19.]
That is in part our thinking. One slight contradiction with the Bill is that it does not feel as though it always quite reflects the statement of political intent published alongside it. We support that statement of political intent, so the new clause’s objective was to strengthen the Bill’s commitment to ensuring that the Investment Security Unit is provided with an assessment that recognises the relationship between hostile actors and the countries to which they owe allegiance, which is stated in the statement of political intent.
I hope that the Minister takes time to take stock of what the new clause is trying to do, but on this occasion I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Access to information relevant to national security
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the call-in power under section 1 to be exercisable by the Secretary of State in respect of circumstances where a person acquires access to, or the right of access to, sensitive information but does not acquire control of an entity within the meaning of section 8 or control of an asset within the meaning of section 9.
(2) For the purposes of this section, sensitive information means information of any form or description the disclosure of which may give rise to a risk to national security.”—(Dr Whitehead.)
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to regulate to include new trigger events, where a person has access to information relevant to national security, even if the party does not acquire control or material influence over a qualifying asset or entity as a result of an investment.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Hon. Members will be sad to know that I have failed in the ballot to be one of the 2,000 supporters to watch Southampton Football Club this Saturday. I will reflect on that, but I have already sat here for much longer than 90 minutes in near-freezing conditions, watching two equally matched teams slug it out together, so I am not too upset about it. That is the last thing I will say about the unpleasant conditions in this Committee Room.
I hope this clause will be seen as helpful to the Secretary of State and as an addition to the armoury of this Bill in dealing with the multitude of different circumstances under which influence may be sought, or technologies and sensitive information may be acquired, as we have discussed. It seeks to give the Secretary of State an exercisable power under the clause 1 call-in powers and it follows on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South said in the previous debate.
Start-ups may be invested in by venture capitalists, but those venture capitalists may turn out to be bodies that are effectively seeking to gain influence in the start-up or small company, by means of investing in it. They are not seeking to control it, or to control either the entity or the asset, in terms of the meaning in section 8 or 9, but to put themselves in a position where it is pretty impossible for those companies to resist providing information to that limited partner.
In the UK, British start-ups effectively rely on foreign investment. In 2019, 90% of large tech investment rounds included US or Asian investors, according to Atomico’s “The State of European Tech.” There are many circumstances in what we might call our UK venture capital ecosystem in which that kind of sourcing of funds is a regular state of affairs. Venture capital-reliant firms in this country are now receiving millions of pounds from Chinese investors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South has enumerated for us.
Those venture capital investments do not end up, and are not supposed to end up, with the seeking of material control of those companies. As I have said, it would be difficult—practically impossible—for that venture capital-based firm to deny its limited partner investors access to technological information from portfolio companies. In such cases, especially when limited partner investments in the fund take place after an initial trigger event, those would be missed by the Bill as it currently stands. Indeed, that is made tougher still by the fact that most venture capital funds do not publish the names of limited partners. So the Government would not even know when those investments happen and when access to information passes into potentially hostile hands. That series of circumstances is becoming pretty widespread in the high-tech world, and does not appear to be focused on very accurately by the provisions already in the Bill.
What the amendment seeks to do, as I have mentioned, is enable the Secretary of State—if it is considered by the Secretary of State to be an issue that warrants further consideration—to make regulations for the provision of that call-in power outside the terms of clause 9 of the Bill. I think that is a potentially very positive additional power that would reside in the Bill and would be an additional piece of armoury in the hands of the Secretary of State on the basis of what we think is a continuing expansion of investment which may have malicious intent to scoop up, by that venture capital arrangement, a slice of sensitive information.
I was thinking about the equivalent of Chinese dragons in “Dragons’ Den”, taking a portion of the company in return for having a hand in that company’s investments. In a sense, that is what venture capitalists will do under these circumstances. Although the control of the company, as we see in “Dragons’ Den”, remains very much in the hands of the person who has gone into the den in the first place, the investment in that company is nevertheless a source of very substantial leverage in what the company does, what information it provides and what sensitive information it gives out.
I offer this new clause in what I hope will be seen as a very constructive spirit. The clause endeavours to strengthen the Bill by providing a particular option to the Secretary of State, when looking at the entire landscape of how influence is sought, at how sensitive information may be provided and at how assets may effectively be acquired.
Peter Grant
The new clause is a significant improvement to the Bill and I hope that the Government will support it. It takes action to close a loophole that I certainly did not spot reading through the Bill the first time. I suspect a lot of others did not spot it either. It was highlighted by a number of the expert witnesses we spoke to a few weeks ago. They pointed out that a hostile operator does not necessarily need to have control or even significant influence over a security-sensitive operation to be able to do us some harm. One of the examples I vividly remember was that if somebody buys up as little as 5% or 10% of the shares of a company, possibly keeping it even below the threshold where it would need to be publicly notified to Companies House, that might still be enough by agreement to give them a seat on the board of directors. That means they will have access to pretty much everything that is going on within that company. For that kind of scenario alone, it is appropriate that we should look to strengthen the Bill.
The way the new clause is worded is entirely permissive. It would not require anybody to do anything, but it would give the Secretary of State the statutory authority to make regulations, should they be necessary, and to word them in such a way that they could be targeted towards any particular kind of involvement by a hostile power—it is difficult for us to predict now exactly what that might be.
I know that the usual format is that an Opposition amendment is not supported by the Government, but if the Government are not minded to support this one now, I sincerely hope they will bring through something similar on Report or when the Bill goes through the other place at a future date.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for setting out his case for the new clause and to the hon. Member for Glenrothes for his contribution.
When I first read the new clause, I was fortified to see that, despite previous debates that we have had in this Committee, Her Majesty’s Opposition are clearly now firm converts to the “may by regulations” formulation. I am incredibly grateful. We have found much common ground in the course of our line-by-line scrutiny, but this was, I admit, an unexpected area of consensus.
My understanding is that the new clause would enable the Secretary of State to, by regulations, introduce a new trigger event covering circumstances in which a person acquires access to, or the right to access, sensitive information, even if the party does not acquire control over a qualifying entity or asset. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test may have in mind particular circumstances relating to limited partnerships and the role of limited partners.
The attempt to potentially include access to national security sensitive information as a separate trigger event is, in some ways, a reasonable aim, but I fear that it would, at best, sit awkwardly with a Bill introducing a new investment screening regime that is specifically designed around acquisitions of control. At worst it would bring into scope a huge swathe of additional circumstances, outside the field of investment, in which the Secretary of State could intervene, which could be notified by parties and which could create a backlog of cases in return for little to no national security gain.
For example, such a new clause could raise significant question marks about whether the appointment of any employee who might have access to certain information would be a trigger event in scope of the Bill. I am almost certain it would. Similar concerns would apply in respect of any director, contractor, legal adviser or regulator who might have access to sensitive information. That is not the Government’s intention.
If limited partnerships are the specific target of the new clause, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no specific exemption in the regime for acquisitions of control over a limited partnership. Of course, in practice, the rights of limited partners are, by their nature, limited, so we expect to intervene here by exception. But those acquisitions remain in scope of the call-in power, along with any subsequent acquisitions of control over qualifying entities by the limited partnership—particularly where there are concerns about the general partner who controls the partnership, or limited partners who are exerting more influence than their position formally provides.
I should also highlight that the Bill already covers acquisitions of control over qualifying assets, the definition of which includes
“ideas, information or techniques which have industrial, commercial or other economic value”.
For the purposes of the Bill, a person gains control of a qualifying asset if they acquire a right or interest in, or in relation to, a qualifying asset that allows them to do one of the two things set out in clause 9(1). That means that an acquisition of a right or an interest in, or in relation to, information with industrial, commercial or other economic value that allows the acquirer to use, or control or direct the use of, that information is in scope of the Bill. Therefore, depending on the facts of a case, an investment in a business that, alongside any equity stake, provides a person with a right to use information that has industrial, commercial or other economic value may be called in by the Secretary of State where the legal test was otherwise met.
The Committee heard from our expert witnesses that these asset provisions are significant new powers and that it is right to ensure that we have the protections we need against those who seek to do us harm, but I firmly believe we must find the right balance for the new regime. That is why acquisitions of control over qualifying entities and assets are a sensible basis for the Bill. Broadening its coverage to ever-wider circumstances risks creating a regime that theoretically captures everything on paper, but that simply cannot operate in practice, due to a case load that simply cannot be serviced by Whitehall. I urge the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to reflect on that point, given all we have heard in the last few weeks about the importance of implementation and resourcing, and I respectfully ask him to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Whitehead
I respectfully ask the Minister to reflect carefully on what I and the hon. Member for Glenrothes have said this afternoon. Whether or not the Minister thinks the new clause is one he can reasonably adopt, he has already accepted, in terms of what he says may be in the scope of the Bill, that this is a real issue. This is something that we have to think very carefully about and that, by its nature, is fairly difficult to pin down, because it relates to a series of actions that do not easily fit into the box of control or company takeover. It is much more subtle and potentially wide-ranging, but nevertheless it is something that we know is real. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South said, it is happening in silicon valley, Germany and this country. It is happening in a number of places. Interests are being bought up not because of altruistic concern for the health and welfare of that particular start-up, but for other, much more worrying reasons than simply influence as a limited partner in a company.
I am pleased that the Minister put on record that he thought that the extension of this activity might be in the scope of the Bill already, although I think it is stretching what the Bill has to say to take that line. I hope he will not regret that. When he looks at what he has said about what he thinks is in the Bill, he may find, on reflection, that the new clause would have been more use to him than he thought. However, I am not going to press the issue to a vote this afternoon.
I hope the Minister will reflect carefully. He has already said on the record that he thinks that a number of these measures can be squeezed into the Bill. I hope he will not find that there are circumstances where he needs this method of operation but that it can, after all, not be squeezed into the Bill as well as he thinks it can be. I hear what he says and wish him the best of luck with squeezing things into legislation that perhaps were not quite there. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Annual report to the Intelligence and Security Committee
“(1) The Secretary of State must, in relation to each relevant period –
(a) prepare a report in accordance with this section, and
(b) provide a copy of it to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the end of that period.
(2) Each report must provide, in respect of mandatory and voluntary notifications, trigger events called-in, and final orders given, details of—
(c) the jurisdiction of the acquirer and its incorporation;
(d) the number of state-owned entities and details of states of such entities;
(e) the nature of national security risks posed in transactions for which there were final orders;
(f) details of particular technological or sectoral expertise that were being targeted; and
(g) any other information the Secretary of State may deem instructive on the nature of national security threats uncovered through reviews undertaken under this Act.”.—(Chi Onwurah.)
This new clause would provide the Intelligence and Security Committee with information about powers exercised under this Act, allowing closer scrutiny and monitoring.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is with some regret that I rise to move new clause 7, because it is the last new clause we propose to the Bill. It is a Christmas present to the Minister. Things have certainly been interesting since we began our line-by-line scrutiny. With your leave, Sir Graham, I will take this opportunity to thank all those involved in drafting the Bill, as well as the Clerks, who have worked so hard and played such an important role in helping to draft amendments and provide support to all members of the Committee. I also thank you, Sir Graham, for chairing it so admirably.
We have learned a great deal over the last couple of weeks. I have learned just about everybody’s constituency—
Chi Onwurah
I will not take up the opportunity of a test. We have all learned a lot about air flows—in this room, at any rate—as we seek to maintain some heat. What we have not learned, though, is how the Minister believes the Bill can be improved. All our line-by-line scrutiny has yielded many assurances, compliments on our intention and, indeed, some letters, for which I am grateful, but no acceptance and not even the commitment to go and think about some of our constructive proposals, amendments and new clauses. I urge him to consider this new clause as an opportunity to show that he truly believes, as he said earlier, in the skills, experience and expertise of the Committee by reflecting on the potential for improvement.
The new clause returns to an earlier theme and would require—the Minister will be pleased to note that that is a “must”, not a “may”—an annual report to be prepared by the Secretary of State
“in accordance with this section”
and a copy of it to be provided
“to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the end of that period.”
It sets out what should be in that report, such as the events, the number of entities, the nature of the risks and
“details of particular technological or sectoral expertise”
and so on. It would provide the Intelligence and Security Committee with information about the powers exercised under the Bill and allow closer scrutiny and monitoring.
The new clause reflects how we have consistently supported the need for the Bill. Our approach to the security threats we face is to push for change specifically to allow broad powers of intervention, but for those using those broad powers to be held to account by Parliament and through transparency. Our international allies do exactly that. The US requires CFIUS to produce a non-classified annual report for the public, alongside a classified report for certain members of Congress, to provide security detail to them, allowing congressional scrutiny while retaining sensitivity of information.
As I think the Minister acknowledges, the Government have been late in following where international allies and the Opposition have led with calls to better protect our national security, so he must not fall behind in following our calls for accountability and transparency. That is critical not just to ensure our security and wider parliamentary understanding of the nature of the threats we face but for accountability.
The Secretary of State is to be given sweeping powers. For the last time, I should say that we will go from 12 reviews in 18 years—less than one a year—to 1,830 notifications a year, which is more than five every single day. The Secretary of State will be able to intervene in every single such private transaction. It will be hard to bring claims against national security concerns in court, where the judiciary will understandably find it difficult to define national security against the Government’s definition. In that context, it is important to bring expert parliamentary scrutiny to the Government’s decisions. I do hope the Minister will reflect on that. Alongside a public report, the new clause would require the Government to publish an annual security report to the Intelligence and Security Committee so that we have greater accountability without compromising security.
I will say a few words about the evidence base and the reason for tabling the amendment. Professor Ciaran Martin said:
“I think that the powers should be fairly broad. I think there should be accountability and transparency mechanisms, so that there is assurance that they are being fairly and sparingly applied.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2020; c. 81, Q96.]
My understanding is that the only accountability and transparency mechanism is the public report, which may be published, and the prospect of judicial review, neither of which provide for expert scrutiny on the security issues.
I also ask the Minister to reflect on Second Reading, where member after member of the Intelligence and Security Committee stood up to say that they felt that their expertise would be useful and helpful in the working of the Bill.
James Wild
The hon. Lady said that the annual report “may” be published, but in clause 61 it “must” be laid before the House, so there is no question that the annual report will be published.
Chi Onwurah
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It must be published, but the details that it sets out are limited. The reporting on other information, as I think the Minister has said, is something that is intended but is not required. We have requested that several other pieces of information be published, but the Minister has said that they may be.
The hon. Member for North West Norfolk is absolutely right that there will be an annual report, but that is a public report that will provide only the limited information set out in clause 61(2). Obviously, it will not provide anything that might have an impact on national security. With regard to what is published in the final notifications, for example, that can be redacted to take out anything of commercial interest as well as of national security interest. There is no requirement to report on any aspect to do with national security. Given that the only report is a public report, that is understandable. That is why we are proposing that a secure sensitive report should also be published and shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee.
The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said that
“there is a real role for Committees of this House in such processes and…the ability to subpoena both witnesses and papers would add not only depth to the Government’s investigation but protection to the Business Secretary who was forced to take the decision”.—[Official Report, 17 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 238.]
A member of the Intelligence and Security Committee also said that
“we need mechanisms in place to ensure that that flexibility does not allow the Government too much scope.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 244.]
As I have already noted, CFIUS has an annual reporting requirement.
The Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), has written to you, Sir Graham, and the other Chair of this Committee to ask a number of questions that he did not feel had been had been adequately answered by the Bill or its supporting documentation, and to place his Committee at the disposal of this Committee. He writes that the ISC continues to have a very real interest in the Bill and would have liked to have been included in briefings on it, and he asks about the investment security unit.
To summarise, the Minister must welcome the expertise of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He would certainly be obliged to appear before the Intelligence and Security Committee, if requested to do so. Does he agree that placing an annual report before that Committee would aid business and BEIS confidence? I previously mentioned its potential conflicts of interest, and we spoke about its having access to the right kind of resources. Agreeing to this new clause and to the placing of a report with the Intelligence and Security Committee is in the interests of both the Bill and the better working of our national security.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her contribution on new clause 7, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to provide an annual report to the Intelligence and Security Committee, including detailed information relating to mandatory and voluntary notifications, trigger events that were called in and final orders made. In particular, it seeks to require the Secretary of State to provide details of factors relevant to the assessment made by the regime, including the jurisdiction of the acquirer; the nature of national security risks posed in transactions where there were final orders; details of particular technological or sectoral expertise that were targeted; and other national security threats uncovered through reviews undertaken under the Bill.
I am pleased that esteemed members of the ISC are taking a continued and consistent interest, including in relation to their role in scrutinising the regime provided for by the Bill. The Committee will be aware that clause 61 requires the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report and to lay a copy before each House of Parliament. That clause provides for full parliamentary and public scrutiny of the detail of the regime, which we judge to be appropriate and which does not give rise to national security issues when published at an aggregate level. I reassure hon. Members that that annual report will include information on the sectors of the economy in which voluntary, mandatory and call-in notices were given. It will also give a sense of the areas of the economy where the greatest activity of national security concern is occurring.
We intend to follow the existing, appropriate Government procedures for reporting back to Parliament, including through responding to the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The ISC’s remit is clearly defined by the Justice and Security Act 2013, together with the statutory memorandum of understanding. That remit does not extend to oversight of BEIS work. I am sure that the BEIS Committee will continue to do a sterling job of overseeing and scrutinising the Department’s overall work. I welcome and encourage the ISC’s security-specific expertise, which the hon. Lady referred to, and its review of the annual report when it is laid before Parliament.
For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept the new clause. I hope that hon. Lady will agree to withdraw it.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his response, but he did not address the issue scrutiny of sensitive aspects of how the Bill will work. I recognise that the ISC’s remit does not cover BEIS—that is the exact point of requiring such a report. As I think was discussed on Second Reading, the BEIS Committee will not scrutinise any sensitive information or information that is directly relevant to our national security. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Minister’s reasoning for his rejection of the new clause—namely, that it is effectively already covered by clause 61—so I will put it to a Division.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Committee rose.
Written evidence reported to the House
NSIB04 Law Society of Scotland
NSIB05 Alternative Investment Management Association Ltd (AIMA)
National Security and Investment Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Thursday 10th December 2020
(4 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 View all National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2020 - (10 Dec 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind the Committee to observe social distancing and to switch electronic devices to silent. The Hansard reporters would be grateful if hon. Members could email electronic copies of their notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 53
Procedure for service, etc
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 53, page 32, line 30, leave out “may” and insert “shall”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out the process to be followed.
Dr Whitehead
We start today’s proceedings with the most innocuous amendment imaginable—it is so innocuous that it is in the realms of “barely noticeable”. It is particularly innocuous in terms of the debates the Committee has already had on the use of the word “may” and the words “shall” or “must”. On this occasion, the amendment merely suggests that in subsection (1)—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the procedure which must be followed in giving a notice or serving an order under this Act”—
“shall” should be substituted for “may”.
What is interesting about making provision for procedure that must be followed in giving a notice or serving an order is that the impact assessment assumes that that will be done and analyses how those notice-giving arrangements might work. The impact assessment assumes that the Secretary of State will do that, but the Bill does not state that the Secretary of State must do it.
I cannot think of any good reason why that change should not be made. I can see virtually no circumstances in which the current wording will do anything either way in relation to the issuing of the notices and what those notices might consist of. A requirement that the Secretary of State “shall” do those things would be an unalloyed advance in assuring that they happened. It would not have any consequences for national security or for company considerations, other than that companies might consider it rather more comforting that the Bill requires those details, which are important to them, to actually be produced.
The Minister can perhaps enlighten us on the wider issue. I have been on the other side, constructing and putting a Bill together, years ago in my brief but glorious—or inglorious but brief—ministerial career.
Dr Whitehead
I think we can agree that it was brief. Bills would come to Ministers, fresh from the wells of construction and the pushing of pens to get them into good shape. I wonder whether there is a style guide, deep in the bowels of a building somewhere in Whitehall, that says, “Whenever the Minister is supposed to do something, write ‘may’ in small print.” It is such a long-serving style guide that people have forgotten why the word was ever put in the Bill in the first place.
The Minister would do a great service to the writing of Bills if he were able to say, “I don’t want to go along with the style guide. If someone is supposed to do something, I want to have that written in the Bill.” I appreciate that if the Minister were to say that when sitting around with a number of people who had a freshly minted copy of the proto-Bill in front of them, there would be much stroking of chins and suggestions of, “That is a rather brave method of proceeding, Minister.” But the Minister has the opportunity today, entirely divorced from all those influences, simply to say, “Yes, we will accept this amendment as a stake in the ground for the uprating of the style guide, wherever it happens to be.” That would be a great service to the Committee and to the nation, by getting us into a position where Bills are written to mean what they say and say what they mean.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I do not want to anticipate what the Minister will say, but he has said, with regards to similar amendments, that stating that the Secretary of State will do something does not mean that he definitely must do it. Does my hon. Friend agree that for the sake of clarity—for us in Parliament but also for businesses, particularly those affected by this—changing that one word would greatly improve the understanding of how the Bill will work?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I went to my bank manager, who had called me in about my overdraft, and I said, “I don’t need to say anything other than, ‘I may pay it back,’ but don’t worry, because I will pay it back,” my bank manager might be a little upset and might have something to say about it.
It is curious that we have locutions in the putting together of Bills that fly in the face of common-sense parlance. I agree with my hon. Friend that it really is no great defence to say, “Don’t worry. We don’t need to change this, because we are going to do it.” It would be far better all round if we were straightforward, accurate and clear and put this wording in the legislation, so that everybody knows what we are doing for the future. If, by so doing, the Minister can banish that style guide from the bowels of the building forever, that would be a great service.
Nadhim Zahawi
I beg you indulgence, Mr Twigg: I intend to speak first to clause stand part and then to amendment 29, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. Clause 53 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that set out the procedure that the Secretary of State must follow when giving a notice of, or serving, an order once the Bill becomes an Act. The level of detail that these provisions will involve is most appropriately dealt with in delegated legislation. That will also allow the provisions to be modified more easily if changes are deemed appropriate—in the light of operational experience, for example. I know all colleagues will share with me the wish for the unit’s operations to be as efficient and as slick as we can make them.
Examples of notices and orders include information notices, attendance notices, interim orders, final orders or penalty notices issued by the Secretary of State for non-compliance. The clause sets out what may be included in the regulations. For example, they may include the manner in which a document must be given or served and whether it is allowed to be served electronically—for example, by email.
Amendment 29 would require the Secretary of State to make these regulations, which returns, if I may say so, to the recurring theme raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, about the difference between “may” and “shall”. At the risk of becoming predictable, my thoughts here carry certain echoes of our previous discussions.
As hon. Members will know, clause 53 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that will set out the procedure that must the Secretary of State must follow when giving a notice or serving an order once the Bill becomes an Act. It is an entirely laudable objective to ensure that the Secretary of State provides those affected by this regime with the right information on the operation of the regime, and it is one that I shall always support. In practice, though, the amendment is unnecessary.
Although the Secretary of State may make regulations to that effect, in practice, for the regime to function effectively, he must do so. I assure hon. Members that the Secretary of State certainly does not propose to commence the regime without first making these procedural regulations. I therefore assure the hon. Member that the amendment is not required, as he and the Government seem to be in hearty agreement on the importance of such regulation. I ask him to do the honourable thing and withdraw the amendment.
Chi Onwurah
It is an honour to serve under your chairship again, Mr Twigg. I detect a slight rise in temperature, at least on this side of the Committee Room. I do not know whether that is due to the heated exchanges over “may” and “should”—
Chi Onwurah
Warm exchanges. It is certainly something to be welcomed.
I would like to say a few words to clause 53 stand part. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test observed, this is another example of a “may” rather than a “will”. The clause exists purely to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations—that is its function—and yet it places no requirement on the Secretary of State to do so.
While the Minister gave a warm response, saying that he and my hon. Friend are on exactly the same page and so on in our desires, I remind him that the Bill is not about our desires; it is about a legislative framework that protects our national security and gives, as much as possible, clarity and certainty to those impacted by it. It is because we recognise the importance of the clause that we wish it to have some effect in law, as opposed to being the gentle suggestion it seems to be at the moment.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister has used a bank manager defence. If my bank manager wrote to me to say, “You have an overdraft that you must pay,” and I wrote back and said, “Dear Bank Manager, I may repay my overdraft,” and then the bank manager called me in and said, “What is the meaning of this letter?” and I said, “Don’t worry, I will pay the overdraft soon. No problem. That letter stands,” that would be a problem for me, but apparently not as far as legislation is concerned. The Minister has effectively said, “Don’t worry. This is definitely going to happen. We are all agreed it will happen,” so why not write it in legislation?
I will not pursue this matter to a Division, because we have exhausted this mine in Committee. The Minister knows that this is not the first time I have raised this issue during the passage of Bills, and I will continue to do so because it is an important principle that legislation should say what it will actually do. Perhaps that is a bit basic, but that is what I think is important. I will indeed withdraw the amendment. I thank the Minister for his reply this morning, although it does not dent my crusading zeal for this particular change to be made in legislation generally. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Disclosure of information
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 54, page 34, line 9, leave out
“which appears to the Secretary of State”
and insert
“which, on a reasonable enquiry, appears to the Secretary of State”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to only share information, acquired in the course of national security reviews, if the Secretary of State has first undertaken reasonable enquiry.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 55 stand part.
Chi Onwurah
In clauses 54 and 55, we consider the disclosure of information by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and, in clause 55, information held by HMRC.
Clause 54 specifies the circumstances in which information may be disclosed. Subsection (1) provides an information gateway for public authorities to disclose information to the Secretary of State for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of his function under the Bill. Subsection (2) permits the Secretary of State to disclose information received under the Bill to any UK or overseas public authority for specified purposes. Subsection (9) states:
“‘overseas public authority’ means a person in any country or territory outside the United Kingdom which appears to the Secretary of State to exercise functions of a public nature”.
The amendment seeks to address the wide definition of the overseas public authorities to which the Secretary of State might disclose information.
The Minister has previously asserted that Labour Members are looking to give more and more powers to the Secretary of State, but here we wish to help the Secretary of State, which is the motive behind all our amendments. We wish to aid the Secretary of State by somewhat subscribing the persons or organisations with which he—in this case, at the moment, the relevant Minister is a “he”—is allowed to share information, by inserting in clause 54 the words
“which, on a reasonable enquiry, appears to the Secretary of State”.
Therefore, the amendment would not simply leave the process open, as it were, to appearances only, without any inquiry.
Chi Onwurah
I hope the Minister also agrees that we are moving to a much expanded national security screening regime. In 2002, Facebook was a year old or just being born. We are no longer in the place we were in 2002 when it comes to the issues of importance, volume, security and privacy associated with data and data sharing. I hope he will not rely on the 2002 Act as a justification, particularly as we are moving to an expanded national security screening issue and we are in a different data environment.
The strategy says that data is the economic engine, and we must be much better in assuring businesses and investors of their data protection. Instead of relying on appearances, the amendment holds up the standard of reason. Under it, the Secretary of State would have all the relevant powers of data sharing with relevant persons so long as the Secretary of State had reason, based “on a reasonable enquiry”, to think the person to be a relevant public authority.
It is critical that the UK has a national security regime that is grounded in national, competent exercise of state power to protect our security. The amendment would help to build success in that direction by removing a reliance on the use of appearance and instinct, by successive Secretaries of State, and grounding decisions in “reasonable enquiry” instead.
The expert evidence sessions provided support for that view. For example, Chris Cummings from the Investment Association said:
“There is so much around any investment process and the acquisition process that has to remain entirely confidential, that investors would require and would be looking for reassurance that these conversations could be held in the strictest of confidence and that nothing would appear until the right time.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 24 November 2020; c. 66, Q78.]
I ask the Committee to consider whether sharing data on the basis of appearances gives that reassurance.
The clause will give information-sharing powers to the Secretary of State. We recognise the importance of that, and we do not want to hinder it unduly, but we expect that the Secretary of State should, and importantly, should be seen to, exercise those powers on the basis of evidence. It is only right that we have clear evidential requirements. Although the 2002 Act uses similar language, it is right that we in this Committee clean up that language based on 19 further years of experience.
Dr Whitehead
I wonder whether my hon. Friend might be tempted to use a bank manager comparison here as well. If I was summoned by my bank manager to the bank, and he or she said, “It appears you’re overdrawn,” and I said, “Why do you think I’m overdrawn?” and he or she said, “I don’t know. It just appears to me that you’re overdrawn,” I might say, “Could you pursue reasonable inquiries to find out whether my account is actually overdrawn or not?” Does she agree that that is an example of the appropriate use of ordinary language, and that the Bill could be put into that state?
Chi Onwurah
I commend my hon. Friend on the extent to which he has used engagement with a bank manager to illuminate much of our discussion. He is absolutely right. To be honest, if any bank invited you to consider an overdraft on such a flimsy pretext, you would, I hope, change your bank, because you could not feel confident in it.
The serious point is that small and medium businesses and start-ups—our great innovation ecosystem in this country—can move, but we do not want them to move. We want them to stay in this country within the legislative framework. We want the new Bill to provide them with the reassurance and confidence that they need to help to implement the Bill effectively and to protect national security. My hon. Friend’s elegant example highlights the failings of the clause.
I anticipate that the Minister will talk about the language in the Enterprise Act. Not only is that 18 or 19 years old, which is one reason that this Bill has been needed for so long, but the person exercising the functions and powers in the Competition and Markets Authority is not a political appointee or political figure. The Bill refers to a political figure, the Secretary of State, so it is all the more important that he or she should be seen to act on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of appearance or instinct.
The Chair
I gently remind hon. Members to address the Chair when speaking. Thank you very much.
Nadhim Zahawi
With your permission, Mr Twigg, I will speak initially to clause 54 stand part and then address amendment 30, relating to clause 54. I will then turn to clause 55 stand part.
On clause 54, for this regime to function effectively, the Secretary of State needs access to the right information at the right time to make decisions with the fullest range of evidence available. All relevant information required by the Secretary of State to make a decision might not be obtainable from the parties to the acquisition, but rather might be stored by other public authorities, both in the UK and overseas. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central referred to the speed at which deals have changed; she mentioned Facebook and others. I agree that modern deals are structured in an increasingly complex manner and often across borders and continents. There is a need to work with allies at home and abroad to ensure that we are making well-aligned, timely and correct decisions.
Therefore, the clause provides that public authorities may disclose information to the Secretary of State for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of his functions under the Bill. Equally, it permits the Secretary of State to disclose information to UK and overseas public authorities for the purpose of facilitating his functions under the Bill, but also for a limited number of other purposes, including crime prevention and the protection of national security. I absolutely agree with those who say that businesses do not want slow decisions made by multiple public authorities working in silos. We all want to see an efficient regime in place. Businesses want public authorities that can talk to each other and give a quick and efficient answer that is right first time. Being able to share information is the first step in Government making fast and informed decisions without having to burden businesses unduly, which I know the hon. Lady cares about.
I of course recognise, though, that some hon. Members will feel uneasy about the Government being able to share potentially very sensitive information both within the UK and overseas. The clause includes a number of safeguards relating to the disclosure of information by the Secretary of State. First, the clause prohibits onward disclosure of information shared by the Secretary of State or use for an alternative purpose without his consent. Secondly, when disclosing information, the Secretary of State must consider whether the disclosure would prejudice, to an unreasonable degree, the commercial interests of any person concerned.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I fully support the principle that we should share this kind of information with friendly overseas authorities—subject to appropriate precautions to prevent it from being used for the wrong purposes. However, somebody in the UK who breaks this law will get prosecuted, but an overseas public authority cannot be prosecuted in the UK courts, so can the Minister explain why, under clause 54(7), which lists the factors that the Secretary of State has to consider before deciding whether to release information to an overseas public authority, there is no requirement to assess the rule of law in that other place and to consider whether it has equivalent legislation to prohibit the misuse of information? There is no requirement for the Secretary of State to consider whether they have been given guarantees or assurances by a Government whose word we would expect to be able to take. There is not even a requirement to consider whether the request for information itself might be an attempt to undermine national security.
If the Secretary of State is looking at a potential Chinese takeover of a sensitive undertaking in the UK and a public authority in China says, “We need this information for an inquiry that we are doing,” there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to take that into account. Can the Minister explain why none of those things is built into this clause now, and are the Government willing to consider amending the clause at a later stage to give the further protection that we may need?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Member. I hope that in my further remarks, if I can make some headway, I will be able to reassure him on those points.
Thirdly, when disclosing information to an overseas public authority, the Secretary of State must have particular regard to whether the law of the country or territory to whose authority the information is being disclosed provides protection against self-incrimination in criminal proceedings corresponding to the protection provided in the UK, and whether the matter is sufficiently serious to justify disclosure. I hope that addresses the hon. Member’s point.
The Chair
Order. Mr Grant, please keep your intervention short. If you want to speak, you are allowed to later.
Peter Grant
I am sorry to intervene again so quickly, but the precautions in subsection (7) do not address any of the matters that I raised. Subsection (7)(a) in particular is vital and necessary, but it is nowhere near sufficient and does not address any of the points that I raised.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful. If the drive of the hon. Member’s probing is to ensure that the Secretary of State, when he considers disclosing information to a foreign country, takes into account protecting people being caught in the regime who come from that country, I think I have just made it clear that the clause provides protection against self-incrimination in criminal proceedings corresponding to the protection provided in the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Member will be satisfied with that.
Finally, the disclosure is subject to data protection legislation, which provides additional safeguards in relation to the disclosure of personal data. I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central will feel reassured that the Secretary of State may request only the information that he requires in order to exercise his function under the Bill, and that such information will be treated securely.
Amendment 30 aims to increase the scrutiny that the Secretary of State undertakes in deciding whether a person constitutes an overseas public authority for the purposes of disclosing information under clause 54. It is of course important to ensure that any person believed to be a public authority for the purposes of seeking information from, or disclosing information to, is a public authority. I am therefore pleased to reassure the hon. Lady that the Bill does that as it stands. The approach that we have taken mirrors that—I know that she does not like this—in section 243(11) of the Enterprise Act 2002, which includes a similar definition of an overseas public authority for the purposes of disclosure of specified information to overseas public authorities under the Act.
Chi Onwurah
The Minister is generous in giving way. On his rebuttal of my argument on the CMA, it is not about whether I like it. The whole point of the amendment is to take it away from likes, preferences or appearances, and base it on evidence, and the evidence is that the environment has changed dramatically since 2002 in terms of data. Also, the Secretary of State is a political figure.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I remind her that the legislation requires the Secretary of State to act in a quasi-judicial way, not as a political figure. I appreciate that by a normal reading, “appears” may appear unduly casual, but that is merely a question of the form of legislative drafting, which is consistent, I remind her, with previous relevant legislation.
In addition, I reassure the hon. Lady that the principles of public law apply in any case. The Secretary of State therefore needs to act reasonably in fulfilling his functions under the Bill. That includes having a reasonable basis, supported by sufficient evidence, for coming to the conclusion that a person appears to be an overseas public authority prior to disclosing information. I hope I have provided the Committee with sufficient reassurances, and I therefore hope that the Opposition will withdraw the amendment.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I just want clarification from the Minister on the point of that being semi-judicial.
Matt Western
Quasi-judicial; sorry. How does that square with the responsibilities of the Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy?
Nadhim Zahawi
It is not a strange concept that a Minister acts in a quasi-judicial way in making such decisions.
I will now briefly turn to clause 55, which makes provision for specific restrictions in respect of information received under clause 54 from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. For the regime to function effectively, the Secretary of State needs access to the right information at the right time in order to make decisions with the fullest range of evidence available. One such source of information that might be invaluable to the Secretary of State is HMRC. Although the Government expect that the Secretary of State would seek first to secure the information he needs from the parties, it is important that such information can also be provided from elsewhere in Government, if it is held there.
Clause 55 provides that where information is received by the Secretary of State from HMRC or an onward recipient pursuant to clause 54, it may not be used for purposes other than the Secretary of State’s function under the Bill, and nor may it be further disclosed without HMRC’s consent. Clause 35 provides that disclosing information in contravention of clause 55(1) is an offence, as is appropriate.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am just finishing my point.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that clause 55 provides appropriately robust safeguards for the onward sharing or use of information received from HMRC for the purposes of the regime. I recommend that clauses 54 and 55 stand part of the Bill.
Chi Onwurah
I would like to address a question to the Minister. In his remarks on these clauses, he has highlighted a concern. I might have missed it, but I do not see where the Bill sets out the information gateway through which the Secretary of State will receive information from HMRC in order to exercise his functions under the Bill. Clauses 54 and 55 are grouped together under the title of “Information gateways”. They discuss information gateways from the Secretary of State to public authorities and others, but I would really appreciate it if the Minister could write to me to set out how HMRC will disclose information to BEIS for the functions of the Bill. I am sure I do not need to remind the Committee that information held by HMRC is generally considered very sensitive by businesses and individuals alike, and there are generally clear restrictions on its sharing.
To return to the clauses and amendment more generally, part of the Minister’s argument missed what our argument was. We recognise the importance of disclosing some information, and we also recognise that clause 55 sets out tests with regard to the purposes of disclosing the information, and even to how the information can be shared onwards and to what information should be disclosed. What it does not do is test the nature of the public authority. Although we have had an interesting and, indeed, lively debate about the difference between legal language and casual language, I think we can all agree that it is in the interests of our democracy that our legislation can be read and understood by ordinary people. If the term “appears” is to be understood as it is commonly understood, the clause requires the support of our amendment.
Nadhim Zahawi
Clause 56 places a duty on the CMA to provide information and any other assistance to the Secretary of State to enable him to carry out his functions under the Bill. For this regime to function effectively, the Secretary of State needs access to the right information at the right time to make decisions with the fullest range of available evidence.
The Competition and Markets Authority, by virtue of its position as the market regulator, will naturally have access to information that could be relevant to the decisions made by the Secretary of State. Although in practice we would expect the CMA to be entirely willing to provide support to the regime, and we have worked closely with it in drafting the legislation, the clause ensures that there is no doubt in law about the duty placed on the CMA to provide any information in its possession or any other assistance in its power when directed to do so by the Secretary of State, so long as the information or assistance is reasonably required to facilitate the Secretary of State’s functions under the Bill.
I therefore anticipate that the power in the clause—mirroring section 105(5) of the Enterprise Act 2002—would, in practice, be used only rarely, given the Department’s good working relationship with the CMA. I hope the Committee will appreciate that the clause is quite simply about ensuring that the Secretary of State has access to pertinent information relevant to the decision-making process.
Dr Whitehead
I note that the Minister has used precisely the opposite argument that he used for the last clause, relating to the word “must”. In clause 56, the CMA “must” give the Secretary of State information. [Interruption.]
Dr Whitehead
Even though the Minister has worked well with the CMA, as he has just said, and is assured that the relationship will work well, he has put it into legislation just to make sure that it does.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has stolen my thunder—had I known that he was going to stand up, I perhaps would not have done so. It is interesting that paragraph (a) says “must” but paragraph (b) says “may”. Another valid point, beyond the semantics, is about the substance and the resource of the CMA, and whether there should be provision for that in the Bill. Can the Minister comment on the capacity of the CMA to support the demands and obligations set out in the clause?
Chi Onwurah
I will say a few words to the clause—reflecting the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, in particular—because there seems to be a theme in the Bill. I know that the Minister believes that the Bill is beyond improvement, and that he is reluctant even to contemplate any changes, as he said in response to the hon. Member for Glenrothes, but he must recognise that a consistent theme seems to be that requirements, or “musts”, are placed on others and the discretion—the “may”, if you like—is with the Business Secretary. The Minister himself observed that we are keen to allow the Business Secretary the necessary discretion to fully protect our national security, but does he see not that that would better achieved by clearly circumscribing the Business Secretary’s actions?
I also support my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington in his recent contribution. Throughout this Bill, we need to ensure that the resources are there when placing requirements on bodies. I hope that the Minister can give such reassurances. On that basis, we recognise that the clause should stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Data Protection
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi
Clause 57 provides that the provisions in parts 1 to 4 of the Bill containing a duty or power to disclose or use information do not authorise a contravention of data protection legislation, as set out in the Data Protection Act 2018. In addition, the clause provides that that information may be used or disclosed only if it does not contravene parts 1 to 7, or chapter 1 of part 9, of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which contains provisions about conducting interception, including restrictions on use and disclosure of intercepted information. These standard provisions are included where legislation concerns the use or disclosure of information. I hope that hon. Members will therefore be content to support this standard clause as part of the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Minor and Consequential Amendments and Revocations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi
Clause 58 is purely technical in nature and inserts schedule 2 into the Bill. Schedule 2 provides for minor and consequential amendments and revocations. The Secretary of State currently has the power to intervene in qualifying mergers on national security grounds by issuing a public interest intervention notice, a special intervention notice or a European intervention notice under the Enterprise Act 2002, where the statutory requirements are met. It would clearly be unnecessary for the Secretary of State to retain these powers once the provisions of the Bill come into force. Schedule 2 therefore removes national security as a ground on which the Secretary of State may intervene under the Enterprise Act 2002. The Secretary of State will retain the powers in the Enterprise Act 2002 to intervene in qualifying mergers where these raise issues of media plurality, the stability of the UK financial system or maintaining in the UK the capability to combat and to mitigate the effects of public health emergencies.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 59
Overseas information disclosure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi
Clause 59 removes a restriction on the ability of the Competition and Markets Authority to co-operate with its international partners on merger cases. At the end of the transition period, the UK will no longer be part of the European Union’s competition system. The CMA will become responsible for investigating the effects on competition of larger international mergers, which were previously investigated by the European Commission. In a globalised economy, effective cross-border enforcement of competition law, which protects UK markets and consumers, relies increasingly on close international co-operation. The ability to disclose confidential information to assist an overseas authority with this enforcement activity, including in circumstances where parties have not provided their consent for the information to be disclosed, is a crucial ingredient of strong co-operation.
Moreover, the willingness of an overseas authority to disclose confidential information will often depend on whether the receiving authority can reciprocate. Any restrictions on the CMA’s ability to disclose such information could therefore inhibit the effectiveness of its international co-operation. The overseas disclosure gateway, which is set out in section 243 of the Enterprise Act 2002, provides an important mechanism for the CMA to disclose information to its overseas counterparts when consent has not been provided by relevant parties. The gateway permits disclosure for the purpose of helping an overseas authority’s enforcement activities.
However, the CMA is currently unable to use the overseas disclosure gateway to disclose information that comes to it in connection with a merger investigation. This means that the CMA is restricted from sharing certain information with its overseas counterparts that might be crucial to their investigation of a merger. This restriction presents two challenges for the UK’s competition authorities. First, it weakens the control of mergers with an international dimension that might adversely affect UK markets and consumers. Secondly, it inhibits the CMA’s ability to receive information that might be critical to its own merger investigations, because it has no ability to reciprocate. That, in turn, could also weaken its protection of UK markets and consumers. Clause 59 rectifies this by removing the restriction in the overseas disclosure gateway and allowing the CMA to use the gateway to disclose merger information to overseas public authorities.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for setting out clause 59, because I had thought that it was inconsequential. I listened to what he said carefully, as I always do, but I did not hear him use the term “national security” once. The function of the Bill is national security. Although we have not defined it, we have debated that the Bill should be narrowly circumscribed to concerns of national security. Having listened carefully to the Minister, I get the impression that the clause has been added, and for very good reasons, to facilitate and enable the CMA’s competition and mergers powers.
We are putting the national security interest relating to mergers and acquisitions firmly here in the Bill, so the CMA is no longer concerned with and involved in that, yet this clause facilitates the CMA’s sharing of information with overseas public authorities. That information, by definition, will not be with regard to national security, because national security investigations will take place under the powers in the Bill that lie with the Secretary of State. I am somewhat confused as to what this clause is doing in the Bill. Would the Minister like to intervene to illuminate and clarify that the clause has something to do with national security?
Chi Onwurah
I find it somewhat worrying, given our debates about keeping the Bill focused narrowly on national security, that the Government have added a clause to help the CMA in its functions. My hon. Friends and I have been thinking of a number of ways in which we would like to help the CMA in its functions and to improve the Enterprise Act, but we have been resolute in focusing on national security, because that is the matter before the Committee. Yet it seems that the clause, although very well meaning, is designed for an entirely different function.
You are not stopping the debate, Mr Twigg, so I presume it is in order to debate the functions of the CMA in relation to competitions and mergers generally, rather than to national security specifically.
Nadhim Zahawi
It is worth respectfully reminding the hon. Lady and the Committee that this is a separate topic in the Bill that is unrelated to the NSI regime, as set out in the explanatory notes.
Chi Onwurah
I have the explanatory notes, and they do not state that the clause deals with a separate topic. Paragraph 173 states:
“Clause 59 amends the overseas disclosure gateway in section 243 of the Enterprise Act 2002, removing the restriction on UK public authorities disclosing information that comes to them in connection with a merger investigation under that gateway.”
The explanatory notes do not state that the functions of the CMA are separate from national security as clearly as the Minister just has. I do not want to detain the Committee, but I register the Labour party’s concern—
Peter Grant
Does the hon. Lady share my understanding that the definitive statement on what the Bill is about is the long title of the Bill, not the explanatory notes? Does she agree that the long title makes no mention whatsoever of helping the CMA in the general exercise of its purpose?
Chi Onwurah
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because he is absolutely right that, rather than having a debate on the contents of the explanatory notes, line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill should focus on what the Bill says, and it does not mention general improvements to our competition and mergers regime, much as we feel that improvements could be made. Although we will not oppose the clause, I register our disappointment that we were not better informed of the Bill’s additional scope.
Nadhim Zahawi
I think that is slightly unfair; it is included in page 4 of the explanatory notes.
Chi Onwurah
The Minister’s argument is to look at page 4 of the explanatory notes, but it does not say that the CMA’s functions are separate from national security.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Michael Tomlinson)
“Interaction with” the CMA.
Chi Onwurah
It says “interaction with” the CMA. but it does not say that that is separate from national security. In this afternoon’s sitting, when we discuss the additions that we would like to the remit and definition of “national security”, I hope that the Minister will recognise that the Bill is broader than national security, as was simply understood from his previous responses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60
Defamation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi
Clause 60 provides the Secretary of State and the CMA with absolute privilege against action for defamation as a result of the exercise of functions under or by virtue of the Bill. The clause has been included to ensure that the Secretary of State and the CMA have absolute privilege from defamation claims, on the basis that the function of the regime to protect national security is too important to be at risk or in any way curtailed by claims of defamation. It is, of course, not the Government’s intention to defame anyone through the regime or more widely. I hope that hon. Members will agree that this is an appropriate protection, supported by a well-reasoned regime that seeks to protect national security while supporting businesses and investors.
Dr Whitehead
I understand the purpose of the clause and, as the Minister indicated, the question of national security is very important. I can imagine circumstances in which the Secretary of State may, for example, suggest that a company is an agent of a foreign power. That might be seen to be defamatory, but in terms of the inquiry that is being undertaken the Minister should be protected against such an action.
However, the clause states that there is absolute privilege, which appears to suggest that the privilege could be exercised even on a wholly unreasonable basis—that is, the Minister could say or write what he or she likes about anybody provided it is under the cover of, or could be attached to the purposes of, the Bill. That seems a bit of a wide-ranging provision.
I appreciate what the Minister said on the provision, and that he has already said that it would not be his intention to defame anybody, but might he provide us with an assurance today, on the record, that notwithstanding the very wide scope of the Bill, he does not see the clause as an opportunity for the Secretary of State to wantonly defame anybody if they felt like it, and that it would be strictly used in terms of inquiries that were being undertaken for the purpose of the Bill, and not for any other purposes?
Nadhim Zahawi
I hope I have already made it clear that the Government would not intend to defame anybody. The reason for the clause is that there are various points in the regime where the Secretary of State will make statements that are, in effect, published and would include communications with other parties as well as those for general public consumption. He may therefore be open to such claims, which is why the clause is in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Annual report
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 61, page 36, line 20, at end insert—
“(m) the average number of days taken to assess a trigger event called in under the Act;
(n) the average number of days taken for acceptance decisions in respect of mandatory and voluntary notices;
(o) the average annual headcount allocated to the operation of reviews of notices made under sections 14 and 18 over the relevant period;
(p) the proportion and number of Small to Medium Enterprises in the overall number of notices and call-in notices.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on the time taken to process notices, the resource allocated to the new Unit and the extent to which Small to Medium Enterprises are being called-in under the new regime.
Sam Tarry
Before turning to the amendment, it occurs to me that the Minister, in his new role as vaccinations tsar, could consider this Committee Room as somewhere to store some of the vaccine.
Amendment 31 would simply require the Secretary of State to report on the time taken to process notices, on the resource allocated to the new unit, and on the extent to which small and medium-sized enterprises are called in under the new regime. It is about requiring greater accountability from BEIS in the investment security unit’s service standards. That sounds anodyne, but it does something very important.
Throughout our discussions, there has been one point of agreement across the Committee: hon. Members, across party lines, have raised concerns about the capacity and capability that a new investment security unit will have to deliver on the Bill’s ambition. A number of the expert witnesses added to that concern, describing the shift as “seismic”—totally transformational—and said that changes will need to be thoroughly resourced in that unit, which should be especially prepared to work closely and efficiently with our innovative start-ups.
Indeed, some of the experts were pretty clear on that point. David Petrie of the ICAEW said:
“The first point I make about that is that this new investment security unit will need to be very well resourced. A thousand notifications a year is four a day; I am just testing it for reasonableness, as accountants are inclined to do. That is quite a lot of inquiries.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 24 November 2020; c. 53, Q60.]
Peter Grant
I certainly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s desire for that information to be published. Can he explain why the Bill should require that it be published, rather than leaving it to ongoing scrutiny by the relevant Select Committee? Does he think that the wording of paragraph (o) of the amendment needs to be more precise to be part of an Act of Parliament? If scrutiny were left to the discretion of a Select Committee, it would not need to be quite so clear about what “average” means, for example, because five or six different words mean “average” to statisticians.
Sam Tarry
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. I think that the wording is precise enough. The accompanying guidance to the Bill could perhaps clarify some of those points. The key reason that we want that in the Bill, rather than for it to be overseen in the way that he has suggested, is that—
The Chair
Would the hon. Gentleman face the Chair when he is speaking, please? Thank you.
Sam Tarry
Certainly, Chair. It is incredibly important to give that sense of clarity and time to small and medium enterprises. That has been a running theme for a number of our amendments, and there are three reasons, which it might help the hon. Member for Glenrothes to understand: first, the unit’s efficiency; secondly, its capacity; and thirdly, its focus on SMEs.
I will expand on that. First, on the unit’s efficiency, by reporting the aggregate time taken for decisions—both assessment decisions and initial acceptance or rejection notices—we would have a mechanism to ensure that the new regime works more efficiently for SMEs. Secondly, on capacity, the amendment drives towards taking stock of the resources behind the unit’s work, so that Parliament and the public will have a mechanism for holding the Government to account for what will be a major new centre for merger investment screening in the UK. Thirdly, we in the Labour party have really tried to make that focus on SMEs paramount in the Bill, so that we have a climate in which SMEs can thrive. That would simply mean that the unit could track the focus of SMEs in its work, and would be able to highlight specific concerns and the experiences of our most innovative start-ups when interacting with the new regime. Seeing that in live time would be useful for the forward planning of SMEs, and for the Government and Parliament to be able oversee how the process is working once it is in place.
Each paragraph of the clause maintains the Government’s power to act to protect national security. The clause simply holds power to account through what we would call aggregated transparency.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ilford South. We are not quite at minus 70 °C, but we are probably very close to it.
I will speak initially to clause 61 stand part before turning to amendment 31. It is crucial for investor confidence that there is as much transparency as possible in the regime, but of course there is evidently a limit to how much the Government can disclose, given that the regime deals explicitly with national security matters. That said, alongside appropriate protections for personal data and commercially sensitive information around national security assessments, the Government are committed to providing as much transparency as possible when it comes to how the new regime functions at an aggregate level.
Chi Onwurah
I wholeheartedly endorse the Minister’s words on the skill and talents in this Committee Room. He said we were improving the Bill, but he is yet to accept any changes, so I am intrigued to understand what improvements he feels we have made.
Nadhim Zahawi
It is the challenge the hon. Lady offers that allows a Minister as junior as the one standing before hon. Members to be able to make the argument.
Finally, the report will also give a sense of the sectors of the economy where the greatest activity of national security concern is occurring. The Secretary of State may include additional information in relation to SMEs if he considers that to be appropriate. For those reasons, I am unable to accept the amendment, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford South can withdraw it.
Chi Onwurah
I will say a few words in support of the amendment and on the clause, and will respond to the Minister’s comments. I think we all recognise the importance of reporting annually on the seismic shift in our national security, and of scrutiny of mergers and acquisitions. Yet it has to be said that the Bill does not say what the report’s objective is. Neither did the Minister, in listing what was included, give an understanding of the reasons the items have been included, even as he rejected the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South, which seeks to add points of particular interest to small and medium-sized enterprises.
I note, for example, that the number of final notifications is given but not the number of interim notifications or interim orders made. It is hard to see whether the objective of the report is to give greater confidence, to enable us to fully understand the working, or to enable us to see whether the limited contents of the impact assessment prove to be accurate. The kind of information in the report, and in my hon. Friend’s amendment, is the information that a well-run Department should wish to have. Although we are unclear on the objective of the report, which is not set out, reporting on those items as fully as possible would certainly improve the workings of the Bill, as my hon. Friend has said he seeks to do.
Sam Tarry
I listened to the Minister’s assessment. We want to tackle a number of other substantial issues this afternoon, so on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Transitional and saving provision in relation to the Enterprise Act 2002
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi
I now turn to the Bill’s final provisions. Clause 62 sets out the transitional provisions for cases that may qualify for intervention under both the Bill and the Enterprise Act 2002. The starting point for the transition arrangement is that the 2002 Act continues to apply in relation to national security until the new regime is commenced. That means that qualifying mergers can continue to be scrutinised under the Act where the statutory requirements are met.
However, the Government do not wish to expose to some form of double jeopardy qualifying mergers that take place after the introduction of the Bill but before commencement. The clause means that, in effect, the Secretary of State must use one Act or the other. Not doing so would create significant uncertainty for business and investors and could, at least theoretically, lead to the perverse position of the Secretary of State, following commencement of the Bill, re-examining decisions that they themselves made merely weeks ago under the 2002 Act.
Clause 63 makes provision in relation to the regulations that may be made under the Bill, setting out how they must be made and what they may contain. All the regulations that may be made under the Bill are subject to the negative resolution procedure, except regulations made under clause 6, “Notifiable acquisitions”, clause 11, “Exceptions relating to control of assets”. and clause 41, “Permitted maximum penalties”, where the draft affirmative procedure will apply. Given their nature and effect, the Government consider that regulations under those three powers should be subject to the approval of Parliament.
Clause 64 provides that any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Bill is to be paid out of money provided by Parliament. Clause 65 is purely a technical one to provide for definitions of the key terms used in the Bill. I do not intend to explore individual meanings of key terms now; I will instead direct hon. Members to lunch and to the relevant clauses that provide them. Finally, hon. Members will appreciate that clause 66 is purely a technical one to set out the Bill’s short title and provide details about the commencement of the Bill’s clauses and the extent of the Bill.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for setting out the provisions of the clauses and for moving us onwards to lunch and to the end of the Bill. I will not detain the Committee with a detailed consideration of the technical provisions in the clauses and the interpretation of the various terms. However, the Bill as a whole would benefit from greater clarity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has so well set out, particularly in his reference to the use of language by bank managers.
We will not oppose the final clauses. We congratulate the Committee and particularly the Clerks and all those who have supported us in enabling us to reach the final clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 63 to 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Michael Tomlinson
On this occasion I will, without rudely interrupting anyone, beg to move that the Committee do now adjourn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
National Security and Investment Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Thursday 10th December 2020
(4 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 View all National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2020 - (10 Dec 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Sir Graham. I am also pleased that the Committee is now moving to the new expanses of new clauses. I see that Committee members have come fully prepared to deal with the environment in which we find ourselves. I should say, Sir Graham, that the previous Chair said that we should be able to put on as many coats as we liked. I think that that is much to be desired. Unfortunately, I left my office in a rush and forgot to bring my coat, as well as the Houses of Parliament Christmas jumper in which I invested only yesterday, in anticipation that it might be needed today. We shall have to take the temperature as an encouragement to press on.
Had we known that, regardless of the title of the Bill, it was actually the National and Security and Investment, and any improvements to the Enterprise Act 2002 we feel it is necessary to make, Bill, we might have ranged somewhat broader in our new clauses. We chose instead to focus on what we felt was absolutely critical to the good functioning of our national security framework. New clause 1 seeks to set out some of the factors that the Secretary of State may have regard to when making assessments under the provisions of the Bill. We recognise some of the implications of including a definition of national security. The Bill is called the National Security and Investment Bill, even if it does go somewhat beyond that title.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I note that the hon. Lady uses the word “may” not “shall” in the new clause. Can she explain why she opted for “may” in this instance?
Chi Onwurah
I am grateful for that intervention. First, it shows that the hon. Gentleman is paying attention, which in itself is something to be welcomed. If I may say so, it also shows that he is taking lessons from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. We have considered the matter and this is the correct use of the term “may”. I shall go into more detail later, but this is not about prescribing what the Secretary of State must look at; it is about giving greater clarity, particularly to those who will come under the Bill’s remit. One of the expert witnesses put it very well. Those who will come under the Bill’s remit need to get a sense of what the Government mean by national security, not in a specific and detailed definition.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Would the hon. Lady not agree that there is danger that the new clause would start to try to define in a prescriptive way what a national security risk is, whereas the point of the Bill is that it enables the Government, the Secretary of State and the relevant parties to judge what is a risk? That goes back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk made about “may” and “shall”. As far as I can see, the new clause should use “shall”, given what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, but I accept the point about how such legislation is worded. There is a danger that, by listing all these clauses, we imply that other aspects of danger to national security are not included. I am not sure that it would achieve anything. In many ways, it might obfuscate rather than clarify, although I fully accept that her intention is to clarify.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which I think was made in the proper spirit of the Committee, by seeking to improve the Bill, help the Secretary of State, and help those who will be affected by the Bill to understand it. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that there is a trade-off.
During the expert evidence sessions, we heard both from those who felt that there should be a definition of national security and from those who felt that there should not. However, if my memory serves me, they all tended to agree that there should be greater clarity about what national security could include. For example, Dr Ashley Lenihan of the London School of Economics said:
“What you do see in regulations is guidance as to how national security risk might be assessed or examples of what could be considered a threat to national security.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 24 November 2020; c. 38, Q42.]
We also heard that in the US the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act 2018 provides for a “sense of Congress” on six factors that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and the President may consider—the term “may” is used well here—in assessing national security: countries of specific concern; critical infrastructure, energy assets and critical material; a history of compliance with US law; control of US industries that affect US capacity to meet national security requirements, which is very important; personally identifiable information; and potential new cyber-security vulnerabilities.
My argument is that if we look at examples from elsewhere, we see indications of what can be included in national security without having a prescriptive definition. That is exactly what the new clause tries to set out. It states:
“When assessing a risk to national security, the Secretary of State may have regard to factors including”,
and then it gives a list of factors, which I shall detail shortly.
The question, “What is national security?” is entirely unanswered, for Parliament, for businesses looking for clarity, for citizens looking for reassurance, and if hostile actors are seeking to take advantage of any loopholes in how the Secretary of State construes national security. I do have sympathy with the argument that we should not be prescriptive and limit the Secretary of State’s flexibility to act by setting down a rigid definition of national security that rules things out. That is the spirit of the new clause. It does not rule out the Secretary of State’s flexibility or set a rigid definition; it simply does what other countries have done well, as our experts witnesses have said, by giving a guide on some factors that the Government might consider, while allowing many more to be included in national security assessments. This is critical in order to give greater clarity to businesses puzzled by the Government’s very high-level definitions of espionage, disruption or inappropriate leverage.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The hon. Lady appears to be advancing two arguments simultaneously. On the one hand, I understand the argument about clarity, which is indeed something that many people would look for in this Bill. However, she also talks about flexibility and that we should not seek to tie the Secretary of State down to a particular, prescriptive definition at any point in time, which I think members on both sides of the Committee would agree on. Given that, I am genuinely confused as to why she would seek to advance this new clause, although I find its actual wording wholly unobjectionable. Perhaps the Minister will reply on this topic, because I think the record of these proceedings could provide that clarity without needing to press the amendment to a vote.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which I found very helpful. If he believes me to be presenting both sides of the argument at once, perhaps that is because the Minister has been doing the very same thing so often during the past few sittings. As the Minister has often said, there is a balance to be sought between flexibility for the Secretary of State and clarity for the business community and other communities. This new clause goes exactly to the point made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, and strikes that balance. That is why—I will say it again—the new clause does not prescribe what national security is, but it does not leave a vacuum into which supposition, uncertainty and confusion can move.
The new clause gives greater clarity to citizens worried about whether Government will act to protect critical data transfers or our critical national infrastructure. Are those areas part of our national security, even though they are not covered by the Government’s proposed 17 sectors? The new clause provides assurance in that case and—this is important—sends a message to hostile actors that we will act to protect British security through broad powers applied with accountability. It should be clear that we also need to consider how this Bill will be read by the hostile actors against whom we are seeking to protect our nation, and this new clause will send a clearer message as to what may be included in that.
The factors highlighted in this new clause are comparable to guidance provided in other affected national security legislation, most notably the US’s Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act 2018. Paragraph (a) would protect our supply chains and sensitive sites, in addition to acting against the disruption, espionage and inappropriate leverage highlighted in the Government’s statement of policy intent. We have heard from experts, and have also seen from very recent history—namely, that of our 5G network—that our strategic security depends not only on businesses immediately relevant to national security, but on the full set of capabilities and supply chains that feed into those security-relevant businesses. We cannot let another unforeseen disruption, whether pandemic or otherwise, disrupt our access to critical supply.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) look strategically at our national security, not with a short-term eye. We have heard consistently from experts that national security and economic security are not altogether separate. Indeed, they cannot be separated; they are deeply linked. A national security expert told us that a narrow focus on direct technologies of defence was mistaken and that instead we should look to the “defence of technology”. That was a very appropriate phrase, meaning not specific technologies of defence, but defence of technologies that seem economically strategic today and might become strategic for national security tomorrow.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentions Sir Richard Dearlove’s evidence to the Committee a couple of weeks ago. He made very clear that his opinion, as a former head of MI6, was that having a statutory definition of national security would be very prohibitive and do damage to what we are trying to achieve by getting this Bill on the statute book.
Chi Onwurah
Absolutely. That is why we are not seeking a statutory definition of national security. That is why we are seeking to include and to set out points that the Secretary of State may take into account. The hon. Member should recognise that the Government’s statement of intent is designed to give guidance as to how the Bill will work and be used in practice, and what might be taken into account. The guidance is there. It is just that it is very limited.
We are deliberately not seeking a prescriptive definition of national security. We recognise, as Sir Richard Dearlove did, that it can and must evolve over time. We are seeking to give greater guidance and to promote a better understanding of the remit of the Bill, so that it can be better interpreted and better implemented and so that all those who come under its remit can share that understanding. That is what other nations do. The new clause takes our security context seriously, and signals to hostile actors that we will act with seriousness, not superficiality.
Paragraph (f) bridges the gap between the Government’s defined sectors and focus and the critical national infrastructure that we already define and focus on in our wider intelligence and security work. It brings us in line with allies. Canadian guidelines list the security of Canada’s national infrastructure as an explicit factor in national security assessments. In Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States cases, Congress lists critical infrastructure among the six factors that the President and CFIUS may access.
The provision also acts on the agreement of the ex MI6 chief. In relation to having a critical national infrastructure definition in the Bill, he said:
“I would certainly see that as advantageous, because it defines a clear area where you start and from which you can make judgments”.––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 24 November 2020; c. 24, Q31.]
Some of the interventions have been about whether the new clause hits the right spot between prescribing and defining what national security is and giving greater clarity and focus. We would argue that the evidence that I have just set out shows that it does.
Paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) recognise that national security is about more than a narrow view of military security; it is about human security, clamping down on persistent abuses of law—as other countries do—and recognising that a party that consistently abuses human rights abroad cannot be trusted to do otherwise at home. It is about knowing that the single greatest collective threat we face, at home and across the world, lies in climate risk. It is about acting on illicit activities and money-laundering threats that underpin direct threats to national security in the form of global terror.
I recognise that many Government Members have recently raised the importance of human rights, illicit activities, money laundering and climate change in our security. In the statement on Hong Kong this week, the Minister for Asia acknowledged that human rights should be part of our considerations when it comes to trade and security but said that he did not feel that the Trade Bill was the right place for such provisions. I argue that today’s Bill is the right place for them because it deals with our national security.
The new clause would show the world that the UK is serious about national security. We must protect our national security against threats at home and abroad, and build our sovereign capability in industries that are the most strategically significant for security. We must view security in the light of modern technologies, climate and geopolitical threats. None of those constrain the Government’s ability to act; they simply sharpen the clarity of that action, and its signal to the world.
When we began line-by-line scrutiny, I spoke of my astonishment that the Government’s impact assessment referred to national security as an area of market failure that therefore required Government action. I hope that the Minister can confirm that he does not believe that national security is an area of market failure, but that it is the first responsibility of Government. The new clause sets out to give bones to that assertion and to demonstrate to the world that we understand our national security and the interests at play in promoting and securing it, and that we will act decisively in the interest of national security, taking into account this range of factors to protect our citizens, our national interest and our economic sovereignty, now and in the future.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central although I confess I was not quite able to pay attention to the early part of her remarks, because I was still reeling from the revelation that a born and bred Geordie is capable of feeling cold. I just hope that her constituents do not get to hear of it, or she might be in trouble at the next election.
Perhaps the aspect of the new clause that I am least comfortable about is the title. I think that is what is causing the problem. The title is “National security definition”, but what follows, thankfully, is not a definition of national security. Like a lot of people, I would love to be able to come up with a definition of national security that worked and was robust, but no one has been able to do that. The new clause, however, does not seek to prescribe what national security is, and despite what was said in some of the interventions, it certainly does not attempt to prescribe what it is not. It gives explicit statutory authority to the Secretary of State to take certain factors into account in determining whether and how, in his judgment, a particular acquisition is a threat to national security.
Chi Onwurah
I can only ascribe my lack of the usual Geordie central heating to being so far from home at the moment. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the new clause seriously, and I think he is right. The title misleads to the extent that we are not looking to define national security.
Peter Grant
If the hon. Lady thinks she is a long way from home—tell me about it.
There was discussion, and quite a lot of questions to some of the early witnesses, about whether we needed to give some kind of guidance on what national security is not. Some of us vividly remember—I think that the hon. Lady’s constituents will vividly remember—that there was a time when someone was a threat to national security if they were a coal miner who went on strike, or if they had a trade union membership card in their pocket and worked in the wrong places, such as in Government establishments that officially did not exist then. When we look at the honours that are still bestowed on the person responsible for those two abuses of the claim of national security, it can be understood why some of us are always concerned about giving any Government powers to act in the interest of national security unless clear safeguards are built in.
The other side of the coin is that I can foresee times when the Secretary of State might be grateful for the fact that the clause has been incorporated in the Bill. Let us suppose that someone wanted to take control of or influence a software company. I know that software is itself an area we would want to look at. We all know what can happen when the software that helps to control major transport systems goes wrong. We have all been affected by Heathrow terminal 5 effectively shutting down for hours at a time. When there is a major signalling fault caused by a software malfunction at one of the main London stations, the whole of the south-east can be clogged up for hours or even days.
Can that become a threat to our national security? I think there are circumstances in which it could. I can certainly foresee circumstances in which someone who wanted to damage the United Kingdom—for no other reason than wanting to damage its interests—might seek to do so by getting a way in that enables them to interfere with the code controlling software of the transport or financial services infrastructure, for example. It is not in the interest of any of us, at the point when a Secretary of State intervenes to stop such an acquisition, if the matter can be taken to court and it becomes necessary to argue that deliberately causing the national transport infrastructure to freeze is an attack on our national security. I cannot understand why anyone would want not to add a clause to the Bill to allow such an interpretation to be made if the Secretary of State saw fit.
Chi Onwurah
The hon. Gentleman reminds me that I should have mentioned either the impact assessment or the consultation response. I think the consultation response gives the deliberately induced software failure at Heathrow as an example of a failure of national security that the Bill would be able to circumvent by preventing hostile parties from owning that software company, without setting out how that would be part of the definition of national security that the Bill is seeking.
Peter Grant
I am grateful again for those comments. The hon. Lady has referred again to what is in the explanatory notes. Unless somebody has changed the rules, the explanatory notes are not part of the eventual Act of Parliament. In borderline cases, they may be used by a court to help to interpret what the intention of Parliament was when it passed a Bill, but as a general rule, the intention of Parliament is stated by the words in the Act as it is passed. If it does not say in the Act that a Secretary of State can take those factors into account, there will be an argument that will have to be heard and tried in court, if need be, that a Secretary of State should not have taken those factors into account.
Andrew Griffith
I do not know how familiar the hon. Gentleman is with the process by which the courts look at the definitions for judicial review, but one of the dangers of trying to write them down—I accept that it is “may” language, not “must”—is that the court will look at them. We could inadvertently circumscribe the degree to which the Act can be used. I know that is not the hon. Gentleman’s intention, but I have to say that, in practice—he might be familiar with how the courts work, particularly for judicial review—that is absolutely a legitimate consideration. That is one of the reasons why I would argue that the new clause should not be accepted.
Peter Grant
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am also looking at the following words:
“factors including, but not restricted to”.
Are those words completely without meaning? If they are, why is it that the Library has dozens, if not hundreds, of pieces of legislation currently in force that have those exact words included in them? Those words are there explicitly to make sure that the list is not intended to be comprehensive. The fact that the word “may” is in there is because it allows the Secretary of State to take the factors into account, but it does not require them to do it in circumstances where it is not appropriate.
The final aspect that I want to look at is the very last factor in new clause 1: money laundering. Everybody knows that money laundering is bad and that it is a threat to our economy; it is a threat to honest businesses and all the rest of it. If the only concern that the Secretary of State had about an acquisition was that it was intended to facilitate large-scale money laundering in the United Kingdom, can we be sure that a court would accept that, and that alone, as evidence of a threat to our national security? I hope it would. The way to make sure it would is to put it in the Bill right now.
We know there are very strong connections between the acquisition of huge amounts of property, particularly in London, by people who got rich very quickly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, large-scale money laundering and organised crime, with the money sometimes being laundered through London, and the growing effectiveness of the threat that the present Russian regime poses to our national security. The Intelligence and Security Committee report from about a year ago highlighted that very clearly.
We know that money laundering can become part of—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. A Division has been called in the House. In anticipation of there being at least three Divisions, I suspend the Committee for half an hour. We shall resume at 3.3 pm. Should a fourth Division be called, the Committee will resume at 3.13 pm. If everybody is back sooner, we can resume earlier.
Peter Grant
Even by my standards, it feels as if it is a long time since I stood up to start speaking, so I will bring my comments to a close, Sir Graham.
The examples that I quoted of a potential software threat to our critical transport infrastructure or facilitation of large-scale money laundering are just two examples where I think it would be to the benefit of the legislation to have those factors explicitly permitted for the Secretary of State to take into account when exercising the powers created by the Bill. I understand Government Members’ concern, but I ask them not to judge the new clause by their understandable and shared concerns about the dangers of having a precise dictionary definition of national security. I ask them to judge it by the additional certainty and reassurance it will give the Secretary of State that if they take those factors into account in all of our interests, there will be no question but that the court will uphold the decision. On that basis, I commend the new clause to the Committee. If, as has happened with depressing regularity, the Committee splits along party lines, I sincerely invite the Government to think seriously about tabling a similar measure at a later stage, because the new clause could improve the Bill substantially and it would be a great shame if it was lost simply for party political considerations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
I am grateful to Opposition speakers, the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Glenrothes, for their contributions and to my hon. Friends the Members for Arundel and South Downs, for North West Norfolk, for Clwyd South and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine for their excellent interventions.
On new clause 1, it will not surprise the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central that the Government’s position remains consistent with that of 1 December, when amendments relating to the new clause were discussed. Such amendments included, among others, proposals for the inclusion of a definition of national security in the statement made by the Secretary of State. The new clause seeks to create a new, exhaustive list of factors that the Secretary of State may take into account when considering whether something is a risk to national security.
Chi Onwurah
I am listening intently to the Minister’s response—given the great skills of the Committee he is taking the new clause in the right spirit—but it is not appropriate to say that we are presenting an exhaustive list when we specifically say, “this and other things”. It meant to be not an exhaustive list but a guide and a sense.
Nadhim Zahawi
I apologise. I will say instead that the clause seeks to create a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Secretary of State may take into account when considering whether something is a risk to national security for the purposes of the Bill.
The Bill as drafted does not seek to define national security. It also does not include factors that the Secretary of State will take into account in coming to a national security assessment. Instead, factors that the Secretary of State expects to take into account in exercising the call-in powers are proposed to be set out, as the hon. Lady rightly said, in the statement provided for in clause 3. A draft of the statement was published on introduction of the Bill to aid the Committee’s scrutiny efforts. The draft statement includes details of what the Secretary of State is likely to be interested in when it comes to national security risks. That includes certain sectors of the economy and the types of acquisition that may raise concern.
While it is crucial for investors’ confidence that there is as much transparency in the regime as possible, there is self-evidently a limit to how much the Government can and should disclose in that regard given that the regime deals explicitly with national security matters. Nevertheless, the draft statement goes into some detail about the factors that the Secretary of State expects to take into account when making a decision on whether to call in a trigger event.
The new clause would instead place in the Bill, alongside the statement, a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Secretary of State may have regard to when assessing a risk to national security. That raises a number of issues. First, it is unclear what the benefit is of including a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Secretary of State may have regard to directly in the legislation as opposed to in the statement.
Nadhim Zahawi
I will happily take the hon. Lady’s intervention once I have gone through these points.
Secondly, the new clause would not replace the statement; instead, it would appear to sit alongside it. The Government think that would probably cause confusion rather than clarity, although I have no doubt that the hon. Lady and the Opposition agree that clarity for all parties will be crucial to the regime’s success.
Thirdly, by stating what may be taken into account when assessing a risk to national security under the Bill, the new clause indirectly sets out what can be a national security risk for the purposes of the Bill, and therefore what comes within the scope of national security—many colleagues pointed out some of the evidence suggesting that we should do exactly the opposite of that—which could clearly have unintended consequences for other pieces of legislation that refer to national security. The Bill requires that the statement from the Secretary of State be reviewed at least every five years to reflect the changing national security landscape. Indeed, in practice, it is likely that it will be reviewed and updated more frequently. We think that this is the right approach, rather than binding ourselves in primary legislation.
Fourthly, but perhaps most importantly, I note in this list that the Secretary of State may have regard to an ever-broadening set of suggestions that Opposition Members wish to be taken into account as part of national security. On Second Reading, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), requested that an industrial strategy test be included in the Bill alongside national security assessments. I am afraid that an industrial strategy test is not the purpose of this legislation.
Peter Grant
The Minister comments on a speech by the shadow Secretary of State at an earlier stage of the Bill’s passage and on the undesirability of building an industrial strategy test into the Bill. I do not see an industrial strategy test mentioned in the new clause, so, for the purpose of clarity, is that part of the new clause that we are debating?
Nadhim Zahawi
I was referring to the shadow Secretary of State’s request on Second Reading that an industrial strategy test be included in the Bill.
As I was saying, factors that the Secretary of State may have regard to through the new clause are wide ranging. This is an important Bill about national security and national security alone. We do not wish to see an ever-growing list of factors for the Secretary of State to take into consideration. That would risk the careful balance that has been struck in this regime between protecting national security and ensuring that the UK remains one of the best places in the world to invest. The Government consider that the Secretary of State should be required to assess national security as strictly about the security of our nation. That is what the Bill requires. These powers cannot and will not be used for economic, political or any other reasons.
While I understand the objectives of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, for the reasons I have set out I am not able to accept the new clause. I hope the hon. Member will agree to withdraw it.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his response, not all of which was entirely unexpected. I also thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes for his speech and his interventions, which were very much to the point.
I feel that the Minister was, to a certain extent, doing what the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs accused me of doing—I did say that I had learned so much from the Minister—which was arguing both sides of the question at once. He seems to be saying that there should not be any definition, but that if there needs to be a definition, it is already there in the statement that the Secretary of State has set out. Indeed, I have been looking for that statement, because I did not recognise it from the way the Minister described it when talking about giving detail on the types of national security questions that might arise.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Grace period for SMEs—
“For the purposes of section 32, a person has a reasonable excuse if—
(a) the entity concerned is a Small to Medium Enterprise;
(b) this Act has been in force for less than six months.”
This new clause creates a grace period whereby – for alleged offences committed under Section 32 – Small to Medium Enterprises would have a ‘reasonable excuse’ if the alleged offence was committed within the first six months after the Bill’s passage.
Peter Grant
I am pleased to speak to the two new clauses, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South. Throughout our debate on the Bill, Members have spoken—sometimes with a surprising degree of cross-party consensus—of the need to find the right balance between protecting our collective national security and allowing beneficial investment into the United Kingdom to continue. New clauses 2 and 3 aim to give some recognition to the fact that among the Bill’s potential detrimental effects may well be a disproportionate detrimental impact on smaller businesses and early start-up ventures.
Smaller businesses often lack the resources to have their own in-house team of lawyers or other trade law experts, and they certainly cannot afford the services of the very experienced experts that gave evidence to the Committee a few weeks ago. They may be more adversely affected than a bigger business would be by delays in bringing in investment, because they do not have the same resources to fall back on. Compared with bigger businesses that may have more international connections, smaller businesses are unlikely to be as well informed about which possible investors or partners are likely to raise security concerns. There is a danger that small businesses could commit time and resources to negotiating deals, acquisitions, mergers or investments that a bigger business with a more global perspective would immediately know were non-starters. Small businesses may spend a lot of time on abortive deals and negotiations.
All the way through, I have said that these things may happen. I am not trying to reignite arguments about “may” and “must”, but at the moment nobody really knows what the impact of the legislation will be. We cannot possibly know until it has been in place for a few months, or possibly even a bit longer. What we do know is that when this legislation comes into force, we will rely massively on the growth of existing small businesses and the launch of new ones to drive our post-covid recovery. Big businesses will not do it, and they certainly will not do it on their own. We have all got a responsibility to avoid putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of small businesses who want to start to grow. If we do find that we have unintentionally put those obstacles in the way, we need to be able to remove them.
New clause 2 makes two simple requests—it has two simple requirements. The first is that the Secretary of State reports back to Parliament on impacts the Act has had on small and medium-sized enterprises and early-stage ventures, giving Parliament the chance—should it need it—to consider whether we have created unintended barriers to small businesses. The second requirement is for the Secretary of State to provide guidance to those same companies to give them a bit more certainty about what they need to do to stay on the right side of the law without having to spend money on expensive consultants or legal experts.
New clause 3 tries to minimise the potential damage that the Act could do to small businesses, particularly in the early days when they may be unused to some of the impacts. Clause 32 creates a new offence of completing a notifiable acquisition without reasonable excuse and without the proper authority of the Secretary of State. New clause 3 seeks to recognise that small businesses in particular may find themselves in the wrong side of that clause in the early days of the legislation, not through any malice or wilful neglect, but simply through ignorance, lack of experience or being too busy trying to run their business to be keeping an eye on what is happening in the Houses of Parliament. New clause 3 would effectively provide a grace period of six months in which a small business can put forward the fact that the legislation is new to be taken as a reasonable excuse, which would mean that neither they nor the directors were liable to criminal prosecution. It is critically important to bear in mind that nothing in new clause 3 would do anything whatever to dilute or reduce the effectiveness of the Bill in doing what it is supposed to do. It would not have any impact on the ability of the Secretary of State to take action to protect our national security. It would not have any impact on the exercise of powers either to block an acquisition or merger or to impose conditions on it, should that be necessary. It would not change the fact that if a small business during that six-month period completes an acquisition that should not have been completed, that acquisition would be just as void under the law as any other acquisition.
I understand that new clause 3 is a slightly unusual clause for a piece of legislation, but it would allow us to make sure that the Bill continues to protect national security to the fullest extent it can, but at the same time that we do not have businesses being scared to act in case they end up on the wrong side of the law. We would not have the possibility of the courts having to take up time dealing with prosecutions of small businesses or directors who genuinely meant no harm, but who just—
Andrew Griffith
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s conversion to the zealous promotion of free enterprise and the cause of small businesses, but would he extend his support to any new taxation measures, new business regulation or employment measures that are advanced by the Government? While I support the thrust, the principle and the philosophy from which he clearly speaks, I do worry that the new clause could create somewhat of a precedent, and I am not sure that all of his colleagues have fully thought through the profound implications for the application of the law on business in this land.
Peter Grant
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been a supporter of small businesses significantly longer than he has perhaps. I did make it clear that this is a way that we can protect small businesses without in any way compromising the integrity of the Bill. There is nothing in the new clause that will in any way weaken the effectiveness of the Bill and protecting our national security. I would be happy at another time to debate the reasons why, for example, employment measures in Scotland should be taken by the Parliament and Government elected by the people of Scotland rather than somewhere down here, but that is not a debate for today. I expect, Sir Graham, that neither you nor anybody else would be too pleased if we started to take up time this afternoon on that subject.
James Wild
In clause 32, there is provision to look at whether a reasonable excuse exists in an individual case. The hon. Member’s amendment would give a blanket exemption to any small business by dint of being a small business. Is the case-by-case basis not a better way to approach the issue?
Peter Grant
That is a valid point, but I do not think it is. The difficulty with the case-by-case basis is that it creates uncertainty and worry for the small business concerned. We are talking about a period of only six months. I do not really think that hostile overseas investors are waiting to pounce during those six months to gobble up small businesses in a way that will damage our national security. Let us face it: if they were going to do that in the first six months, they would be doing it now or they would have done it in the last six months.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the new clause is deliberately worded to explicitly recognise the importance of small businesses, particularly during this period. The Bill is likely to come into force at the exact time that small businesses will be trying to get back on their feet. They need all the help they can get. There is a danger that the way that the Bill could be implemented and enforced will be an unintentional barrier to their growth.
All that we are asking is that, for a short period, until smaller businesses get used to the new legislation, it does not allow them to go ahead with transactions that are otherwise prohibited and would otherwise be blocked by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will still have the full power to block those transactions or to impose conditions on them. It does not mean that an acquisition is legally valid if it would otherwise be void under the terms of the legislation. The only difference it makes is that it removes the danger of small businesses or their directors spending time defending themselves in court when they should be developing their business and helping to get the economy back on its feet. On that basis, I commend both new clauses to the Committee.
Chi Onwurah
I rise to speak briefly in support of additional support for SMEs. The hon. Member for Glenrothes is a champion of small businesses, which is a pleasure to hear. As he set out, and as has been set out in a number of the amendments that we have tabled in Committee, we are concerned to make sure that the seismic shift in our national security assessment with regard to mergers and acquisitions does not stifle our innovative but often under-resourced small businesses, which are such an important driver of our economy. New clause 2 reflects our intentions, particularly in amendments 1 and 11, to support and give further guidance to small businesses. I hope that the Minister and Conservative Members recognise the importance of supporting small businesses at this time through direct measures in the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central for setting out the arguments in support of new clauses 2 and 3, which both relate to the treatment of small and medium-sized enterprises in the regime.
On new clause 2, the Government are a strong supporter of SMEs and have sought to provide a slick and easily navigable regime for businesses of all sizes to interact with. We are creating a digital portal and a simple notification process to allow all businesses to interact with the regime without the need for extensive support from law firms, which is a particular burden for small businesses. Furthermore, there is no fee for filling a notification, unlike many of our allies’ regimes, which in some cases charge hundreds of thousands of pounds for a notification. Consequently, we do not expect this regime to disproportionately affect SMEs.
Peter Grant
I hear what the Minister is saying, but I am still not convinced that he was listening to all the comments from this side of the Committee. However, I do not seek to divide the Committee on either new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Complaints procedure
“(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations set up a formal complaints procedure through which acquirers may raise complaints about the procedures followed during the course of an assessment under this Act.
(2) Complaints as set out in subsection (1) may be made to a Procedural Officer, who—
(a) must not have been involved in the assessment and who is to consider significant procedural complaints relating to this section or another part of this Act; and
(b) may determine or settle complaints in accordance with regulations to be published by the Secretary of State within 3 months of this Bill becoming an Act.”—(Chi Onwurah.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a formal complaints procedure for acquirers.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Opposition’s new clause 5 deals with high- and low-risk acquirers. It would require the Secretary of State to maintain a list of hostile actors, including potential hostile states and allied actors, to allow different internal security to be applied based on the characteristics of the actors linked to the acquirer. I will attempt to explain the exact thinking behind the proposal.
There has been widespread agreement inside and outside the Committee that we face a geopolitical context in which many—if not all—threats emanate from a set of hostile actors or states. In fact, the Government’s statement of policy intent for the Bill recognises that
“national security risks are most likely to arise when acquirers… owe allegiance to hostile states”.
Throughout this process, the Committee has heard from various experts, including experts on China, as well as from lawyers, intelligence chiefs and think-thank experts. They have told us that origin and state of origin should be important drivers of national security screening processes. Indeed, a number of our allies—most notably, the US—exempt some countries, including Canada, Australia and the UK, from some of the most stringent mandatory notification requirements, and include country of origin among the factors to be considered in assessing security.
In that context, it is perhaps quite concerning that the Minister and the Government have not caught up or been thinking about that. In previous expositions, they have simply maintained that national security is not dependent on a particular country. When we debated a similar provision earlier in this process, I think the Minister said the Government were “agnostic” about the country of origin. That could be a mistake, because national security is not exclusively dependent on a single country. It is short-sighted and, frankly, dangerous, not to see threats that are materially country-specific.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central said, the former head of MI6 told the Committee that, essentially, we need to wake up to the strategic challenge posed by China in particular. I will explore that a little more with some specific examples from around the world of China beginning to tap into start-ups long before they are mature enough to be acquired. In Sweden, for example, between 2014 and 2019, China’s buyers acquired 51 Swedish firms and bought minority stakes in 14 additional firms. In fact, the acquisitions included some 100 subsidiaries.
More worryingly, in 2018, Chinese outfits, two of them linked to the Chinese military, bought three cutting-edge Swedish semiconductor start-ups. There is the 2017 example of Imagination Technologies—a top British chipmaker—which was acquired by a firm owned by a state-controlled Chinese investment group. Before that, a Chinese firm also bought KUKA, a leading German industrial robot-maker.
Andrew Griffith
Although this is interesting, I fear we are drifting a tiny bit off the new clause, which does not refer to geography. Given the Opposition’s desire to continue to shade in any ambiguity with greater clarity and the definition in new clause 5, will the hon. Gentleman give his definition of what “regular” would constitute?
Sam Tarry
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The word “regular” would clearly need to be defined in a way that did not overburden the new part of the Department that would oversee the regime, but that would provide the information on a basis that enabled the Minister to make decisions, and to be scrutinised on those decisions regularly enough that the regime was effective and did not lead to oversights.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for his points on the new clause. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs may say that there is no reference to geography, but is it not the case that requiring a list of hostile actors might reflect geography as appropriate, and as the geography of hostile actors changes? Does the number of times that we have mentioned one country in particular—China—not indicate that geographical location can be an indicator of the likelihood of hostile actors?
Sam Tarry
Absolutely. This is not about being particularly anti-China, but it is the strongest example of where we have heard evidence of things that are under way. I will continue with a few more examples. I think this is important, because we are trying to draw back the curtain on exactly what is going on.
Simon Baynes
I perceive a similar issue in new clauses 5 and 1: being prescriptive in this way causes problems, because what happens if a new, potentially dangerous, acquirer appears on the scene who is not incorporated within the terms of the measure?
Sam Tarry
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which goes back to what the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said. That is why this needs to be looked at regularly enough to be on top of the process. Obviously, threats change. Countries rise and fall and their agendas and Governments change, but we know that in some instances countries are actively making moves to invest in technology companies in such a way that might not be caught by some of the provisions in the Bill. We feel that being more stringent here would allow the Secretary of State more powers to keep, in some ways, a better eye on exactly what is going on.
Perhaps I should explain a little what I mean by that. One of the things that we are trying to uncover and drive at with the new clause is the importance of some of the ways in which venture capital firms are being used, particularly by the Chinese and by some companies. For example, in Cambridge and Oxford—two important tech hubs for our country—start-ups are regularly invited to pitch ideas to the Chinese state investment company. Nothing particularly untoward is happening there, but it is quite interesting that Chinese investors are particularly interested in talking to emerging biotech, internet of things, artificial intelligence and agri-tech companies.
Why is China particularly interested in those areas? The publicly available “Made in China 2025” strategy to become an economic superpower says that the first three things that the Chinese are interested in are biotechnology, the internet of things, and artificial intelligence. It is quite clear that there is a specific move by the Chinese—this could be replicated by other countries, whether it be Russia or others—but it is not as obvious as, “This is a state company that is going to come in and invest.” They will be taking part in buy-ins of some of the companies. This is something that has already happened.
Peter Grant
Although I understand the intention behind the new clause, some of the wording concerns me. I supported new clause 1 because it was quite clearly permissive and expansive. This new clause is quite clearly prescriptive. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Secretary of State will be guided day to day, which is much more regularly than multi-agency reviews can happen? The Secretary of State will be guided day to day by advice from the security services and others, not as to the theoretical characteristics of an acquirer that might make them a threat, but as to the actual identity and track record of the acquirer and concern.
In particular, is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about requiring the production of a list of high-risk and low-risk characteristics, or that subsection (3) of the new clause in particular would create the possibility that, at some point, somebody who ticked all the boxes for low risk, but was still a high-risk acquirer, could prevent the Secretary of State from undertaking the scrutiny that was required? Can he even explain, for example, what he means by “greater” and “lesser” scrutiny? How would I interpret whether the Secretary of State’s scrutiny had been greater or lesser?
Sam Tarry
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Those are valid points, and part of what we are driving at here is to be more prescriptive. The feeling is that we essentially need to allow the loops in the net to be closed enough such that we catch some of these companies. We do not want a situation where a number of companies have portions of them being owned by, for example, China or another country, and do not fall foul of any of the provisions currently in the Bill. In time, that could mean that countries and entities that were hostile to Britain’s strategic goals ended up having quick and strategic access to things around nanotechnology, agriculture and a range of other areas where they had essentially got their hands into something that I think should be protected far more closely by the UK.
To give an example, in the US—this is already under way—a Palo Alto-based venture capital firm backed by the Chinese Government had dozens of US start-ups in its portfolio. On 15 November 2020, the Office of the US Trade Representative said that 151 venture capital investments in US start-ups had featured at least one Chinese investor—up from 20 in 2010. We are not saying we do not want Chinese investment, but what we do not want is a situation where we are unable to have a grip when we find that loads of our technology companies —our most cutting-edge firms—are essentially all part-owned by the Chinese Communist party or one of its subsidiaries. That is why we have been more prescriptive in many parts of the new clause.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some important points. One of the striking things about, for example, Canyon Capital Advisors is how the US authorities intervened when it was looking to take over a particular US tech company. However, when it came to Imagination Technologies, of course, the UK Government did not.
Sam Tarry
That is exactly the kind of example on which we are trying to use the new clause to provide more clarity and give more force to the Bill so it can deal with these sorts of thing. If, for example, public investment by Chinese venture capital groups in western countries—whether it be this country or others—is visible but is actually just the tip of the iceberg, that is going to be a real problem. One lesson that Richard Dearlove described clearly to the Committee was that we need to take a longer medium-term view that goes beyond just being the most free-market and economically attractive investment prospect, particularly given the rise of those geopolitical challenges. The Chinese are being explicit about what their goals are. They do not want to build Britain up; they want to take us for as much as they can get. This is about protecting ourselves and ensuring that those smaller things, which may just be going on under the net and may not hit some of the parts on mandatory notices, not the big headline-grabbing things, could be looked at.
I agree with an earlier comment made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes that one problem is that, while we need regular advice from intelligence services and of course it needs to come through to the Secretary of State, having a regularised timeframe in which we know that those things will get full scrutiny is incredibly important. Parliamentarians and the public will want to see if there are any patterns developing in types of investments and the way those investment vehicles are used to buy into some of the most advanced British technology companies.
This new clause does not require the Secretary of State to publish a list of countries; it simply requires that the Secretary of State, working with the agencies, maintains a list of state-driven risks, which feed into national security risks. Our drive, as the Opposition, is our concern that the Minister does not recognise the state-based nature of those major security threats.
If this new clause is accepted, it would provide those guarantees and the extra ability to bring together the agencies that would be able to compile that list of state-driven risks, which can then inform decisions. In that context, it is vital that the country is assured of the Government’s ability to act on intelligence and expertise in protecting British security against hostile actors.
Nadhim Zahawi
New clause 5 seeks to require the Secretary of State to maintain a written list of high-risk and low-risk acquirers, as we have heard, to allow differential internal scrutiny to be applied, by reference to the characteristics of the actors linked to the acquirer, and based on regular multi-agency reviews. I assume that the intention of the hon. Member for Ilford South is that this list would be an internal document, but I would be happy to discuss my concerns about publishing such judgments, if that would be of interest to him.
In order to exercise the call-in powers, the Bill already requires the Secretary of State to publish a statement, which we will discuss later, about how he expects to exercise the call-in power. This statement may include the factors that the Secretary of State expects to take into account when deciding whether to call in a trigger event. Guided by the statement, the Secretary of State will need to consider every acquisition on its own individual facts, as befits the complex nature of national security assessments. In my view, such a list as the one proposed would not, therefore, be the right way forward.
Mark Garnier
Has the Minister made an assessment of the resources that would be needed to look after a list such as this, not only to compile a list of hostile actors but to look after things like GDPR? There could be any number of legal challenges by companies that find themselves on this list unjustly. Perhaps the characteristics of a hostile actor may not individually be hostile, but a combination of several characteristics could be. It could easily exclude quite benign actors who accidentally fall into this. While the intention of the new clause is not unsound, it sounds like a hideous nightmare to administer.
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point, because, as he rightly says, factors other than the risk profile of the acquirer may determine whether an acquisition is subjected to greater or lesser scrutiny. It is also likely that any list would quickly go out of date. Entities in this space can change and emerge rapidly, especially if parties are attempting to evade the regime and the Secretary of State’s scrutiny. In addition, such lists being intentionally published or otherwise disclosed publicly could have significant ramifications for this country’s diplomatic relations and our place in the world, in respect of both those on one of the lists and those who are not on the list. Publishing the list may also give hostile actors information about gaming the system, to the UK’s detriment.
I would suggest that what the hon. Member for Ilford South describes would essentially be an internal and highly sensitive part of a national security assessment. While I appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to set out such details in writing. It is, however, entirely reasonable for the hon. Gentleman to seek to reduce the burden on business where possible, in particular if the acquisition presents little risk and can be cleared quickly. I have an enormous amount of sympathy with that aim.
Chi Onwurah
I do not intend to make a speech, but I wanted to intervene on this particular point. A part of the source of the new clause is the Minister’s own comments. He said that national security was not dependent on a particular country. He is giving a lot of reasons why there cannot be a list, because of different actors, but does he recognise that national security may relate to a specific country? Has he woken up to the risks that particular countries may pose?
Nadhim Zahawi
I assure the hon. Lady that Her Majesty’s Government do exactly that, but the Bill is deliberately country-agnostic. Indeed, to give parties predictability on small business and to provide for rapid decisions where possible, the regime has clear and strict timelines, as we have heard throughout the debate. Additionally, clause 6 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to exempt acquirers from the mandatory notification regime on the basis of their characteristics. Arguably, this places the strongest requirement on acquirers, such as where acquisitions by certain types of party are routinely notified but very rarely remedied or even called in. Taken together, these provisions are already a highly adaptable and comprehensive set of tools, so the list and its proposed use would be unnecessary and potentially harmful.
I shall touch briefly on national interests, which the new clause once again references. I have said before that the regime is intentionally and carefully focused on national security. That is specifically the security of the nation, rather than necessarily its broadest interests. This is therefore not the right place to introduce the concept of national interest, which would substantially and, we strongly believe, unhelpfully expand the scope of the regime.
In conclusion, with the strength provided by clauses 1, 3 and 6 already in the Bill, I am of the very strong opinion that the Bill already achieves its objectives. I therefore cannot accept the new clause and ask that the hon. Member for Ilford South withdraw it.
Sam Tarry
As I listened to the Minister, it struck me that one of the witnesses, Charles Parton from RUSI, said:
“Let us not forget that most foreign investment by the Chinese is state owned, so it is not just a fair bet but a fair certainty that any state-owned enterprise investing is fully politically controlled.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 24 November 2020; c. 17, Q19.]
That is in part our thinking. One slight contradiction with the Bill is that it does not feel as though it always quite reflects the statement of political intent published alongside it. We support that statement of political intent, so the new clause’s objective was to strengthen the Bill’s commitment to ensuring that the Investment Security Unit is provided with an assessment that recognises the relationship between hostile actors and the countries to which they owe allegiance, which is stated in the statement of political intent.
I hope that the Minister takes time to take stock of what the new clause is trying to do, but on this occasion I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Access to information relevant to national security
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the call-in power under section 1 to be exercisable by the Secretary of State in respect of circumstances where a person acquires access to, or the right of access to, sensitive information but does not acquire control of an entity within the meaning of section 8 or control of an asset within the meaning of section 9.
(2) For the purposes of this section, sensitive information means information of any form or description the disclosure of which may give rise to a risk to national security.”—(Dr Whitehead.)
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to regulate to include new trigger events, where a person has access to information relevant to national security, even if the party does not acquire control or material influence over a qualifying asset or entity as a result of an investment.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Hon. Members will be sad to know that I have failed in the ballot to be one of the 2,000 supporters to watch Southampton Football Club this Saturday. I will reflect on that, but I have already sat here for much longer than 90 minutes in near-freezing conditions, watching two equally matched teams slug it out together, so I am not too upset about it. That is the last thing I will say about the unpleasant conditions in this Committee Room.
I hope this clause will be seen as helpful to the Secretary of State and as an addition to the armoury of this Bill in dealing with the multitude of different circumstances under which influence may be sought, or technologies and sensitive information may be acquired, as we have discussed. It seeks to give the Secretary of State an exercisable power under the clause 1 call-in powers and it follows on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South said in the previous debate.
Start-ups may be invested in by venture capitalists, but those venture capitalists may turn out to be bodies that are effectively seeking to gain influence in the start-up or small company, by means of investing in it. They are not seeking to control it, or to control either the entity or the asset, in terms of the meaning in section 8 or 9, but to put themselves in a position where it is pretty impossible for those companies to resist providing information to that limited partner.
In the UK, British start-ups effectively rely on foreign investment. In 2019, 90% of large tech investment rounds included US or Asian investors, according to Atomico’s “The State of European Tech.” There are many circumstances in what we might call our UK venture capital ecosystem in which that kind of sourcing of funds is a regular state of affairs. Venture capital-reliant firms in this country are now receiving millions of pounds from Chinese investors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South has enumerated for us.
Those venture capital investments do not end up, and are not supposed to end up, with the seeking of material control of those companies. As I have said, it would be difficult—practically impossible—for that venture capital-based firm to deny its limited partner investors access to technological information from portfolio companies. In such cases, especially when limited partner investments in the fund take place after an initial trigger event, those would be missed by the Bill as it currently stands. Indeed, that is made tougher still by the fact that most venture capital funds do not publish the names of limited partners. So the Government would not even know when those investments happen and when access to information passes into potentially hostile hands. That series of circumstances is becoming pretty widespread in the high-tech world, and does not appear to be focused on very accurately by the provisions already in the Bill.
What the amendment seeks to do, as I have mentioned, is enable the Secretary of State—if it is considered by the Secretary of State to be an issue that warrants further consideration—to make regulations for the provision of that call-in power outside the terms of clause 9 of the Bill. I think that is a potentially very positive additional power that would reside in the Bill and would be an additional piece of armoury in the hands of the Secretary of State on the basis of what we think is a continuing expansion of investment which may have malicious intent to scoop up, by that venture capital arrangement, a slice of sensitive information.
I was thinking about the equivalent of Chinese dragons in “Dragons’ Den”, taking a portion of the company in return for having a hand in that company’s investments. In a sense, that is what venture capitalists will do under these circumstances. Although the control of the company, as we see in “Dragons’ Den”, remains very much in the hands of the person who has gone into the den in the first place, the investment in that company is nevertheless a source of very substantial leverage in what the company does, what information it provides and what sensitive information it gives out.
I offer this new clause in what I hope will be seen as a very constructive spirit. The clause endeavours to strengthen the Bill by providing a particular option to the Secretary of State, when looking at the entire landscape of how influence is sought, at how sensitive information may be provided and at how assets may effectively be acquired.
Peter Grant
The new clause is a significant improvement to the Bill and I hope that the Government will support it. It takes action to close a loophole that I certainly did not spot reading through the Bill the first time. I suspect a lot of others did not spot it either. It was highlighted by a number of the expert witnesses we spoke to a few weeks ago. They pointed out that a hostile operator does not necessarily need to have control or even significant influence over a security-sensitive operation to be able to do us some harm. One of the examples I vividly remember was that if somebody buys up as little as 5% or 10% of the shares of a company, possibly keeping it even below the threshold where it would need to be publicly notified to Companies House, that might still be enough by agreement to give them a seat on the board of directors. That means they will have access to pretty much everything that is going on within that company. For that kind of scenario alone, it is appropriate that we should look to strengthen the Bill.
The way the new clause is worded is entirely permissive. It would not require anybody to do anything, but it would give the Secretary of State the statutory authority to make regulations, should they be necessary, and to word them in such a way that they could be targeted towards any particular kind of involvement by a hostile power—it is difficult for us to predict now exactly what that might be.
I know that the usual format is that an Opposition amendment is not supported by the Government, but if the Government are not minded to support this one now, I sincerely hope they will bring through something similar on Report or when the Bill goes through the other place at a future date.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for setting out his case for the new clause and to the hon. Member for Glenrothes for his contribution.
When I first read the new clause, I was fortified to see that, despite previous debates that we have had in this Committee, Her Majesty’s Opposition are clearly now firm converts to the “may by regulations” formulation. I am incredibly grateful. We have found much common ground in the course of our line-by-line scrutiny, but this was, I admit, an unexpected area of consensus.
My understanding is that the new clause would enable the Secretary of State to, by regulations, introduce a new trigger event covering circumstances in which a person acquires access to, or the right to access, sensitive information, even if the party does not acquire control over a qualifying entity or asset. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test may have in mind particular circumstances relating to limited partnerships and the role of limited partners.
The attempt to potentially include access to national security sensitive information as a separate trigger event is, in some ways, a reasonable aim, but I fear that it would, at best, sit awkwardly with a Bill introducing a new investment screening regime that is specifically designed around acquisitions of control. At worst it would bring into scope a huge swathe of additional circumstances, outside the field of investment, in which the Secretary of State could intervene, which could be notified by parties and which could create a backlog of cases in return for little to no national security gain.
For example, such a new clause could raise significant question marks about whether the appointment of any employee who might have access to certain information would be a trigger event in scope of the Bill. I am almost certain it would. Similar concerns would apply in respect of any director, contractor, legal adviser or regulator who might have access to sensitive information. That is not the Government’s intention.
If limited partnerships are the specific target of the new clause, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no specific exemption in the regime for acquisitions of control over a limited partnership. Of course, in practice, the rights of limited partners are, by their nature, limited, so we expect to intervene here by exception. But those acquisitions remain in scope of the call-in power, along with any subsequent acquisitions of control over qualifying entities by the limited partnership—particularly where there are concerns about the general partner who controls the partnership, or limited partners who are exerting more influence than their position formally provides.
I should also highlight that the Bill already covers acquisitions of control over qualifying assets, the definition of which includes
“ideas, information or techniques which have industrial, commercial or other economic value”.
For the purposes of the Bill, a person gains control of a qualifying asset if they acquire a right or interest in, or in relation to, a qualifying asset that allows them to do one of the two things set out in clause 9(1). That means that an acquisition of a right or an interest in, or in relation to, information with industrial, commercial or other economic value that allows the acquirer to use, or control or direct the use of, that information is in scope of the Bill. Therefore, depending on the facts of a case, an investment in a business that, alongside any equity stake, provides a person with a right to use information that has industrial, commercial or other economic value may be called in by the Secretary of State where the legal test was otherwise met.
The Committee heard from our expert witnesses that these asset provisions are significant new powers and that it is right to ensure that we have the protections we need against those who seek to do us harm, but I firmly believe we must find the right balance for the new regime. That is why acquisitions of control over qualifying entities and assets are a sensible basis for the Bill. Broadening its coverage to ever-wider circumstances risks creating a regime that theoretically captures everything on paper, but that simply cannot operate in practice, due to a case load that simply cannot be serviced by Whitehall. I urge the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to reflect on that point, given all we have heard in the last few weeks about the importance of implementation and resourcing, and I respectfully ask him to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Whitehead
I respectfully ask the Minister to reflect carefully on what I and the hon. Member for Glenrothes have said this afternoon. Whether or not the Minister thinks the new clause is one he can reasonably adopt, he has already accepted, in terms of what he says may be in the scope of the Bill, that this is a real issue. This is something that we have to think very carefully about and that, by its nature, is fairly difficult to pin down, because it relates to a series of actions that do not easily fit into the box of control or company takeover. It is much more subtle and potentially wide-ranging, but nevertheless it is something that we know is real. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South said, it is happening in silicon valley, Germany and this country. It is happening in a number of places. Interests are being bought up not because of altruistic concern for the health and welfare of that particular start-up, but for other, much more worrying reasons than simply influence as a limited partner in a company.
I am pleased that the Minister put on record that he thought that the extension of this activity might be in the scope of the Bill already, although I think it is stretching what the Bill has to say to take that line. I hope he will not regret that. When he looks at what he has said about what he thinks is in the Bill, he may find, on reflection, that the new clause would have been more use to him than he thought. However, I am not going to press the issue to a vote this afternoon.
I hope the Minister will reflect carefully. He has already said on the record that he thinks that a number of these measures can be squeezed into the Bill. I hope he will not find that there are circumstances where he needs this method of operation but that it can, after all, not be squeezed into the Bill as well as he thinks it can be. I hear what he says and wish him the best of luck with squeezing things into legislation that perhaps were not quite there. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Annual report to the Intelligence and Security Committee
“(1) The Secretary of State must, in relation to each relevant period –
(a) prepare a report in accordance with this section, and
(b) provide a copy of it to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the end of that period.
(2) Each report must provide, in respect of mandatory and voluntary notifications, trigger events called-in, and final orders given, details of—
(c) the jurisdiction of the acquirer and its incorporation;
(d) the number of state-owned entities and details of states of such entities;
(e) the nature of national security risks posed in transactions for which there were final orders;
(f) details of particular technological or sectoral expertise that were being targeted; and
(g) any other information the Secretary of State may deem instructive on the nature of national security threats uncovered through reviews undertaken under this Act.”.—(Chi Onwurah.)
This new clause would provide the Intelligence and Security Committee with information about powers exercised under this Act, allowing closer scrutiny and monitoring.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Chi Onwurah
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is with some regret that I rise to move new clause 7, because it is the last new clause we propose to the Bill. It is a Christmas present to the Minister. Things have certainly been interesting since we began our line-by-line scrutiny. With your leave, Sir Graham, I will take this opportunity to thank all those involved in drafting the Bill, as well as the Clerks, who have worked so hard and played such an important role in helping to draft amendments and provide support to all members of the Committee. I also thank you, Sir Graham, for chairing it so admirably.
We have learned a great deal over the last couple of weeks. I have learned just about everybody’s constituency—
Chi Onwurah
I will not take up the opportunity of a test. We have all learned a lot about air flows—in this room, at any rate—as we seek to maintain some heat. What we have not learned, though, is how the Minister believes the Bill can be improved. All our line-by-line scrutiny has yielded many assurances, compliments on our intention and, indeed, some letters, for which I am grateful, but no acceptance and not even the commitment to go and think about some of our constructive proposals, amendments and new clauses. I urge him to consider this new clause as an opportunity to show that he truly believes, as he said earlier, in the skills, experience and expertise of the Committee by reflecting on the potential for improvement.
The new clause returns to an earlier theme and would require—the Minister will be pleased to note that that is a “must”, not a “may”—an annual report to be prepared by the Secretary of State
“in accordance with this section”
and a copy of it to be provided
“to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the end of that period.”
It sets out what should be in that report, such as the events, the number of entities, the nature of the risks and
“details of particular technological or sectoral expertise”
and so on. It would provide the Intelligence and Security Committee with information about the powers exercised under the Bill and allow closer scrutiny and monitoring.
The new clause reflects how we have consistently supported the need for the Bill. Our approach to the security threats we face is to push for change specifically to allow broad powers of intervention, but for those using those broad powers to be held to account by Parliament and through transparency. Our international allies do exactly that. The US requires CFIUS to produce a non-classified annual report for the public, alongside a classified report for certain members of Congress, to provide security detail to them, allowing congressional scrutiny while retaining sensitivity of information.
As I think the Minister acknowledges, the Government have been late in following where international allies and the Opposition have led with calls to better protect our national security, so he must not fall behind in following our calls for accountability and transparency. That is critical not just to ensure our security and wider parliamentary understanding of the nature of the threats we face but for accountability.
The Secretary of State is to be given sweeping powers. For the last time, I should say that we will go from 12 reviews in 18 years—less than one a year—to 1,830 notifications a year, which is more than five every single day. The Secretary of State will be able to intervene in every single such private transaction. It will be hard to bring claims against national security concerns in court, where the judiciary will understandably find it difficult to define national security against the Government’s definition. In that context, it is important to bring expert parliamentary scrutiny to the Government’s decisions. I do hope the Minister will reflect on that. Alongside a public report, the new clause would require the Government to publish an annual security report to the Intelligence and Security Committee so that we have greater accountability without compromising security.
I will say a few words about the evidence base and the reason for tabling the amendment. Professor Ciaran Martin said:
“I think that the powers should be fairly broad. I think there should be accountability and transparency mechanisms, so that there is assurance that they are being fairly and sparingly applied.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2020; c. 81, Q96.]
My understanding is that the only accountability and transparency mechanism is the public report, which may be published, and the prospect of judicial review, neither of which provide for expert scrutiny on the security issues.
I also ask the Minister to reflect on Second Reading, where member after member of the Intelligence and Security Committee stood up to say that they felt that their expertise would be useful and helpful in the working of the Bill.
James Wild
The hon. Lady said that the annual report “may” be published, but in clause 61 it “must” be laid before the House, so there is no question that the annual report will be published.
Chi Onwurah
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It must be published, but the details that it sets out are limited. The reporting on other information, as I think the Minister has said, is something that is intended but is not required. We have requested that several other pieces of information be published, but the Minister has said that they may be.
The hon. Member for North West Norfolk is absolutely right that there will be an annual report, but that is a public report that will provide only the limited information set out in clause 61(2). Obviously, it will not provide anything that might have an impact on national security. With regard to what is published in the final notifications, for example, that can be redacted to take out anything of commercial interest as well as of national security interest. There is no requirement to report on any aspect to do with national security. Given that the only report is a public report, that is understandable. That is why we are proposing that a secure sensitive report should also be published and shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee.
The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said that
“there is a real role for Committees of this House in such processes and…the ability to subpoena both witnesses and papers would add not only depth to the Government’s investigation but protection to the Business Secretary who was forced to take the decision”.—[Official Report, 17 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 238.]
A member of the Intelligence and Security Committee also said that
“we need mechanisms in place to ensure that that flexibility does not allow the Government too much scope.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 244.]
As I have already noted, CFIUS has an annual reporting requirement.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her contribution on new clause 7, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to provide an annual report to the Intelligence and Security Committee, including detailed information relating to mandatory and voluntary notifications, trigger events that were called in and final orders made. In particular, it seeks to require the Secretary of State to provide details of factors relevant to the assessment made by the regime, including the jurisdiction of the acquirer; the nature of national security risks posed in transactions where there were final orders; details of particular technological or sectoral expertise that were targeted; and other national security threats uncovered through reviews undertaken under the Bill.
I am pleased that esteemed members of the ISC are taking a continued and consistent interest, including in relation to their role in scrutinising the regime provided for by the Bill. The Committee will be aware that clause 61 requires the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report and to lay a copy before each House of Parliament. That clause provides for full parliamentary and public scrutiny of the detail of the regime, which we judge to be appropriate and which does not give rise to national security issues when published at an aggregate level. I reassure hon. Members that that annual report will include information on the sectors of the economy in which voluntary, mandatory and call-in notices were given. It will also give a sense of the areas of the economy where the greatest activity of national security concern is occurring.
We intend to follow the existing, appropriate Government procedures for reporting back to Parliament, including through responding to the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The ISC’s remit is clearly defined by the Justice and Security Act 2013, together with the statutory memorandum of understanding. That remit does not extend to oversight of BEIS work. I am sure that the BEIS Committee will continue to do a sterling job of overseeing and scrutinising the Department’s overall work. I welcome and encourage the ISC’s security-specific expertise, which the hon. Lady referred to, and its review of the annual report when it is laid before Parliament.
For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept the new clause. I hope that hon. Lady will agree to withdraw it.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his response, but he did not address the issue scrutiny of sensitive aspects of how the Bill will work. I recognise that the ISC’s remit does not cover BEIS—that is the exact point of requiring such a report. As I think was discussed on Second Reading, the BEIS Committee will not scrutinise any sensitive information or information that is directly relevant to our national security. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Minister’s reasoning for his rejection of the new clause—namely, that it is effectively already covered by clause 61—so I will put it to a Division.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
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
UK Relations with Qatar
(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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 using the cleaning materials provided before they use them, and dispose of those materials as they leave the room.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK relations with Qatar.
It is a pleasure to serve with you chairing, Ms Rees. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time available for this 90-minute debate. I should, of course, as others doubtless will, refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary British-Qatar group, and in February of this year I was privileged to lead a delegation to Qatar. A number of my fellow delegees are present today. I place on record the appreciation of the APPG for the assistance that had been given to it over the years in running those delegations, especially from the UK embassy in Doha. Ajay Sharma, the ambassador, left in the course of this year and will be replaced by Jon Wilks. The assistance that the embassy has given in facilitating meetings outside the programme prepared for us by the Qatari Government over the years has always been exemplary.
We will certainly miss the relationship that we have had with Ajay, now that he has moved on. I very much hope that we will have an equally profitable and warm relationship with his successor; I am pretty sure that we will. Also, the group appreciates the assistance given to it throughout the year, especially during the delegation, by the Qatari embassy in London. His Excellency Yousef Al-Khater, the ambassador, and his staff are staunch in their support, and always willing to go the extra mile, which is appreciated by the group’s members.
Shortly after we returned from Doha, we went into lockdown. It feels like an awful lot longer ago now than it was, but the start of the lockdown period illustrated rather well, in one nice little vignette, the importance of the relationship that we have with Qatar. Qatar Airways facilitated the repatriation of 100,000 UK citizens at the start of lockdown. That illustrates, at a micro level, the importance of what is, at the macro level, a very important relationship, both strategically and economically, for the United Kingdom.
It is well documented that in December 2017, Qatar purchased a number of Typhoon strike aircraft in a contract worth £5.1 billion. That is a lot of jobs in different parts of the country, and good-quality engineering jobs at that. As part of that deal, the RAF and the Qatar Emiri air force have established a joint squadron, based in this country, which is in fact the first that we have had with any other nation since the end of the second world war.
It is therefore not just a transactional relationship; we now have a growing partnership with Qatar that is enormously important. Of course, it should be remembered that in Qatar there are the RAF operational headquarters for the middle east at the Al Udeid airbase, and that RAF operatives there often run joint operations with the Emiri air force. Importantly, Qatar is part of the global coalition against Daesh. In that corner of the world, it is an important strategic ally for us.
Economically, the United Kingdom is the single largest destination for Qatari investment in Europe—something in the region of £40 billion to date. It is worth noting that more than 1,134 United Kingdom companies now operate in Qatar, 993 of which are joint ventures with Qatari business interests. We heard from a number of the people who we met during the delegation about some of the difficulties experienced in furthering those business interests with visas in this country. I know that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but to facilitate good business relations, I hope that the Home Office will hear and listen to that. Of course, this would not be a speech from the MP for Orkney and Shetland if it did not have something to say about energy. Some 80% of liquefied natural gas imports to this country in the second quarter of 2020 came from Qatar.
Several universities now have established campuses in Doha. The British Council continues to work to build links and co-ordinate the higher education presence and, indeed, partnerships such as that with the British Museum in the various cultural enterprises where we work jointly.
Of the universities that operate in Doha, probably the best known with the largest presence is University College London, but I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I mention the presence of Scotland’s premier seat of higher education, the University of Aberdeen, which also has a campus there. I took myself away from the rest of the delegation for an afternoon and I was privileged to meet the management and some of those studying at that campus. It is a very impressive operation and a good example of what can be done by a university seeking to expand and reach beyond its conventional confines. A week or two after we left, the university inaugurated a new master of laws—an LLM course. Nothing makes someone feel old like realising that somebody they were an undergraduate with is now the professor of Scots law inaugurating the new course, as Professor Greg Gordon did a couple of weeks after we left.
For those myriad reasons, it is clear that over the years, the relationship between Qatar and the United Kingdom, which has historically been an important one, has grown at a remarkable rate. The growth has been organic. It is not just the state-to-state relationship that we would expect to find with the defence interests; it is the commercial interests, the energy-related contracts, and the cultural and educational institutions that are building the relationship.
That is where we have got to, but the focus of today’s debate ought to be on considering the issues facing that relationship. Most importantly, we should look at the continuing blockade of Qatar by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt which has been running for three and a half years. At the start, allegations were made about Qatar’s conduct in relation to the funding of terror and some of its other foreign policy efforts. If those allegations were true, they would be very serious indeed. As the chair of an APPG in this House, I am not here to be an advocate for Qatar; it can do that for itself. I identify an important and strategic relationship, but if Qatar and any other state actor goes beyond the bounds of what is acceptable, it has to explain that for itself. However, despite numerous calls for evidence, three and a half years later we have not seen substantial evidence about the funding of terror and other things, which were used to justify the blockade.
I would be interested to know what the Minister makes of the recent restarting of the Kuwaiti-sponsored process to get the blockade resolved. I do not think it is in anybody’s interests and I think we have kind of lost sight of any of the reasons why it might have started in the first place. It is certainly in the interests of the United Kingdom and the European Union that we should have a functioning Gulf Co-operation Council. As long as the blockade persists, we will not have that.
We saw one illustration of the impact on UK interests when we were able to visit the beIN Sports studios in Doha. BeIN is a global broadcasting corporation, which has purchased many of the broadcast rights for UK premiership teams. Its product is basically being pirated by interests in Saudi Arabia, who then re-broadcast it with a very small time delay and different badging. If we ignore that and just turn a blind eye, we risk doing serious damage to the whole idea of intellectual property, especially in broadcast rights. I was pleased when, in June this year, the World Trade Organisation ruled that not investigating or prosecuting that act of piracy was a breach on the part of Saudi Arabia of its duties as a member of the WTO, because that is something that will very much come home to roost here.
It is difficult to think that the situation is not in some way associated with the now looming World cup in 2022. Members of the delegation were able to see a number of the stadiums that have been constructed, which are a remarkable achievement. It is great to see them up and ready to go. Had we not had lockdown, we would have been able to host an event in the House of Commons—I hope we will still find a way to do so—for Hassan Al Thawadi from the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy to brief Members on the first World cup in an Arab country—an exciting opportunity.
The road to getting here has not been without difficulties. Very serious breaches of labour standards and workers’ conditions in the construction of World cup sites were widely reported some years ago. There was never any excusing those breaches, but it is significant to note that since the sunlight was shone on them, the old line that sunlight is the best disinfectant was shown to be a pretty true one. The construction of workers’ villages has continued and has worked very effectively; the standard of accommodation has improved. The access of workers to healthcare while they are working on World cup projects has also significantly improved.
I have no doubt that an awful lot more still needs to be done. I think it is a feature of all our enterprises there that, in recognising what has been achieved, we always encourage them to do more. With the abolition of the kafala system and new laws introducing a minimum wage for the first time in a Gulf country, it is good to see that sort of progress being made in labour rights. Of course, there is much more to be done. I fervently wish to see the right of workers in Qatar to organise themselves. Our delegation were able to meet a small group of those who organise workers’ rights, and it is significant that the International Labour Organisation has its office now in Doha. That is one area where I would want progress, and we continue to encourage progress in those ways.
It is worth remembering that today is international Human Rights Day. There is clearly still a great deal of progress on human rights to be made in Qatar, but in dealing with those matters, and when we complain about aspects of Qatar’s human rights record, it is always important to remember the way that many such things—LGBT rights, for example—were treated in our own country. Even within my lifetime those things were illegal. The Minister has heard me say that in the past.
The purpose of engagement has to be to encourage progress. What pleases me about engagement with Qatar is that it has been repaid in progress, with improving labour rights and human rights. Of course we want more improvements and we have always wanted those things to happen faster; that is the nature of politics. However, whereas in some areas of the Gulf we engage and things just seem to get worse, the process of engagement—and I think, interestingly, this comes right from the very top, from His Highness the Emir himself—is one by which Qatar is continuing to look outwards, and doing so more rapidly, and taking its obligations on human rights and democracy seriously.
The final piece of progress that I want to mention and welcome, as I want to let others speak, is that I am delighted that the Shura Council itself is now to have direct elections, which will happen next year. That is important and it is an area where progress is probably as meaningful as we could hope. The relationship is important, and I hope that it will continue to progress. It is clearly in our commercial and strategic interest to have a strong relationship with Qatar. It is also in the strategic and economic interest of Qatar to have that strong relationship, and if, as a consequence of that, the rights of Qatari people and those who work in the country continue to improve, surely that is a pretty textbook model of what diplomacy and engagement are supposed to be about.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
If Back Benchers could speak for eight to nine minutes or less, we should get everyone in before the winding-up speeches.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) because he has said most of the things that I was going to say, so I will not be boring anyone for very long. I entirely agree that the state of relations is truly excellent. The flying back of our people; the joint squadron—how cool is that? Of course there is now a first-class ambassador in the shape of Yousef Al-Khater. There are perhaps more opportunities in connection with the World cup and a partnership thereafter.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned progress on workers’ rights. We had a fascinating visit—I should say that I was on the same visit—and visited a large complex, where it was really interesting to see how the Qataris have cracked down on rogue employers and, indeed, have put in a minimum wage.
Finally, on the blockade of Qatar, it is clearly in everyone’s interest to make sure that the Gulf Co-operation Council starts to work properly again. I know that the Americans are doing that, and I hope that we shall redouble our effort.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I am going to bore everyone, with a coarse Essex voice, even though the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) has said everything I wanted to say. I will begin by drawing my attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I echo everything that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said about our wonderful trip. I think he left out the name of Ibrahim. In terms of the hands-on organisation, Ibrahim was a real star. By the time I have finished, my right hon. Friend the Minister will wish that he had been with us on our hard-working trip.
I welcome the strong bilateral ties that the United Kingdom has with Qatar, especially in terms of energy, our economic partnership, and our educational and cultural ties. Historically, as we have heard, Qatar has had human rights issues, but I am pleased that the Government there have announced democratically positive initiatives to further develop the population’s quality of life. I welcome those recent announcements and encourage the Qatari Government to continue on that path, and our own Government to maintain and develop our important relationship with Qatar. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister, this is a really good time to deepen those ties.
The chattering classes talk about the trips that Members of Parliament go on. As far as I am concerned, when we go on these trips we get to know much more about our colleagues than would otherwise have been the case. My right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) learned a little bit more about me many years ago when we went on a trip to Israel.
I have to say, our trip to Qatar was rather special. The highlight was undoubtedly our riding of camels. The House might be interested to know that the Emir took me at my word, and a few weeks later two camels were delivered to the Amess household, and they are grazing very nicely in our back garden. My wife occasionally invites them into the house. The Emir was as good as his word; very generous. There was a wonderful moment when we were in Land Rovers, going up and down sand dunes. It brought home to us all that it is not just about the desert, camels and all that, but, underlying it all, Qatar is a magnificent country that is truly underrated.
As vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary British-Qatar group, we work closely with the ambassador, who is absolutely first class, and relevant organisations to develop and foster good relations between our country and Qatar. The visit that I refer to was in February 2018. It does not seem possible, but we went again on one of the very last trips before lockdown, in February this year; it seems a long time ago.
I am a sponsor of early-day motion 1093, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. That welcomed the announcement by the Emir of Qatar that the country will hold elections for its advisory Shura Council next October, which is an important step on the road to democracy. Three years ago, I felt very strongly that Qatar had an unfair political and diplomatic blockade. I know the Minister has to dance very carefully, as those in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office always have to do. He would not want to upset any of the neighbours in the region, and oil is all important. I am not constrained by any of that, even though I have been to most of those countries.
I thought the blockade was very unfair. It was placed upon Qatar by a Saudi-led group of Gulf countries. I am pleased that our Government have called for all sides to de-escalate and have pledged our firm commitment to our strategic partnership with the Gulf Co-operation Council. It is positive news that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have confirmed their commitment to reaching a solution and protecting Gulf solidarity. However, that is not a breakthrough, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
Peaceful talks need to be successfully accomplished in the Gulf. The United Kingdom should have an active interest in ending the blockade and protecting Qatar so it can continue to improve the lives of workers and women, and promote democracy. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) will have much to say about her engagement in terms of women’s rights.
Workers’ rights have been a big issue in Qatar, with poor working conditions and problems with immigrant labour and human trafficking. I am very pleased that the Government announced a non-discriminatory minimum wage, which is one of the highest in the developing world and the first of its kind in the middle east—that is really good. The Government have also announced the removal of the “no objection” certificate requirement, which means that employees in Qatar can now move between jobs after serving a short notice period. That will undoubtedly inject competition into the job market, incentivise employers to respect the rights of their workforce, and increase job satisfaction.
The workers’ right reforms are linked especially to the 2022 World cup, which will be hosted in Qatar. I must say that our trip to the new stadium was absolutely out of this world. I have never been in a stadium where the doors magically open and it is all air-conditioned—it was state-of-the-art stuff. I was in the royal gallery for the visit of the Emir. One of his wives—they tend to have more than one wife, and I think he has three or five—jumped into the air with great excitement. I thought, “It is utter madness to have the World cup in Qatar,” but I was so wrong. They have really thought of everything, and I think it will be an absolutely fantastic competition. I said to the Emir, “I hope the final will be between Qatar and England.” Of course, I would expect England to win the match. [Interruption.] I know that Scotland is doing a bit better at the moment.
I am pleased that the UK is involved in Qatar’s sporting events. UK-based companies have exported £940 million-worth of goods to Qatar already, supporting projects that are underpinning Qatar’s development and its preparations for the 2022 World cup. If the Minister ratchets up the conversations with the relevant Department —the World cup is under two years away—perhaps we could do even more trade than we are doing at the moment.
The English Football Association has signed an agreement with the Qatar Football Association to promote grassroots football, youth development and women’s football, among other things. I feel strongly about women’s football—I know that as an accomplished athlete, Ms Rees, you feel very strongly about it too—because my youngest daughter once played for Arsenal Ladies. The Amess household is very keen on women’s football. It is welcome to see the United Kingdom play such a crucial role in the development of equal access to sport in Qatar, and hopefully in the rest of the middle east.
The economic partnership between the UK and Qatar is very strong, and hopefully it will continue to develop. It is a mutual relationship, as both countries benefit from the other’s financial investments. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has already said—I will repeat it, but in an Essex accent—the UK is the most popular destination in Europe for Qatari investment, with £40 billion invested to date in sectors such as commercial property, banking and finance. Just like we are involved in supporting the 2022 World cup in Qatar, investment from Qatar funded the London 2012 Olympic village. I was privileged to chair the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill Committee—coming from the east end of London, my goodness, what a wonderful celebration of sporting activity the games was! Our companies and businesses benefit from operating in the Qatari market as new opportunities become available. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has already said, 1,134 UK companies operate in the Qatari market, and 993 are joint Qatari and British ventures. I hope the strong economic partnership continues.
As we all know—I will not upset the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock—Southend is the most important part of Essex, which is why we are going to become a city at the time of Her Majesty the Queen’s platinum jubilee, so I was delighted to welcome Ambassador Al-Khater and representatives of Qatar’s biggest bank and Qatar Airways to Southend in March last year. They were absolutely wowed by the place, particularly the pier. Without upsetting local residents, they are keen—I hope they are still keen—to be involved in some sort of joint venture for a marina. There are many exciting opportunities for investment and development in Southend. As we leave the European Union, I hope that the visit will go some way to strengthening our ties.
Possibly the most well-known opportunity, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, is energy and oil. Qatar accounted for 80% of the United Kingdom’s liquefied natural gas imports in the second quarter of this year, which represented 51% of total energy imports for the UK between April and June 2020. My goodness, they are important! Qatar is an important energy partner for us and there is an opportunity for co-operation on hydrogen, specifically green hydrogen, which the Government—and I support them—are keen on. Hydrogen is part of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution and Qatar has an abundance of hydrocarbons.
In the long run, all industries need to decarbonise and there is a potential pathway for that involving sustainable energy. The UK-Qatari energy relationship could be strengthened further as we import green hydrogen to develop the first town heated entirely by hydrogen by the end of the decade—such is the Prime Minister’s goal, detailed in his 10-point plan.
Our relationship with Qatar does not just revolve around business and economic opportunities. It also focuses on education and culture. As has been said, several UK universities have campuses in Qatar. We saw some of them. For example, University College London has signed a 10-year agreement to deliver courses to more than 2,500 students. Similarly, around 3,000 Qatari students are studying in the UK—we want more of them—who benefit from our educational systems and learn about our culture.
As well as encouraging mutual relations in the education sector, there is also collaboration in the air force. The Royal Air Force’s operational headquarters in the middle east is in Qatar, and a joint UK-Qatari squadron has been established so personnel from both air forces can train together. The generous work of Qatar Airways, which is among the best in the world, has helped 100,000 British citizens reunite with their families during the early stages of the pandemic. We should not forget that.
I am very pleased that we have such a strong relationship with Qatar in many aspects of life and business. I welcome the Defence Secretary’s meeting with his Qatari counterpart in October this year to strengthen UK-Qatari defence relationships. I hope our relations with the country continue to grow. Qatar’s energy and financial investments are important to our economy and we should explore trade opportunities for green hydrogen. With our assistance, Qatar can continue to promote democratic practices and human rights advances in a country that has already recognised the importance of its population’s freedom and quality of life.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I do not think I will ever be able to forget the vision of the two camels. Shall we now call you “Two-Camels” Amess? [Laughter.]
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on bringing this debate. He and I have been together in a few Westminster Hall debates and Qatar has come up on several occasions. It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), whose constituency town is soon to become a city. I think those two camels he has will come in handy for the camel rides on the beach at Southend. Perhaps that is a new business idea. It is always a pleasure to be in a debate with him, because I can always put my heart into it.
Qatar and the United Kingdom’s diplomatic relations stretch back some 100 years. We have been friends, partners and business partners for a long time. The annual Qatar-UK strategic dialogue is an important mechanism in aiding the development of bilateral relations between Qatar and the UK. It is not all one-way traffic; it is two-way traffic. We gain and they gain, and we can all work better together. The meetings follow up on decisions and projects, support the bilateral track and explore opportunities for further co-operation that benefits both countries, economically, socially and physically. It is the kind of meeting and co-operation that it is great to see. The UK is the single largest destination for Qatari investment in Europe with, as others have said, £40 billion invested to date. Total bilateral trade between Qatar and the UK was £6.7 billion in 2019—an increase of 21% year on year. More growth is expected and hoped for. UK exports to Qatar include industrial machinery and equipment, electrical machinery, vehicles, aircraft engines, luxury goods, textiles and power generation equipment.
Qatari gas supplies now account for 31% of all UK gas demand and 79% of all UK gas imports. I am not being churlish by any means—I realise that the relationship is very important—but I ask the Minister whether it is always good to have all our eggs in one basket. We do not have all our eggs in one basket for gas supplies at this moment in time, but we perhaps do not trade with the USA or Nigeria as we did in the past. I am not saying we should not do it, but I wonder if it is the best idea.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The gas supplies that the hon. Member is talking about come through my constituency in Preseli Pembrokeshire, which I will refer to in my remarks later on. The point about opening up that facility was not about putting all our energy eggs in one basket. It was to give the United Kingdom new sources of energy supply, thereby diversifying our energy supplies into the country, thereby enhancing our energy security. I believe that is the correct way of looking at it.
Jim Shannon
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but no matter what, we need to have other suppliers and we need to make sure that they are as important. If something were to happen and we had neglected Nigeria and the United States, that would be a very backward step. We just need to make sure that we are doing it right.
There are 1,134 UK companies operating in the Qatari market and some 993 are joint Qatari/British ventures. Defence-wise, Al Udeid airbase is the nerve centre in the fight against terrorism in the middle east and host to the Royal Air Force’s Operation Shader. The RAF’s operational headquarters in the middle east is at that airbase; I was told there were 30 British officers there but, according to the Library pack, there are 160-plus there. Whatever the number may be, it underlines a close relationship, which is critically important.
Qatari and UK forces often participate in joint training exercises, which is a testament to our strong and enduring partnership. Joint training exercises take place regularly between the Qatari Emiri air force and the Royal Air Force, the latest being a joint exercise in early December 2020, in Doha, where the joint UK/Qatari Typhoon squadron participated in an exercise. As part of an ongoing programme of co-operation with the British Royal Navy, Qatari naval forces and the Royal Navy conducted joint exercises in Qatari waters in spring 2019.
In 2018, Qatar signed a letter of intent with the UK for co-operation in the field of combating terrorism, which is so important and vital. I have another question to the Minister. I am not being churlish, but I am asking a question for the record, with the hope that we can clear this up; I am sure the Minister will be more than able to do that.
It has been indicated to me that Qatar has been described as “a big supporter” of Muslim Brotherhood-linked networks in Europe and that the financial vehicle for that is through the Nectar Trust in London. Perhaps the Minister will be able to indicate who is monitoring the relationship between Qatar’s investment with the Muslim Brotherhood and projects that are happening there, to make sure that we are across all those things, when it comes to co-operating in the field of combating terrorism, so that we are all doing the same thing and working together. There is a physical and outward understanding, and working together, but I ask the question for the record and I hope we can get an answer. The letter outlines commitments on information and intelligence sharing—perhaps intelligence sharing is going on there, and perhaps that is what it is all about—as well as on law enforcement co-operation relating to terrorism activities, co-operation in tackling threats facing the transport sector, especially aviation, and co-operation in combating financial crimes. That is all good, positive stuff and what people like to see.
I am very thankful for these positive relations and for the steps taken by the Qatari Government to address labour issues such as those presented by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about a year to a year and a half ago during a Westminster Hall debate in which I was pleased to participate. Since then, the Qatari Government have introduced several reforms. I cannot say that that was exactly a result of that debate, but I will tell the House one thing: it probably moved people to think about it. The right hon. Gentleman deserves every credit for that.
In 2017, a temporary minimum wage was set, a law for domestic workers was introduced and new dispute resolution committees were set up. In 2018, a workers’ support and insurance fund was established and the requirement for most workers to get their employer’s permission to leave the country, which was a key issue at that time, was ended. In 2019, the establishment of joint labour committees at companies employing more than 30 workers for collective bargaining was mandated and enhanced guidelines on heat stress aimed at employers and workers were disseminated—that was another issue highlighted in the debate. Although they are positive, those reforms have not gone far enough, and their implementation has been called uneven by Human Rights Watch, which we cannot ignore.
Once we solidify our relationship, I believe it will be appropriate to encourage continued improvement in those aspects while acknowledging that there is much more to be done. It is my belief that we in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—better together—should use our influence and friendships to make a difference throughout the world. I know that we can do that, and that we are doing that, and I know that the Minister will come back on that. It is important that our friends in Qatar take this in the spirit in which it was intended—as a gentle reminder that we do the best we can for our own families, and that we expect them to do the same for theirs.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing the debate and reminding us of those days, pre lockdown, when we could travel and go on fact-finding visits. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. That was a truly fascinating visit to a long-standing ally of this country, but I recognise that there are obviously still many issues about which there are ongoing discussions and challenges.
I highlight the issues that a number of colleagues raised regarding the blockade. It is, of course, illegal, and we strongly hope that those issues can be dealt with in the immediate future. The right hon. Gentleman was right to highlight that the reasons for it are very serious. I gently suggest that terror issues emanate from a number of states across the world, and that it would perhaps be more constructive to deal with them collaboratively, as Governments in dialogue with each other, rather than by taking illegal measures designed to inflict economic damage.
As it happens, the country has responded extremely positively in the wake of the blockade. It is a case of “What does not destroy me makes me stronger.” During our visit, we visited the new port that the Government constructed in order to import supplies directly, given that they cannot get them through their normal established trading routes. As the hon. Member for Thurrock, with the port of Tilbury in my constituency, I often describe my constituency as the ports capital of the UK. In that regard, I have to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) that it is far more important than the so-called city of Southend. That new port was a hugely impressive operation. London built its wealth as a port city, but as trade became more sophisticated and ships ever bigger, ports had to become bigger, and so the port of London moved east to my constituency. We are very much constrained by the available space in delivering a modern port, so it was truly a revelation to see this fantastic new facility. I pay tribute to the engineering feat accomplished there. I look forward to that port building from strength to strength, as well as to some good shipping line links between Tilbury in my constituency and London Gateway, and indeed, Qatar, so congratulations to them.
We have had a number of references to human rights issues surrounding Qatar. I tend to take the view that although it is absolutely important that this country, which prides itself on being liberal and having the rule of law, should be at the forefront of pushing for human rights and tackling discrimination and oppression wherever they occur around the world, equally, we need to be a bit less holier than thou about it. It takes a long time to foster cultural change, and the truth of the matter is we are not as perfect as we like to think we are. Some of the issues come down to how we really tackle behaviour and establish better human rights. It is very easy to pass a law and say, “This is now the law and this is the state of play.” But for that to really filter down into changes of behaviour and good practice takes an awfully long time.
We must not be accused of looking the other way when there are human rights abuses, but we also need to give credit where it is due. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) mentioned the camp that we visited. It is true that the facilities were very good there. I have visited similar places in the Emirates, and I think we need to be real when we say that lots of countries rely on imported immigrant labour to deliver the jobs that they are not prepared to do. Some countries are better than others at ensuring the rights of those people are protected. Although I am satisfied that the direction of travel in Qatar is extremely positive, there is clearly a way to go.
Obviously, we welcome the minimum wage legislation. At the instigation of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), we actually met some workers who clearly acknowledged that the opportunity to work in Qatar was life changing and very good for them and their families. However, there were still some issues where their rights could have been enhanced, so that is very much still a work in progress.
I would also say that there are countries whose economies are entirely driven by sending workers overseas to repatriate money into those countries. Personally, I find that morally obscene. We, as a nation, should be encouraging them to become more sustainable. I consider those countries that benefit from such practice as talent-stripping developing countries. It is all very well to have a good record on dishing out international aid, but if, at the same time, we are taking their best talent to work here, I am afraid that becomes somewhat hypocritical. We need to acknowledge that when it comes to manning the NHS, we do the same to countries such as the Philippines as Qatar does to countries such as Nepal to get workers. We should be a bit more honest with ourselves about that.
We can also do better on some issues. I mentioned shipping. Again, we turn a blind eye to the fact that lots of the crews that work our ships and keep our supermarkets stocked are also working in conditions far worse than those that we saw in Qatar. Let us acknowledge that this is a collective endeavour for the whole world to tackle in ensuring that all workers across the world are treated fairly and are given the rights that they are due to expect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) mentioned the question of women. When we went to see the Emir, I was very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this. Again, I was the only woman in the room, but I am quite used to being the only woman in the room in this country in meetings to do with politics, as I am sure you are, Ms Rees. It is not peculiar to countries in the middle east. I said that we welcome the fact they are moving towards democratic elections, but I asked what the prospects were for seeing women elected. I was very pleased that the Emir said he was retaining a number of positions that would be directly appointed by him. He gave a very clear commitment that if a sufficient number of women were not directly elected, he would use his power of appointment to make sure women achieved representation. That is an extremely constructive position to take. I put that point to the Minister because I hope that that is something that we will hold the Emir to. Frankly, having women in politics civilises nations. I am sure everyone would agree, so let us make sure we do our bit to encourage that.
As we approach the World cup, everyone is very excited. I share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West for the football stadium. I am not the biggest fan of football, to be quite frank, but it is a major engineering feat and I do not think I have ever been so cool and relaxed sitting in a football stadium, despite the heat outside. It is quite special. I know that a lot of concern has been expressed about the treatment of tourists who go to see the football, with particular concerns about gay rights. Again, these things were discussed and there was some understanding of the issues, but I reaffirm the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. In this country, it is only very recently that we have established gay rights in the way that we now take for granted. We can welcome the tone that has been taken about how tourists will be treated as part of the World cup, but we must recognise that there is much more to do.
I have little more to add. I congratulate again the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I look forward to strengthening Britain’s relationship with Qatar and to Britain doing its best to make sure that relations within the GCC are returned to a more constructive position.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. It is the second debate this week in which I have come in on the coat-tails of the right hon. Gentleman. It is an important and timely moment in which to secure the debate and I appreciate the way that he talked about it. He said that he is not here just to be an advocate for Qatar. I am not sure whether he used the phrase “critical friend”, but he certainly spoke in that spirit, and that is the spirit in which all right hon. and hon. Members have spoken this afternoon, which is right. The relationship between the UK and Qatar is a deepening and broad one. It is multi-dimensional and fascinating. It is a good thing that we are here this afternoon discussing that and looking in greater detail at it.
Various Members have referred to the energy relationship, the partnership, between the UK and Qatar, which will be the focus of my remarks. First, let me just say that in my time in this place over the past 15 years I have known and engaged with all of the Qatari ambassadors who have been in London, and I have found them and their teams to be excellent to work with. In my discussions with them, the point that hits home most strongly is their desire to see a genuine, deep partnership and friendship flourish between the United Kingdom and Qatar. Yes, we point to the enormous sums of money invested from Qatar into the United Kingdom, but the relationship should not just be about financial investment. It is cultural, educational and all of the other aspects that various Members have pointed to this afternoon.
As I said, I want to focus on the energy partnership. As I already said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the enormously important gas import relationship that we have with Qatar comes through Wales, through my constituency in Preseli Pembrokeshire. One of the first visits that I made as a brand-new Member of Parliament in 2005 was to the construction site in Milford Haven to see the enormous South Hook facility being built. It was one of the largest regassification projects in Europe and a partnership between Qatargas, ExxonMobil and Total, three of the world’s largest and most experienced energy companies.
At that time I also had the opportunity to visit Qatar. Sadly, I was not on the delegation last February, which sounded like a lot of fun, but I have been to Qatar. At the time, I saw the other end of the gas supply chain and the enormous plants at Ras Laffan where the gas is turned into liquefied natural gas. It is a remarkable feat of engineering. That tiny country, Qatar, sits on an enormous energy resource, and engineers and scientists have been able to unlock it and turn it into a tradeable commodity that can be shipped by sea to countries around the world.
I strongly believe that the investment made 15 years ago in the South Hook plant in my constituency has enhanced our energy security. In the same way, the facilities built in Japan to import liquefied natural gas from Qatar, at a time when it had to wind down many of its nuclear plants, have enhanced Japan’s energy security. The Qatar gas fields have enhanced energy security for numerous countries around the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) talked about the sheer volume of gas that has been coming into the country through the terminal. Last year, it celebrated its 10th anniversary. Up to that point, it had processed more than 65 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas. If it were supplying London alone, that is enough natural gas to keep the capital going for a decade.
As an operation critical to national infrastructure, the South Hook terminal played an important role in our country’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. During the initial lockdown earlier this year, from the end of March to the end of July, the terminal received 35 vessels and processed just under 3.5 million tonnes of LNG. To put that in context, South Hook provided 85% of the UK’s LNG market and almost 20% of the UK’s entire gas market throughout that first lockdown. On most days from mid-June, 100% of the LNG delivered to the grid came from South Hook. The team at the terminal are looking at projects potentially to increase capacity and further strengthen the resilience of the UK’s energy system.
Thanks to the South Hook terminal, the positive benefits of UK-Qatari relations are felt throughout my constituency in not only the investment, skilled jobs and apprenticeships that the terminal provides, but the company’s support for schools, community activities and numerous charities. The relationship is felt in real terms and greatly appreciated.
Another aspect of the UK-Qatari relationship that I would like to draw attention to relates to Cardiff airport, from which, since May 2018, Qatar Airways has run a direct route between Cardiff and Doha. The route was a moderate success in its first year and carried about 82,000 passengers. Since then, its popularity has grown and matured with steady growth, but then came the pandemic with its severe consequences for the aviation industry. I remain hopeful that we will see the redevelopment of the route and the resumption of growth.
I was delighted and encouraged when, in September, the new British ambassador to Qatar, Jon Wilks, visited Cardiff airport and met the interim CEO, Spencer Birns, and the chair to learn more about the exciting opportunities that lie between Wales and Qatar. I was pleased that, following that meeting, the ambassador said that he will be advocating for Wales in Qatar with extra knowledge and confidence in the months ahead.
[Steve McCabe in the Chair]
Several hon. Members have referred to the World cup in 2022. It is not just England that have already qualified—I understand that Scotland still have work to do—but Wales as well. Nothing would fill me with more pleasure and pride than to be on a flight from Cardiff to Doha to watch the Wales team conquer other nations in the World cup in 2022.
We are living in a time of enormous change in the Gulf region. Hon. Members have referred to some of the diplomatic challenges in the region. Of course, the United Kingdom has numerous strategic priorities and objectives there. It is a complicated region, but I hope that the UK-Qatar relationship goes from strength to strength and flourishes. It is a time of change. I sat in on a call with the Israeli ambassador, the Bahraini ambassador and the UAE ambassador a couple of weeks ago. The three of them were talking about their new co-operation and peace agreements, and it was thrilling and really encouraging. My hope is that that change will continue and that the United Kingdom will use its diplomatic strength and networks of relationships in the region to encourage more change; and nothing would fill me with more pleasure than to see Qatar sharing in some of those changes. There is lots of work to be done, but I remain hopeful that better days lie ahead, diplomatically, for all these countries and we will all benefit from the new investments and new co-operation that flow through such relationships.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in your place and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on bringing this debate before us today, and on a speech with which I am in almost total agreement, with the exception of the idea that Aberdeen is Scotland’s premier university when everybody knows it is Stirling—it is important that we get that on the record. But on Qatar at least, we agree. Qatar is an important friend of Scotland and of the United Kingdom, an important player in the Gulf region and an important player, potentially, in building peace in the wider region.
Qatar is a friend and, as friends, we need a dialogue based on honesty and frankness. As we have heard, Qatar has a number of close links with the United Kingdom and with the EU, but, on political reform and respect for human rights, it has a way to go. It is important that we acknowledge progress, but it is also important that we call for more, to build on that success.
Rightly, Qatar was warmly praised in 2018 when it joined the international covenant on civil and political rights. That was very welcome. But in January 2020, a subsequent law amending the Qatari penal code authorised the imprisonment of—I will quote this—
“anyone who broadcasts, publishes, or republishes false or biased rumours, statements, or news, or inflammatory propaganda, domestically or abroad, with the intent to harm national interests, stir up public opinion, or infringe on the social system or the public system of the state”.
That could mean almost anything, and that is a poor piece of legislation that I think deserves criticism.
We have heard also about Qatar’s attitude to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. As a gay man myself, this issue is close to my heart. The Qatari Government say that everyone is welcome at the World cup in 2022, and the eyes of the world are watching to ensure that that is the case. There has been progress, but there is a lot of progress yet to be made.
At the time of the World cup in 2022, the eyes of the world will be on Qatar and on the middle east. It is an opportunity for Qatar to shine and an opportunity also for the middle east to shine, and, as a friend of the middle east, with close connections to it, I really, truly hope that it does. However, there remains concern about labour rights in Qatar. The concern is less, perhaps, about the laws themselves, because a number of progressive pieces of legislation have been passed. The issue is, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the patchy enforcement of those laws, particularly where there are powerful, family-run corporations that need to step up their behaviour.
Amnesty International estimates that perhaps 1,000 migrant workers could have died. We do not know, because there has been a lack of transparency about the numbers, but we do know that many more have worked in appalling conditions without pay for many months, so there is a need for the Qatari authorities to step up and for Qatar to enforce the laws that it has and to be more transparent in that.
I say this to our Qatari friends, who will be paying attention to today’s debate, and I say it as a friend of Qatar: it is very much in Qatar’s interests to abide by and enforce the rule of law, because that will strengthen its case in claiming its own rights against the illegal embargo by Saudi Arabia. We have heard a very powerful—
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Order. I am very sorry, but I am advised that there is a Division in the main Chamber and, in fact, there will be three Divisions, so I will have to suspend our proceedings for 35 minutes.
Alyn Smith
Thank you, Mr McCabe. I have only my concluding remarks left, as I had largely finished my speech before the Division bell rang.
I had been talking about the blockade—the illegal blockade—of Qatar. This is an area where there is a real role for the UK to play, as interlocutor and intermediary between Riyadh and the various other parties. A functioning Gulf Co-operation Council is in all our interests right now; the GCC could play an important role in cohering the region and dealing with other places.
We have seen that the rights of Qatari nationals have been infringed in this situation and what is particularly concerning for me is the infringement of their religious rights; we have seen infringements of their right to travel into Saudi for Hajj and for Umrah. That is very much to be regretted. The blockade is illegal and also to be regretted. It should stop and we can help with that process. The Kuwaitis are doing some heavy lifting in that process, and I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that we support those efforts and an outline of what we are doing to help them in the discussions that they are having.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate. He is a long-time advocate of the importance of the United Kingdom’s relationship with Qatar, not least in his ongoing role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group, although I will point out to him that Scotland’s premier university is, of course, St Andrews. [Laughter.]
I also thank the hon. Members for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), for Southend West (Sir David Amess), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), and the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), some of whom are no longer in their place, as well as the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith).
The hon. Member for Southend West is not in his place, but I would mention that normally after visits people are given a book, a cake or a bottle of wine. To get camels is quite extraordinary and something I shall not forget.
British relationships with Qatar go back more than 100 years, prior to, during and after the protectorate period of the early and mid-20th century. Potentially, that relationship has deep and significant diplomatic, security and economic benefits for the people of Qatar and the people of the UK—and, indeed, the people of Wales—as well as for the region. As an example of that partnership, I had the pleasure of studying alongside representatives of Qatar at the Royal College of Defence Studies a few years ago. We enjoy crucial co-operation, not least with respect to the Royal Air Force, and indeed other allied air forces, at the Al Udeid airbase.
It would be remiss of me not to reflect on the particularly special relationship between Qatar and Wales, not least through the air link with Qatar Airways, facilitated by the Welsh Government and our Economy Minister Ken Skates, which helped to connect Cardiff international airport directly to the world. That link is suspended because of the pandemic and low winter demand, but I hope that as things improve into the spring, we can re-establish that important route, given the aspirations we have heard about for Wales in relation to the 2022 World cup.
We also heard about a crucial link with the South Hook LNG terminal. I had the pleasure of visiting that facility, on a visit with the Welsh Affairs Committee when I was first elected. It was fascinating, given the critical role that the terminal plays in the diversity of our energy supply in the UK. Will the Minister reflect on how the relationship is developing, particularly ahead of next year’s commitments that we need to make on climate change and moving away from fossil fuels? How he perceives the transition we must make, which is being implemented in our country at such facilities and in Qatar, is critical.
We have heard lots about security and co-operation, and earlier this year the Royal Air Force and Qatar Emiri air force Typhoon squadron, No. 12 Squadron, commenced flying—the joint squadron that we heard about. We also heard about the acquisition by Qatar of the nine Hawk aircraft, which could lead to a new squadron. Given the ongoing threat posed by Daesh and other extremist groups in the immediate and near region, joint defence and security improvements are significant steps in protecting security in the region. That is reflected in our relationships in many other key locations, including the Duqm port in Oman and the Royal Navy facility we are developing there.
We have heard about crucial economic co-operation. We have an ever-deepening economic relationship, and since 2017 the UK has been one of the most significant, if not the most significant, destinations for Qatari investment—£35 billion-worth. Significant announcements were made at the Qatar-UK business forum in March 2017. The UK’s important wider diplomatic relationships with Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Egypt, among others, mean that it can play a critical role with international partners such as the United States, Kuwait and others to work to ease the ongoing diplomatic crisis, which has lasted three and a half years. I would appreciate—I am sure other Members have asked for this as well—an update on how the Minister sees the dispute, how he sees it being resolved and what role the UK Government are playing in facilitating candid conversation.
Given the complexity of the political and security situation in the Gulf and the wider middle east, we must always consider the implications of our engagement, particularly when it comes to military and security arrangements. There are attempts to influence policy and behaviour by the larger powers in the region, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and we must always be conscious of that. Given the ongoing conflict in Yemen, for example, and the devastating humanitarian disaster, will the Minister give us his latest assessment of Qatar and other regional powers in relation to that conflict, and say what we are doing to resolve it? Indeed, what are the prospects for wider peace within the region, which is something I would hope for? We have seen a number of peace deals recently with Israel, so how does the Minister see Qatari-Israeli relationships?
This has been mentioned in a number of speeches, but it is critical today to recognise international Human Rights Day. Today is the anniversary of the adoption of the universal declaration of human rights on 10 December 1948. A former Labour MP and trade unionist, Charles Dukes, later Lord Dukeston, played a critical role in drafting that document, although tragically he died before its adoption. Britain was one of the key players that insisted that a moral principle on human rights was not enough, but that legal force and action were needed to defend basic human dignity worldwide. As I have said on many occasions, I regret that some of the Government’s recent actions have undermined those commitments on the global stage and caused the loss of our influence in some key UN human rights bodies and others. That is after a proud tradition of defending human rights and the rule of law globally under Governments of multiple colours in the last few decades.
On the comments of the hon. Member for Thurrock, it is not about being holier than thou. It is about accepting that, because the dignity and rights of human beings are universal, when we have frank and friendly relationships with countries such as Qatar, we use those relationships to be candid.
Jim Shannon
Surely one of the good things about having the relationship that the UK has with Qatar is that a good friend can be critical and constructive, and can say things in a way that the person can take on board. People do it with me; I do it with others. It can be constructive.
Stephen Doughty
As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point that I agree with.
The UK can never turn a blind eye to those challenges. Our relationship should be based on mutual respect for human rights, inclusive democracy and the rule of law. That particularly affects the issue of workers’ rights. We have heard about the World cup. Since Qatar bid successfully to stage the World cup, there have been serious, ongoing allegations of exploitation and labour abuse of millions of men and women, mostly from Asian and African countries, who migrated to Qatar for work. In 2013, a shocking report from the International Trade Union Confederation estimated that up to 1,200 people may have died, mainly poor migrant workers from Nepal and India. Indeed, Amnesty International reported in March that hundreds of migrant workers were rounded up and detained by police across Doha for the stated purpose of covid testing, only to find themselves forced on to planes and sent back to their country of origin. That is obviously of deep concern. What assessment has the Minister made of those allegations?
It is important to recognise that there have been substantial changes since the partnership with the ILO in 2017, such as the regulation of the employment of domestic workers, a partial abolition of the exit permit, a mandatory minimum wage, a Government-run shelter for survivors of abuse, and the significant labour reforms passed on 8 September to deal with the abusive kafala system. Those are all important, but there is still a significant distance to travel. Will the Minister comment on how he sees those developments progressing?
There are also significant concerns about the Qatari legal system. There are allegations of arbitrary travel bans and detentions, such as the cases of Najeeb Mohamed al-Nuaimi and Mohammed Yusuf al-Sulaiti. Have those been raised by the UK Government with counterparts in Doha?
We heard about the situation for women and girls. Unfortunately, despite some progress, there are still significant disadvantages and inequalities for women and girls in Qatar, including within marriages and within families, and, of course, with respect to domestic violence and shocking sexual violence. We have also heard about the situation for the LGBT+ community with the law as it stands. That has implications. I am a Welsh football fan. I am also a gay football fan. I would love to be able to travel to see Wales in a World cup, but I would have to make those considerations before I could make that sort of trip. I hope that we can ensure that the World cup is an open and welcoming environment for all fans, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity.
Indeed, there are minority groups within Qatar as well, including the al-Ghufran clan of the al-Murrah tribe, which have ongoing issues around statelessness. Can the Minister comment on that? There is also the situation regarding the death penalty. I accept that Qatar has not carried out death sentences in recent times, which is welcome, and a contrast to President Trump fast-forwarding executions in his remaining days in office—what an absolutely shocking situation. What progress have we made working with the Qatari Government on abolishing the death penalty?
We have also heard about the planned elections to the Shura Council. I hope that those go ahead. Similar promises have not been fulfilled in the past, so I hope they are this time. Can the Minister provide us with an update on that?
In an increasingly unstable world, with challenges of terrorism, conflict, climate change, and, of course, the pandemic and economic contraction, the UK’s relationships with countries around the world, particularly in the Gulf, are vital for the security and safety of the British people and the global community. Qatar can and should be a valued partner in the region, but close friendships come with the responsibility to be honest and frank, and to seek constructive change. I hope that the UK Government’s engagement with Qatar will continue to be productive and friendly in that vein.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate and giving me, on behalf of the Government, as well as other right hon. and hon. Members, the opportunity to speak positively, openly and frankly about the UK’s relationship with Qatar.
I pay tribute to the all-party parliamentary group for the work it does and the commitment of its members to building on what is already a strong UK-Qatari relationship. Qatar is one of our closest allies in the region, and the group plays a crucial role in fostering those links through open and constructive dialogue. I had the pleasure of visiting Qatar in October as part of my first official visit to the Gulf. My time in Doha emphasised to me the deep-rooted nature and the dynamism of our bilateral relationship, from trade and investment to energy and defence, from sport and culture to education and healthcare.
We have heard a number of speeches from right hon. and hon. Members on those important areas and I will touch on a number of them shortly. My dear and hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) speaks almost as passionately about Doha as he does about his great soon-to-be city, Southend. I do hope that I get an official invitation to the twinning ceremony between Doha and Southend, were that to happen. He made the important and very true point about UK-Qatari relations that the person-to-person relationships matter hugely. On my visit, I was warmly welcomed by Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Sultan bin Saad al-Muraikhi and Lolwah al-Khater.
I was reminded that over 16,000 British nationals live and work in Qatar, and the UK is a second home to many Qataris. There were a record 175,000 visits from Qatar to the UK in 2019, worth over half a billion pounds to the UK economy. I am particularly pleased to note that, since last month, travellers from Qatar can come to the UK without the need for quarantine on arrival. I hope that, in the near future, UK travellers will be able to visit Qatar under the same circumstances.
I echo publicly the thanks that I made privately to Akbar Al Baker, chief executive officer of Qatar Airways, to acknowledge its invaluable support during the repatriation of British nationals. In the intervening period, Qatar Airways has become the biggest international airline for passengers and cargo. It played an essential role in the repatriation efforts of British nationals earlier this year.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister is right to highlight the role of Qatar Airways. He will also be aware that, as things stand in relation to covid, the contribution of Qatar in respect of the Gavi summit has been significant. Will he recognise that contribution and see how we might build on it as the vaccination programme goes live in this country? We need to share that expertise around the globe.
James Cleverly
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting that. As I have said both publicly and privately, I was struck by the fact that, during these times of intense difficulties, the strength of these bilateral friendships has really come to the fore. That is particularly true, as he says, in relation to the vaccine summit, and I have no doubt that it will continue to be true for the distribution of the vaccine, or vaccines, as we collectively—globally—take the fight to covid.
During my visit, I was fortunate to build on recent engagement by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Home Secretary, all of whom have met Qatari Ministers in recent months. Those close ties allow us to engage on difficult topics and influence change. In line with many of the comments of colleagues today, the UK Government do not shy away from raising human rights concerns whenever and wherever required, in public as well as in private. We welcome the announcement of elections to the Shura Council and look forward to watching those go ahead.
We also welcome the concrete steps that Qatar has taken to date on workers’ rights, with significant reforms, including the abolition of exit permits for almost all workers, as has been mentioned, and a non-discriminatory minimum wage. We hope for full implementation of those measures. Everyone deserves the right to work safely and securely, whether in Qatar, the UK or anywhere else. We continue to engage regularly with international labour organisations and explore areas of their work where the UK can add particular value. We stand ready further to assist and support Qatar’s continued efforts to implement change.
Jim Shannon
On reform and labour relations, I referred to the reforms not going far enough. Will the Minister give some indication of what the Government are doing to ensure that the reforms go that stage further and give workers’ rights the protections that we all want?
James Cleverly
This is an area that we discuss regularly. Indeed, I have discussed it with my interlocutors from Qatar, and I think they understand—I will come to this shortly—that hosting the World cup means that the eyes and attention of the world will be directed towards them, which gives them an opportunity to demonstrate progress. I very much get the feeling that they embrace the opportunity to make progress and to demonstrate that progress, which the World cup provides.
Many Members spoke of the strong trade and investment links between our two countries. I am pleased that we have representatives from all the home nations of the United Kingdom, because our bilateral relationship provides jobs in all corners of the UK and could help to support the Government’s levelling-up agenda as we build back better post-covid. Trade between the UK and Qatar stands at just over £7 billion, of which £4.3 billion is from UK exports. Qatar is the third largest export market in the region for British firms.
Qatar is also a major investor in the UK, playing a huge role in a variety of developments, from Chelsea Barracks, just a short walk from here, to Middlewood Locks in Manchester and Get Living’s build-to-rent scheme in Glasgow. Direct investment is estimated at £40 billion and growing. In October, Qatar Petroleum announced a long-term contract with National Grid for capacity on the Isle of Grain natural gas import terminal east of London. As with the South Hook terminal in Wales, this agreement will help to secure jobs in that area and strengthen the UK’s energy security. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) talked about the importance of renewable energy.
This week, the Lord Mayor of London has been in Doha, furthering the financial services link between the two countries and the City of London. That builds on the recent groundbreaking decision by Qatar National Bank to issue its first green bonds—a first for Qatar. That green bond issue was done on the London Stock Exchange. As we do with all countries around the world and in the region, we encourage Qatar to be bold in its nationally defined contributions ahead of COP 26 later this year.
Qatar and the UK also share an enduring defence partnership, most notably through the joint Typhoon squadron, as has been mentioned—the first joint air squadron since the second world war. Only yesterday, we saw the completion of Exercise Epic Skies—a good name for an air exercise—which is a joint exercise between the RAF and the Qatari Emiri air force. Similarly, we maintain close working relationships with the Qatari law enforcement agencies. Fighting the scourge of terrorism is a global and shared challenge, and we welcome the steps that Qatar has taken in recent years, including a new law on combating money laundering and terrorist financing.
Unsurprisingly, much of our co-operation in recent years has been on the World cup. The World cup has driven collaboration across commercial, defence and security areas. During my recent visit, I had the opportunity to tour the Education City stadium, one of the World cup venues, and saw for myself Qatar’s ambition for the tournament, and the obvious pride that it takes in hosting it. British creativity will be front and centre, from the Al Janoub stadium, designed by the late British-Iraqi architect Zaha Hadid, to the role that UK company Techniche plays through its cooling vests for construction workers.
Speaking about engagement, I specifically raised the issue of LGBTQ football fans with the head of the World cup Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy, Hassan Al Thawadi. I was very pleased that he engaged fully and properly with that issue. It is something that the Qataris take seriously; they want to demonstrate to the world the progress they are making. In all, the 2022 World cup has led to over £1 billion of UK export wins, and I hope that the home nation football teams that qualify—I am a Minister for the whole UK, so I will be agnostic as to which of the home nations do better—do well.
Beyond sport, many Members have noted the important role that Qatar plays in regional and global issues. We commend Qatar’s support for peace in Afghanistan, acting as the host for ongoing Afghan peace negotiations. Qatar is an important development and humanitarian partner for the UK. We are keen to deepen and further this as we look forward to 2021 and beyond. We are encouraging our Qatari counterparts to play a leading role in tackling climate change ahead of COP 26.
Following encouraging signs of progress over the weekend, I reiterate the UK Government’s position on the Gulf dispute. As the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) mentioned, the Gulf Co-operation Council is very important to us. GCC unity matters for the security and stability of the region; it is an issue that I bring up with all our regional partners. We continue to engage with our Gulf friends on this issue, and we firmly get behind and praise Kuwait’s mediation role in this issue. Qatar is a close friend and important ally to the United Kingdom. As we approach Qatar’s national day next week, and the 50th anniversary of our official diplomatic relations, the UK stands committed to work with Qatar in pursuit of all our shared objectives and solutions to global challenges.
James Cleverly
I am torn. I do not want to cut into the right hon. Gentleman’s time.
Mr Carmichael
I thank the Minister for his reply, and all Members who have taken part in what has been a very good and balanced debate. It is clear that the relationship is strong, and that there is still much work that can be done. In the time that I have engaged with Qatar, it has been fascinating to see the way in which the country has developed and continued to look outwards. That is not an accident. It is down, almost exclusively, to the influence of His Highness, the Emir, right from the top. If that commitment continues, then I have no doubt that the strength of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Qatar will continue to grow, and that we will continue to see the progress we all so devoutly wish for.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered UK-Qatar relations.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
I am going to suspend for two minutes to allow the safe exit of Members.
Future of the Coach Industry
(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the coach industry.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee and my good and honourable Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) for allocating time for this important debate. I thank my own trade union, Unite the union, for providing background information and briefing.
I particularly thank my constituents, Jillian Nicholson and Michael Pearson of TM Coach Travel and Northeast Coachways. The coach industry could not have two better advocates. For nine months they have asked for nothing more than fairness and justice, and a chance to survive covid, so that theirs and other small and medium-sized coach companies, often decades-old family businesses, can return to work post-covid.
The industry has a simple message to Government, and it has been delivered thousands of times in postcards from the edge. It reads, “Wish you could hear.” The Government are running out of time to listen and act. Coach operators are already going bust; employees, drivers and mechanics are being made redundant; and, the sector is losing capacity. That capacity will be vital to the recovery of the coach industry and to the whole economy, and to thousands, potentially millions, of jobs, supported by UK leisure and tourism.
Coach companies are the backbone and the supply chain for UK leisure and tourism. According to the Confederation of Passenger Transport, more than 23 million visits were made by coach in 2019, contributing £14 million to the UK tourism economy. The sector has more than 2,500 coach operators, directly employing some 42,000 people. Of course, there is then the ripple effect. Vehicle maintenance and upkeep supports an army of mechanics and garages involved in servicing and repairing vehicles.
The argument today is simple: the Government should stand by British businesses—companies that support our economy and do the right thing. The most responsible coach companies have invested in the newest clean fleets in our economy and are implementing the Government’s zero carbon climate change policy. However, ironically, they are facing the greatest loss, having to manage higher debt levels at a time when they have no income and the industry is shut down.
It is not a crisis of their own making. The number of Members of Parliament here who are concerned about this issue is worthy of note. Several who were hoping to speak have had to leave, unfortunately, because of delays to the votes and speaking in the main Chamber. This is an important issue that affects every constituency.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I put my name down for the debate, but unfortunately I was not called. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Northern Ireland, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has a bespoke package of grants of £8,000 paid for the first bus and £4,450 for the second, up to a total of £100,000? That underlines the importance that the Northern Ireland Assembly has put on the bus sector, including Giles Tours and Billy Brown’s and others in my constituency. Does he feel that the Northern Ireland example might be one for the Minister to replicate here?
Grahame Morris
I believe there is specific support in Scotland and Wales as well. We are calling for the Minister to act and provide some sector-specific support to the coach industry in England. We are not asking for special treatment; we are asking for parity and an equal chance for the sector to survive, with support that recognises the specific impact that covid has had on the sector.
The coach sector was the first hit, the hardest-hit, and will be the last to recover. The fall in demand and income has been absolutely catastrophic—in excess of 90%. Unlike some other industries that have had the opportunity to diversify or even continue operating during covid, the coach industry has experienced a near total shutdown. Even if venues were open, such as concert venues, shows and sporting events, or holidays were still taking place, the social distancing requirements would make such coach trips unviable.
The industry needs support and the Government excluded coach companies from the rates relief support by failing to recognise them as part of tourism, leisure and hospitality or essential travel. I expect many in the industry would agree with Jade Cooper-Greaves of Henry Cooper Coaches in Annitsford. When she was interviewed by the BBC, she said:
“I have never written a job down in my diary that wouldn’t be classed as tourism, leisure, hospitality or essential travel.”
The lack of sector-specific support is crippling and the Government are failing to recognise the scale of the crisis.
In a letter on 23 November, the Minister responsible, who sits in the other place, said:
“We continue to work closely with representatives from the coach sector, including the Confederation of Passenger Transport, and with other Government Departments to understand the ongoing, specific and unique risks and issues the sector faces and how those could be addressed.”
There are many and obvious risks and challenges facing the sector.
It is not true that the sector has had support. Certainly, there has been the furlough scheme, which assisted with the employees—the drivers and so on. That was welcome, but it did not help operators with ongoing business costs, loan payments or vehicle leasing fees. And the coronavirus business loan interruption scheme has failed the industry, with the majority of the businesses in it—80%—unable to access that support.
Let us look at some other sectors. Arts, culture and heritage received £1.57 billion. I am not against that; I am simply pointing out the inconsistency. There has been a bail-out for buses and trams—£700 million. Rail—£4.5 billion, and actually it is even more than that when we take into account the emergency measures. For the voluntary and charitable sector—£750 million. Eat out to help out is estimated at £500 million. For the sports bail-out for rugby union, horse racing, women’s football and the lower tiers of National League football—£300 million.
The Chancellor said that he did not want to pick winners and losers, but that is precisely what the Government are doing by offering sector-specific support to some sectors and not to others. Let me be clear—I do not begrudge any of the sectors that I have mentioned the support that the Government have given them. But there is no transparency as to why some sectors are favoured and others ignored.
Sports are struggling without crowds, but it is the coach sector that transports those crowds. Arts, heritage and culture, hard-pressed though they are, have had some retail opportunities during covid, and in some cases are able to open now, with restrictions, in certain areas. Eat out to help out was an untargeted scheme that benefited large chains with large floor space that could accommodate more customers. Again, that support targeted businesses that were able to continue trading through covid, perhaps via takeaways or with limited capacity.
We must question the value of these bail-outs, particularly those to the bus operators, which have received £700 million. As public subsidised companies, it would be reasonable to expect them to understand the plight of the coach sector. Instead, many of these bus companies are taking the last remaining contracts, which are often travel-to-school contracts, from the coach companies. I am aware that subsidised bus operators in my own region are undercutting coach companies on already undervalued home-to-school transport contracts.
I have coach operators who rent vehicles from Arriva Bus and Coach Ltd. When they asked for a rent holiday, they were refused, even though they had no business. They were forced to return the coaches because they were unable to maintain payments of up to £20,000 a month, having no work and now also being hit with early termination fees of £80,000. I must ask the Minister—is that fair?
With all due respect, if the Minister cannot grasp the scale of the challenge after nine months, I must question their interest or competence in this matter. Indeed, I challenge the Minister. The industry is warning that, without urgent support, four in 10 companies could go bust, with a loss of 27,000 jobs, and that is not counting those jobs in the supply chain and the service sector that rely on the coach industry. We risk losing companies of good standing, and coach operators risk losing their homes due to the personal guarantees they gave on their vehicles. We cannot abandon good businesses that invest in our economy. The Government must explain why they are excluding coach companies from the sector-specific support that they have provided to other sectors.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
This is a popular debate. I think that I have counted 13 bodies, with 37 minutes available; the time for the debate has been slightly stretched, because of the earlier votes in the main Chamber. I am not proposing to have a formal time limit; if everyone sticks to two and a half minutes each, we will get everyone in.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Dr Huq.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing this debate on an issue that affects so many small businesses right across the country. In normal times, their industry is worth about £7 billion, and it is fundamentally a healthy and profitable industry. I could go down the list of all the things that it does, but I will not do so, for time’s sake.
Operators—small-scale entrepreneurs who spent years building up their businesses—are doing everything they can to stay afloat. However, bookings are not expected to return to pre-pandemic levels until the summer of 2021. Many operators face a drop in income of around 90%—for example, Jewels Tours faced a revenue shortfall of that amount. At the same time, their fixed outgoings remain the same: payments on vehicles, monthly maintenance and so on. The summer months provided some respite, but they could hardly be profitable, because of the social distancing requirements.
Those businesses have made significant investment in their infrastructure. They have high fixed costs in servicing their financial investment. For instance, over the past six years, Grange Travel has invested over £6 million in upgrading its fleet to satisfy regulatory demands. One operator applied through their bank for a coronavirus business interruption loan. Despite having an excellent credit score and the scheme being Government backed, they were declined, leading them to go to a broker and have a debenture attached to their business. As a result, they are having difficulty getting other finance. They now face a winter with hugely suppressed demand, the liability of a high fixed-cost base and little or no support outside the furlough scheme. They face going out of business. Yet this is a viable industry, which supports our own domestic hospitality and tourism sectors.
The key asks on behalf of this suffering industry, as voiced by businesses in my constituency, are as follows. First, the Government should stand as guarantor with finance companies. Secondly, they should come to an arrangement with the industry to provide further finance holidays. Thirdly, grants should be made available to the several thousand coach operators in England, as has been done for big players like National Express. This industry is fighting for its future. We must support it.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I recently had the pleasure of speaking to Roderick Thompson from Regent Travel in Hartlepool, a family-run independent travel agent with over 30 years’ experience in the travel business. He told me not only that covid-19 has impacted his business and the travel industry as a whole, but that for many of his regulars the potential demise of the coach tour industry would have a devastating effect. He told me that many of his customers prefer to pay cash and were not used to the world of computers. When holidays got cancelled due to the pandemic, he and his staff spent most of their time recovering deposits for them.
That brought into sharp focus the magnitude of the hit the coach industry is taking. The Confederation of Passenger Transport UK has warned that, without urgent support from the Government, thousands of family businesses are at risk because, despite mothballing coaches and furloughing staff, they still face costs averaging £1,900 a day.
The owners of another local family business wrote to me recently. Paul’s Travel has been operating for 18 years in the minibus trade. In their own words, they sit between taxi companies and large coach companies. They, too, have suffered similar experiences, with private hire down and the number of regular weekly contracts down from 16 to two. They also rely on the hospitality and leisure industry. They are hanging on by the skin of their teeth.
I have chosen to highlight the plight of two local Hartlepool companies, but it must be recognised that on a national scale coach travel is a major player in the leisure industry. It directly employs 42,000 people, with thousands more jobs dependent on the sector. Without Government support, those jobs will simply go.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing this debate and giving an excellent speech. The coach industry is a vital part of our society, which we take for granted. We have probably not appreciated until now its full value and its true worth to our communities and our enjoyment. For many working-class kids of my generation, the highlight of the summer holidays was a day trip to Blackpool or north Wales on what we called charas, which was our take on charabanc—a coach. Of course, they have changed a lot since then. We have all experienced it over the years.
I want to draw the attention of the House to something that people probably forget—the role that the coach industry played at the beginning of the pandemic. Given that so much has happened since, it is easy to forget that when British nationals came home from China in February and March, it was coaches that transported them from London to the Wirral. We all have coach companies, or involvement with coach companies, in our constituencies. They are very much part of the community.
My area has a number of such businesses. I have spoken recently to Anthony’s Travel, which is a local company, and to Richard Bamber, who is one of the partners there. He told me just how much they are feeling the pinch. They also feel excluded, particularly when the Government are making decisions about what sector they fall into. These local businesses form part of the backbone of our communities, but it seems that the coach industry falls into a grey area between the transport and leisure sectors, and no one in Government seems to be brave enough to make a decision when it comes to defining it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington mentioned, the Government have just tried to ignore the points and arguments that are continually being put across. They then try to cover that by saying, “We are helping industry. We are providing support.” But they will not answer the actual points, and they need to do that. It is about time that they came clean and said what they are doing and what they intend to do.
There are potentially 27,000 jobs being lost. The Government may have taken the view that something will be needed well after the pandemic. They may have thought, “Well, it’s a bit tough if people lose their jobs and industries go bust, but someone will come along after it.” It is probably going to be the bigger companies. That is not the point; the point is that these companies are trusted local companies that are very much involved in their community and really want to serve their community. We want them to survive. They are trusted companies.
These companies provide improvements and help to vast areas of the economy. Just take coastal towns, which are suffering at the moment, and how much they rely on coaches to bring tourists and day trippers to them. These are really important businesses.
I have little time left—I am going to stick to your advice, Dr Huq—so I will just say this. We have to have proper support for the coach industry, and particularly for those local businesses that we all have in our constituencies. They are a vital part of our communities. We must have that support given to them.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). I agree with everything he said—that avoids some degree of repetition.
I want to talk about the impact on the sector in my own constituency. Every July, coach drivers from across the country travel to Blackpool for the coach driver of the year awards, parking their luxury vehicles on the comedy carpet outside the tower. This year, they could not do that. Instead they came as part of a blockade along the M55 for the Honk for Hope campaign.
This is not about one single bus company in my constituency—although Members are right to support companies in their areas. It is about the existential threat to the private sector economy in my constituency. If people travel the Blackpool coast from south to north, they pass hotel after hotel after hotel, each of which depends on coach visitors coming to the resort. Those hotels have seen their business collapse: there were 80% fewer bookings even before the most recent lockdown, and they are now at crisis levels. I know of one coach company that brings 120,000 people a year to Blackpool, putting £30 million into the local economy. That is replicated up and down the coast. I have had hotel after hotel after hotel coming to me and saying, “We don’t know how we are possibly going to survive.”
This is not just a summer-only phenomenon; it is a year-round part of our local economy. We have the tinsel and turkey season right now, but it simply is not happening, because the hotels are closed. Even if the hotels were open, the coaches could not come, because they cannot make a profit, as a result of the social distancing rules that are part and parcel of what has to happen at the moment. We have just missed the illuminations season, which is three weeks solid—particularly in the half-term—of coaches coming in, driving through the lights and, yet again, putting money into not just local hotels but the small cafés, the restaurants, the entertainment venues and the piers. Every single part of our private sector economy in Blackpool is affected not just by the loss of visitors, but by the loss of the coach visitors, who underpin it and have done for decades. As the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) pointed out, they are part of what Blackpool is.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to listen to this sector carefully. There has been a glut of coaches coming on to the market that are second-hand; many existing companies are struggling to make the finance payments. I know that she is the Decarbonisation Minister, so she ought to be enthusiastic about ensuring that we have more and more Euro 6 coaches throughout the network. Here is a chance to “build back better”, to support the finance payments for these firms and to allow companies to use Government subsidy to improve their fleets as part of the decarbonisation strategy. Then it will not just be this sector that survives—Blackpool as a coastal resort might have a chance as well.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing this debate and for the really strong case that he made. Coach companies, operators and staff up and down the country will be relieved to hear their concerns played out so strongly. Two companies—Skills and Hammonds—are in my constituency; I have worked with them throughout the pandemic, and I hope to be a voice for them here today.
The coach industry is worth £14 billion to the tourism industry. Some 600,000 children regularly rely on a coach to get them to and from school. During the pandemic, the coach industry has stepped up to provide 50,000 more spaces to make sure that travel can be done safely. It is not a question of whether we can afford to support the coach industry, but what support we can get to it and how quickly we can do that. Some of the schemes the Government have done so well during the pandemic simply have not fitted the coach industry. It is hard to do these things, but there is an obligation to fill the gap. We must understand that the coach industry is distinct from the bus industry, and the support must be distinct too. I know that Scotland has announced support recently, as has Wales, and it is now time for England to do the same. [Interruption.] The fact that Northern Ireland has also announced support is news to me.
Coach businesses have big overheads. Fleet insurance, liability insurance and rent can be more than five grand a month before companies have even thought about vehicles or maintenance. Despite being such an integral part of the tourism sector, these businesses have been unable to access support packages. For example, local authorities have decided on a case-by-case basis whether coach operators ought to fall within the leisure and tourism elements of support. We need formal recognition from the Government that coach operators are clearly part of the leisure and tourism sector, so that they can consistently get the support that is supposed to be there for them and so that we can end the postcode lottery. As colleagues have said, the Government could also, at a minimum, encourage the extension of finance holidays by another year to ensure that no coaches are repossessed over this winter. The point about underwriting loans was very well made too.
With the vaccine, we have had a glimpse of the future and of getting to a semblance of normality, but if we want normality—day trips, tours, and children going back to school and back on school trips properly—we need to make sure there is still a coach industry to do those things. The industry is fundamentally healthy and profitable, but it has been hit hard by circumstances well outside of its control. The Government must put in place short-term aid to ensure that the long-term future of the sector is sustainable.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Golden Boy Coaches in my constituency is a family business. It has been run not for decades but for generations. The owners have never darkened my door before. They have got on with their lives and grown their business. They have provided services to generations of my constituents. Such businesses are part of our communities, as we have heard so eloquently from many other speakers. Now they face a lifetime’s work—generations’ work—going under because high maintenance levels, high debt levels and the high costs of compliance do not sit easily with no customers. No business sits easily with high fixed costs.
We have to get the economy moving again. Coach providers do the school run in the morning and in the evening, and the only reason that those two activities paid was because the providers did things in between. After the school run in the morning, they did trips to matinees and racecourses, and after the evening school run they went to the theatres and restaurants. These companies are absolutely on their knees. Golden Boy has a future, but that future does not look rosy. It could be a very small future without more Government intervention.
We in this place are excellent at spending money—we are brilliant at it. We are great at borrowing it; the Chancellor is fantastic at borrowing it, and we are really good at spending it for him, but we do not want to spend money that has already been spent. Money was spent on giving rate relief to the supermarkets, but well over £1 billion of it has come back. As far as the Chancellor was concerned, it had gone out of the door. He has got it back, but he did not expect to see it back, so I say to the Minister: can we not use some of that money—that £1 billion—to throw a lifeline to coach companies?
As I said at the start of my very brief speech, coach operators are the people we never heard from, who got on with their businesses, built their businesses and employed our constituents. They never troubled us, and now they need us, so we need to be there for them.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing the debate. I have to say that it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker).
This is the third time that I have raised concerns about the coach industry, and I thank the Treasury Minister who met me and industry representatives last week. I hope the strength of feeling in the House today conveys the fact that that should be the start of the conversation, not the end.
In the brief time I have to make my remarks, it is important to myth-bust or fact-check some of the statements that the Government have been making with regards to the coach industry. We cannot address the problem properly unless we clearly and transparently understand the support that the industry has had and the difficulties that it is facing.
The first point I want to make is that the Secretary of State for Transport claimed in the House that additional financial support has been announced for school transport, and that this would benefit 30,000 idle coaches. That has proven not to be true. To give him the benefit of the doubt, that could have been his intention, but it has helped only 1,000 coaches—the rest of the money has been deployed to buses, which has not directly helped the industry.
My second point is that I was informed that the Chancellor stated at a roundtable meeting he had with the industry that the industry had benefitted from VAT cuts and deferment. Again, that could have been his intention, but passenger transport is free of VAT, so I cannot see how deferring VAT has helped the industry.
Thirdly, the Government claimed that grants for businesses in tier 3 would help, but they have not. Coach companies are not listed as businesses that have to close, so the only funding available to them is discretionary support, which, by its nature, is discretionary. That means there has been a postcode lottery around the country, with some councils choosing to support the coach industry, and some not. If the Minister wishes to ensure that operators have support, he needs to make that discretionary support a little less discretionary.
The Government’s fourth point is that coaches have had access to the coronavirus business interruption loans. Again, that is not completely accurate, because only 20% of coach companies have been able to access that money. I hear that that is partly because coach companies are seen as high risk, and partly because they are unable to provide the six-month business plans needed. In a previous debate in which I spoke about coach companies, I mentioned specific problems around Lloyds Bank refusing to lend money for coronavirus business interruption loans.
I will stop there, but I hope the Minister’s responses will not refer to not completely factual statements about the financial support for school transport, the VAT support, the grants for businesses or the coronavirus business interruption loans. Unless we are honest about the lack of support the industry has had, we cannot get an effective solution.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), I have coach companies in my constituency that have never darkened my doorstep; they have just got on with their business. However, they have contacted me recently about an issue that nobody has raised so far: whether they should be compliant with the public service vehicles accessibility regulations.
To be PSVAR-compliant suggests that there is a distinction between making coaches available for disabled people and retrofitting those coaches to make them suitable for taking disabled people, but that is a false distinction, and I was pleased that, as a result of covid, Baroness Vere extended the time that coaches had to be compliant.
The reason I say that that is a false distinction is that in the home-to-school business, coach companies receive—in advance of setting off in the morning—a passenger list that identifies the people who are getting on the coach. It identifies the people who need disability assistance in order to make that coach ride. Many companies tell me that, in 20 or 30 years of being in business, they have received no requests for assistance for people with a disability. I wonder whether we can change the PSVAR rules, because I am absolutely behind ensuring we have coaches that are available for disabled people. If a list is provided in advance that makes it clear who is disabled and who is not, companies are prepared to put on coaches to pick up those people. This is an important issue. Many transport providers have been taken by surprise at the news that home-to-school service providers will have to comply with these regulations, as they previously thought the service would be exempt. The source of that confusion links back to the existence of pre-known passenger lists. I will leave this important issue on the table for the Minister to pick up.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Many of my colleagues have referred more generally to the situation of companies in their areas. Representing a coastal area, I think it is particularly important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said, that we get these coach companies back up and running, and visiting our towns and resorts again as soon as possible.
Rather than dwelling on the general points, as others have done, I will read a quote from one company in my area that sums up the impact on a well-run family business that—this is similar to what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) said—has never darkened the door of its MP previously. Mr Radley, based in Barton, writes:
“As you know, we have had zero income for months now during the lockdown period. After you visited us in the summer, we cautiously reopened on 8 September. Since that date, we have managed to operate just a handful of day excursions and two five-day tours. The average load on these occasions has been 18 passengers.”
That emphasises the fact that, even if we can get these coach companies up and running, social distancing means that their load is only a third or a quarter of normal, which is simply not viable. Mr Radley goes on to say:
“Never in our previous 29-year trading history have we feared for our future existence as we do right now.”
That sums up the impact on individuals.
I am sure that we will shortly hear from the Minister about the success that the Government have had in ploughing money into furloughs, bounce back loans and so on, all of which the companies we represent have taken advantage of and are grateful for, but the fact is that they do not want to hear a repeat of what we have done; they want to hear what we will do to maintain their viability over the next year or two.
Despite the fact that the Cleethorpes constituency is very dependent on the hospitality sector, my constituents have overwhelmingly supported the restrictions that the Government have put in place. In the recent lockdown, the infection rate in my area has gone down from 650 to about 120 per 100,000, so there is recognition that lockdowns have worked. However, if a democratically accountable Government decree that someone cannot go about their law-abiding business, they must act and support those people.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is clear from the contributions so far that the hon. Members here feel that the UK Government have to date not really understood the importance of the coach industry to the wider travel and tourism industry, or that sector support is vital for the industry to survive. In response to a written question on sector funding, the Minister advised me that the Department of Education has provided more than £70 million to local transport authorities, as if that was somehow a silver bullet that would help coach companies survive. It is not.
I spoke to Milligan’s Coach Travel in my constituency, which confirmed that, while school transport is important—it could be argued that it is its bread and butter—it is only 20% of its trade, with the rest made up of its own day tours, holidays and theatre trips, private hire, tourism and cruise ships and football coach hire. I have enjoyed a football bus many a time myself, having run a sports club for 25 years.
The Confederation of Passenger Transport (Scotland) estimates that 80% of the coach industry’s income is derived from tourist-related activities. That market is decimated. Hotels all over the United Kingdom rely on bus tour companies bringing tourists and visitors to them. If the coach industry collapses, hotels the length and breadth of the UK will not open, so a lot more jobs are at stake than just those in the coach industry.
We have heard about the jobs that are at risk, but it is not just jobs. Many coach companies, as we know, are family-run businesses. It is estimated that 32% of operators have personal guarantees and stand to lose their homes if their businesses fail, so personal bankruptcies are a risk. Imagine the strain on people’s lives, and what they are trying to manage and weigh up. The stark reality is that coach businesses are facing a more than 90% drop in income for 2020, 40% of coach operators expect to reduce staff, and 7,100 coach industry professionals have already been made unemployed.
The good news in Scotland is that yesterday the Scottish Government announced a £6 million grant fund pot for the coach industry and £5 million for travel agents, which has been warmly received by the industries. Of course, if the UK Government step up and provide money for the coach industry as well, that will provide Barnett consequentials for Scotland, and we will be able to do even more to support this vital industry.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in the debate, which I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing. I speak on behalf of all the Devon MPs who were unfortunately unable to get on to the call list.
The Government understand the importance of the tourism sector, which is valued at £106 billion, the hospitality sector, which is valued at £130 billion, and the leisure sector, which is valued at £200 billion, so they must surely understand the value that coach companies and services play in those sectors in their supporting role. That is what I want to speak about today. Coach companies, in all our constituencies across the whole country, play an integral role in supporting those sectors, and if we wish our economy to bounce back in the coming years, it will be essential to support businesses that play a supporting role to those major parts of our economy.
I hope that the Government will look very carefully not at what they have already done, but at what they can do in future. There is no doubt that the Government have been extraordinarily generous in their support schemes to businesses across the country, from the grant schemes to everything else, but loans alone will not secure the future of businesses. We need a forward-looking approach to ensure that they have the economic breathing space to thrive in the months to come.
I hope that the Government will look at the CPT’s requests of extending finance holidays by 12 months, ensuring that greater access to support packages is made available to the tourism and hospitality sector, providing an aid-to-trade grant to operators to help boost the return of the coach sector towards tourism—hopefully working with VisitBritain to encourage a new era of domestic tourism would achieve that—and topping up the home-to-school payments to meet the true cost of the work for so many of the coach companies that have struggled over the years.
I am very fortunate in my constituency to have AB Coaches, Tally Ho and Millmans, all of which have struggled through the last seven months. I hope that in looking at how we can support them now we might also look at historical issues that have blighted the sector. Let us see if a suspension of fuel duty for two years to allow companies to reinvest that money into an environmentally friendly new fleet of vehicles would be beneficial. Let us look at ways in which we can rework the working time directives to allow people to work more hours, and to go out there for business and opportunities. I want to see us stand up for businesses that are here today so that they are there tomorrow, and I hope that the Government will act on that.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing this important debate.
Three months: that is how long a family-run business in my constituency has left before it goes bust. For the benefit of the Government, who have shown little interest in the plight of small, family-run businesses so far, I will explain what that means. It means that more than 30 people will lose their jobs, livelihoods and sense of purpose. It means that vital transport for key workers and schoolchildren in the constituency will be cut off. It means that finances will go unpaid and the debt crisis will rise.
I have not one but two family-run coach companies in my constituency of Erith and Thamesmead: Phoenix Tours and Abbey Travel. If answers are not provided today on how the Government plan to support the coach industry, the consequences for my constituents will be devastating. Phoenix Tours revealed that it has sadly already laid of six members of staff during the pandemic, and is struggling to keep up with its monthly outgoings. Its future continues to look bleak. The business was unable to access any form of Government grants, as it is not considered to be in the retail, leisure or hospitality industries. It has taken advantage of the bounce back loan scheme, but this loan was used in a mere month due to the huge costs of its outgoings—costs that have only increased due to insurance providers forcing prices for coach companies during the pandemic. I therefore ask the Minister, given that most of our towns and cities are staring tier 3 restrictions in the face, what measures will the Government put in place to ensure that the coach industry receives a respite from the insurance and finance payments?
Abbey Travel has also laid off 50% of its staff, after 99% of its bookings were cancelled. It lost £400,000 of bookings from Thomas Cook alone. I also know that it is not through irresponsible decision making that these companies have lost all of their business and are now struggling financially. This point has been echoed by many Members today. In fact, both companies have acted with the utmost social responsibility in the past few years, investing millions back into their businesses to ensure that their vehicles are environmentally friendly and accessible for disabled people. The Government have relied on businesses to take action to help us achieve environmental targets. Now, when businesses are on the brink of collapse, the Government really need to take time to support them.
It is with great sadness that I am taking part in this debate. I have heard from constituents about the huge struggles they have faced this year—both professional and personal. I need a commitment from the Minister that she will call on insurance providers to act responsibly to support coach companies during this time. I need a commitment that she will call on her own Government Department to set out a plan to address the needs of coach companies in my constituency of Erith and Thamesmead.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I absolutely welcome the unprecedented level of support that the Government have put into supporting businesses. However, it is clear from this debate that the coach sector has fallen through the cracks and needs further support. Businesses such as Masons Coaches in Cheddington and Countrywide Coaches in Princes Risborough in my constituency are losing frightening amounts of money every single month, and they need support. We can be in no doubt that UK coach operators are facing the very real prospect of going bust all over our country.
First and foremost, we need recognition that the coach sector is an integral part of the leisure sector. Home-to-school transport is an important part of its business, but until it gets the recognition that it is part of the leisure sector, too many businesses will go under. Indeed, one business in my constituency is operating home-to-school transport, but without any of its other usual activities it is still losing in excess of £30,000 a month. That is just not sustainable.
I was struck by recent survey data completed across the sector, which shows that there has been a 90% reduction in operational mileage from April 2020 to October 2020, compared to the same period last year—2019 saw UK coaches cover some 130 million miles in this country, whereas in 2020 the figure was 13 million miles. There has been an 80% reduction in vehicle hires—equivalent to 3.6 million days in 2019, down to 758,000 in 2020. The numbers speak for themselves.
We cannot presume that carrying on with just saying that home-to-school transport is enough will be the answer for our coach sector. We need a whole-Government approach, because this is not just a problem for the Department for Transport. We need to bring in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury to ensure that our coach sector gets the support it needs.
I particularly add my voice to those calls to give those businesses the support they need on vehicle finance. They are all debt-leveraged up to their eyeballs, but many are also indebted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) said, because they have taken on considerable debts to meet the PSV requirements. They need support on that and support in grants, and then we will have a healthy coach sector to return to after this crisis.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Many thanks to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing the debate on what is clearly an important matter across these islands.
I have spoken in defence of the coach sector numerous times in debates in the main Chamber, in relation both to the economy and to tourism. If we have heard nothing else today, we know that coaches have sadly fallen between two stools when it comes to highlighting the support required. Early-day motions have been raised, yet here we are still talking. The point for the Minister is that this is not just the abstract hobbyhorse of a few Members; this is a grave and immediate threat to a major element of the economy across these islands.
Many coach operators are family enterprises, which has been touched on already, reinvesting their profit in their fleets, businesses and employees. They are wealth-creating enterprises that have paid significant sums into the Exchequer, while never burdening the taxpayer for any financial assistance, prior to the covid pandemic, making them something of an outlier when compared with air travel, rail or buses.
Coach is a vital element of national infrastructure; it is no exaggeration to say that. It is unlike any other element of mass public transportation, such as rail, which cannot survive in normal times without public subsidy, or air, which fills its aircraft with fuel and in so doing leaves not one single penny with the Exchequer. Coach will fill its buses with £540 of diesel, and leave 66%, or £360, with the Exchequer every time they are filled up. The coach industry is surely entitled to a wee bit back in these times of extremis.
As the CPT has warned, the collapse in the coach and tourism sector will wipe 10% off the value of UK tourism, but by guaranteeing loans and covering the interest costs for 12 months, the UK Government could, at a stroke, help operators secure finance holiday extensions that would provide the industry with the breathing space until the return of business in the spring, just a few months away. Many hon. Members of all parties in the Chamber, and others besides, have been making that point to Government for many months.
With every passing month, disaster looms ever closer. I am grateful that businesses in my Angus constituency, such as JP Mini Coaches in Forfar, Black’s of Brechin or Wisharts in Friockheim, will now be benefiting from £6 million of specific support from colleagues in the Scottish Government, recognising as they do that they cannot delay any longer while waiting for the UK Government to act.
The UK Government must accept that that is not a good look. To stand by and not give any support for the English sector, while the devolved Administrations are supporting coach companies in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, is not a good look. It is important for the whole of these islands, because English companies cannot fail for the interests of the Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish tourist sectors. It is a self-fulfilling multiplier.
Finally, I say to the Minister that there is no room in the summing up for listening to what we have done before. What we need is something new, and we need it very urgently.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank colleagues for taking part in the debate. It has been heartening to see how much interest there is in this key sector, especially at a time when Government support seems to be somewhat lacking. I extend a special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for his work in securing the debate and to all those who have facilitated it.
Coach firms, a huge number of which are small, family-owned businesses, are great contributors to local economies. They play a crucial and unfortunately somewhat overlooked role in our national transport network. In normal times, coaches and their drivers travel hundreds of thousands of miles every day, and for a huge variety of journeys. They take thousands of school children to school every day, who would otherwise have no reliable means of getting to their place of education. They make educational trips possible and they help sports teams to compete across the country. When our railway networks are delayed, they take passengers to their destination.
As has been said by a number of hon. Members, coaches play a crucial part in the tourism and cultural industries. In fact, as the experts at the Confederation of Passenger Transport have calculated, over 23 million people visit UK attractions every year by coach, generating nearly 10% of the tourism sector’s total contribution to the economy. That point was well made by a number of colleagues on the Government Benches. That is to say nothing of the economic boost provided by the tens of thousands of people employed by coach firms, the multiplier effect, the supply chains or the thousands of people who travel by coach because other forms of transport are not available to them.
In the very near term, the Christmas travel period could shine a further light on the importance of coaches. Labour has warned of the potential dangers posed by travel chaos as people use our road and rail networks over the festive period. Indeed, we have asked the Government to take special care at this time and to pay more attention to the potential difficulties during the pandemic.
It is clear that the coach sector is incredibly important in the immediate context and in the longer term for our economy as we transition away from the coronavirus pandemic and return to some form of normality. Sadly, it is equally clear that there has been a lack of adequate support over the last year, which has threatened the viability of many wonderful family firms. The furlough scheme, as we have heard, has often been the only source of support for many companies until recently, with industry experts estimating that 80% of coach companies were unable to access the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme or other business support over the summer.
The Government have argued, somewhat misguidedly, that schools returning has provided companies with business, but many firms run home-to-school journeys at a loss in the absence of other work, as we have heard. Many difficulties, as hon. Members have said, arise from coach financing. Companies have rightly been incentivised to purchase newer, more efficient vehicles, which are greener and better for the environment. Some firms have been able to negotiate payment holidays during the crisis, but they will soon come to an end. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) said, in some cases, companies may be just months away from going out of business.
Despite that, there has been no sector-specific support for the coach industry, unlike other parts of the transport sector, such as bus, rail or light rail operators. I am afraid to say that industry experts estimate that four in 10 companies could go bust, which would mean the loss of 27,000 jobs across the country. Some firms have seen a drop in income of up to 90% this year, so it is not surprising that they are facing such financial difficulties.
Even in the context of good news about vaccines, it is clear that social distancing measures will continue for some months, which means that coach companies will be simply unable to operate at their normal capacity, as several hon. Members mentioned. Coach firms have historically been very responsible borrowers, and they have been profitable businesses. They simply need short-term help to tide them through the crisis.
I will refer to some of the comments made to me by companies. Acklams Coaches is a small business in Hull that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) introduced me to. It said:
“Until the pandemic we were a growing business and had invested in new environmentally friendly vehicles but to date our income has dropped by 70% with all our leisure work having stopped. We employ 110 staff, which has already reduced during the pandemic and we are now having to look to offer reduced hours, which means more staff are having to leave.”
Berrys Coaches in Taunton said:
“It feels like the coach industry has been the forgotten sector.”
Time and again in the debate, we have heard similar stories from hon. Members from across the country.
That is why we are calling on the Government to explain why they have excluded coach companies from the sector-specific rescue packages arranged for bus, rail and light rail. Indeed, what plans do the Minister and the Government have in place to tackle the looming financial crisis that has been eloquently talked about this afternoon by many hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber?
I urge the Minister to address three critical points in her closing remarks. First, the Government must publish a plan to tackle the looming financial crisis for coach firms to protect jobs and the viability of those wonderful family businesses in future. Secondly, I hope that she will explain why the Government have not committed to providing targeted support for coach companies, despite that being accessible to other parts of the economy. Thirdly, I hope that she will outline what steps the Government are willing to take to protect the tourism and cultural industries so that they can reopen safely as we transition out of the pandemic. The Government must now provide clarity and act with swiftness after months of inaction, otherwise we could face the loss of thousands of small businesses and thousands of jobs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing this vital debate. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. We have heard a vast number of contributions, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), for Henley (John Howell), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), for Halton (Derek Twigg), for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), and for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare). I think it is crystal clear that there is a strength of feeling in the Chamber today from all parts of the country on this vital issue. We have heard many eloquently expressed, first-hand stories from Members explaining the impact of the pandemic on their constituents and the businesses they run.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to assure Members that the Government are absolutely committed to the future of the coach industry. Members have made clear to the Government—to me as a Minister and to other Ministers responsible for these decisions—the strength of feeling on this matter. We have heard it very clearly. Members have set out the vital role that coach companies play in their communities and constituencies. We have heard time and again that these are small, hard-working family businesses. As many Members said, these constituents had not darkened their doors—I did not want to use that phrase, but that is how Members described some of the people they talked about today. They are hard-working people who have not turned to their MPs before. Of course, as an MP myself, I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue.
I will come to the points that Members have raised. I want to respond to a specific point from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley about the public service vehicle accessibility regulations, which others also raised. I will ask my noble Friend in the other place to come back to him on that specific point. I want to reassure Members that all the proposals that have been presented on behalf of their constituents are being carefully considered by Ministers.
We have discussed at length the future of this industry. It is my belief that it continues to have an important role to play and I see no reason why it cannot have a bright and prosperous future. It is a resilient and diverse sector, and its contribution to our leisure, tourism, public and home-to-school transport systems is long standing and vital.
Normally, coach operators up and down the country are connecting people every day of the year. Members have referred to numerous small, family-run businesses in their constituencies. Whether it is a tour to Blackpool or a coach package ticket to the Glastonbury festival, coaches have played a huge part in opening up all parts of the UK and enriching all our lives.
Of course, 2020 has been very different. This year, the covid-19 pandemic and the necessary national and local restrictions to protect public health that have come with it, have taken many of these experiences away from us. With people necessarily spending so much of 2020 undertaking only essential journeys, demand for coach services has reduced dramatically.
I know that, as a result, this year has represented an unprecedented challenge for all coach operators. In these difficult times, the Government’s commitment to supporting businesses cannot be questioned. Many Members discussed this and recognised that fact. Since the onset of the pandemic in the spring, we have paid wages through the job retention scheme and supported the incomes of self-employed workers. We have also provided significant support in the form of loans and grants. Coach operators have been able to apply for the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme.
Emma Hardy
I want to reinforce a couple of points. First, coach companies are telling me there is a high chance that their businesses will end before the furlough scheme runs out. Although the scheme has been welcomed, it is not going to be the answer if the business no longer exists. Secondly, in contributions from Members across the Chamber, it was reiterated that only 20% of businesses were able to access the coronavirus business interruption loans. The majority of coach companies have not been able to access that fund.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Lady very much for those points. I recognised and heard the points that she and others raised. It is important to recognise the amount of support that has gone to those businesses, although I accept that many have not been able to access the support. However, a significant amount of support has been made available. On her point about the furlough scheme, she will know that the Chancellor extended it at a number of points when the public health situation required it. All the measures are kept under constant review.
We have had a number of schemes, including the coronavirus bounce back loan scheme. Of course, the Government have also extended guidance for local authorities on administering business rate relief. Eligible businesses will not have to pay business rates for the year 2020-21—that list of businesses could and does include coach operators—and it is for local authorities to determine which businesses are eligible.
Alan Brown
As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) said in her intervention, the furlough scheme and the business rate relief are welcome, but the Confederation of Passenger Transport reckons that it costs something like £200 a day for a bus just to sit in a yard. Those are the kinds of overheads that we are talking about. Even businesses that have access to CBILS, which is a loan and a debt that must be repaid, are looking for grants. The CPT estimates that £50 a day per coach would be enough for those coach companies to survive. We are looking for responses to those asks.
Rachel Maclean
I recognise and understand the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised about the specific business conditions and challenges that coach companies face. As he will know, all the measures are kept under review by the Chancellor, responding to the evolving course of the pandemic across the country. I will come to the CPT later in my remarks.
The diversity of the coach industry is such that different operators have been eligible for different types of support. There was never going to be a one-size-fits-all package for the sector. My colleagues in Government have worked closely with coach operators to understand the issues that they have faced in accessing particular schemes, which hon. Members have mentioned, As a result of that, a support finder tool has been developed to help businesses quickly and easily determine what financial support is available to them.
We kept in mind throughout that the key to the recovery and the future of the coach industry is reopening business and generating demand across the economy. I know that all hon. Members will welcome the positive news about vaccines; mass immunisation means that we are getting ever closer to being able to lift the tough but necessary restrictions. That will create opportunities and further open up the economy, which will, in turn, help to generate demand.
Emma Hardy
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. She says that the industry is viable with a successful future—I am sure everyone in the Chamber agrees with that—but I really want her to take on board the point about the coach companies’ overhead costs. The cost of a new coach is about £250,000. The coach companies were told that those were the coaches that they needed to buy because they were greener and more environmentally friendly, and they still have those bills to pay. One way in which the Government could make a real difference to those companies would be by looking at their finance problems. Those are the kinds of answers that the industry wishes to hear. As so many hon. Members have said, those companies have, so far, fallen through gaps in the support that the Minister has mentioned. They need something else.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Lady for eloquently setting out the issues—I absolutely understand her points. I will speak a bit more about the way in which we are working with the coach sector.
Obviously, I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle about wanting to get the coach sector back up and running. We believe that demand in the economy is what is needed to help the sector. When there have been safe and viable opportunities to create that demand, we have utilised them. In the autumn, the Government committed more than £70 million of funding to ensure that the coach industry could maximise the potential of the full return to education, and an additional £27 million has been allocated for the spring term. As more vehicles are needed compared with previous years, that funding has provided additional dedicated school and college capacity in our transport system, including coaches, to combat reduced demand on existing public transport.
As hon. Members will know, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is the lead Department for tourism and leisure. It is now considering how the new global travel taskforce might help to remove barriers to international travel, and potential event opportunities for the coach sector. As many hon. Members have pointed out, that is one of the main sources of revenue for the sector.
Going forward, we will continue in the vein of our flexible and adaptable response to the pandemic, keeping all current support under review while exploring opportunities to aid long-term recovery. One of those opportunities was the student travel window; we worked with the Department for Education to encourage students to plan their return journeys from universities carefully and to buy tickets in advance.
I want to be clear with Members that this has been an unprecedented global crisis; none of us could have predicted the scale of the challenges. The Chancellor has stated that in his view it is not possible to preserve every job and every business, and I do not ever underestimate the impact on anybody of these types of circumstances, which have hit us all out of the blue. This is something that the Government take incredibly seriously and my ministerial colleagues have met individual coach operators and heard from them directly. We are well aware of the impact on the sector and on people’s jobs and businesses, which they have built up over many generations. We never underestimate the impact on our constituents’ lives and livelihoods.
We continue to work closely with the CPT. As many Members have said, this organisation has been very helpful in representing its members to Government, so we have a good understanding of the challenges that the industry faces.
Dave Doogan
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous. I am conscious—indeed, concerned—that she seems to be getting to the end of her summing-up, and I am also very conscious that the CPT and many of its members are watching this debate. It would be very helpful if we could get clarity on whether the Government will support the English sector with money that will provide consequentials for the devolved Administrations.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much indeed, and if the CPT is watching this debate, I want to say to it that we are grateful for its work. We work closely together, so it will know that my colleagues have had a number of discussions with people in the sector and with the CPT itself, and we will continue to have those discussions. We keep under close review all the measures we provide, not just for this sector but across the economy.
Rachel Maclean
With the greatest respect, I do not think I can, because I need to get to the end of my speech and I think I need to allow time at the end. Do I have time, Dr Huq, for another intervention?
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
To be honest, because we have stretched the time and everyone was so restricted in their remarks, I think we have time.
Anthony Mangnall
I do not mean to eat into the time left for the hon. Member for Easington, but I just want to make the point about the economic viability of these businesses. The fact is that if we support them now, it will pay dividends long into the future. I appreciate the level of support that has been given, which really makes a huge difference to all those sectors that pay so much into the Treasury, but action now will help us to bounce back quicker.
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend makes that point incredibly well, and it is the thinking behind all the support that has been given, is being given now and that will be given in the future, because we want all these businesses to come back in the future. Also, we absolutely want them to come back in a green and decarbonised way. Many Members referred to that point, which is at the heart of the Government’s agenda in the transport sector more broadly. However, I will come to my concluding remarks and allow the hon. Member for Easington to come in.
This has been a year like no other, and I thank all the transport workers in the coach sector, who have shown remarkable resilience over the last 10 months, and I hope and believe—as I am sure that everybody does—that 2021 will be different from 2020. I am encouraged by developments in the production of vaccines against covid-19. There are no certainties associated with that process, but it seems that there may be some light at the end of the tunnel.
In the meantime, I assure anybody who is watching this debate, and of course people in the Chamber, that we will continue to work with the coach sector. We will continue those conversations; this is not the end of them. We want to understand and provide the best available support that is necessary.
As we have discussed, we have an ambitious and achievable long-term environmental plan to deliver on greening our transport sector and reducing and removing vehicle emissions, and the coach industry is a very important part of that plan.
I want to reassure coach operators and their employees, and all hon. Members present here in Westminster Hall today, that we remain committed to safeguarding the future of the coach industry. I know that the concerns that have been raised today are being heard by Ministers, by the Chancellor and by Members across Government.
Grahame Morris
We have had an excellent debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who is on Labour’s Front Bench, for his intelligent and thoughtful exposition of the arguments; the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), who is on the Front Bench for the Scottish National party; and indeed the Minister, for listening to the points that were put. On occasions today, the debate was a bit like that quiz game, “Fifteen To One”, or maybe it was even 20 to 1, because the Chamber has been at one in putting forward the arguments in support of this sector. All the sector is asking for is fairness, consistency, some sector-specific support, a chance to survive this winter and an opportunity to get back in business in the spring. After nine months, the coach industry needs hope.
For many people who are watching the debate today, this is the final opportunity. They will have been listening the Minister’s response, so I implore the Government to take this opportunity to save this vital industry and deliver some Christmas cheer to those hard-pressed community-based coach businesses.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the coach industry.
Written Statements
European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks Report
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
I am today laying before Parliament a report, The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 June 2020 to 25 September 2020’. I am laying this report because it is a legal requirement under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 for quarterly reports to be made to Parliament on the progress of the work to develop common frameworks. The report is available on gov.uk and details the progress made between the UK Government and devolved Administrations regarding the development of common frameworks. This report details progress made during the ninth three-month reporting period, and sets out that no “freezing” regulations have been brought forward under section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. A copy of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 June 2020 to 25 September 2020 report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The publication of the report reflects the Government continued commitment to transparency.
Attachments can be viewed online at
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2020-12-10/HCWS635
[HCWS635]
College of Policing Annual Report and Accounts 2019–20
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I am today publishing the 2019-20 annual report and accounts for the College of Policing limited [HC 987]. This will be laid before the House and published on www.gov.uk. The report will also be available in the Vote Office.
[HCWS637]
Offensive Weapons Act 2019 Surrender and Compensation Scheme
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
The Offensive Weapon Act 2019 surrender and compensation scheme commences today. This is an important part of the Government response to tackling serious violence and keeping dangerous weapons off our streets.
The scheme is being run in advance of the Government commencing the prohibitions relating to rapid firing rifles and certain knives and other offensive weapons provided for by the Offensive Weapons Act 2019.
The scheme allows for the surrender to the police of certain knives such as zombie knives and cyclone knives, other offensive weapons, rapid firing rifles and their ancillary equipment and bump stocks. The arrangements apply in England and Wales and extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland with respect to firearms and ancillary equipment only. The lawful owners of these items will be able to claim financial compensation in most cases.
The scheme will run for three months between 10 December 2020 and 9 March 2021 inclusive.
I will place in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of the guidance to the public on the scheme, the claims form, a standard values list of compensation that will be paid for surrendered weapons and a list of designated police stations in every force where weapons can be surrendered. These documents are being made available to the public on gov.uk.
[HCWS636]
Prison Service Pay Review Body Recommendations 2020-21.
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I am today making a further and final announcement on the Government’s response to this year’s recommendations from the Prison Service Pay Review Body.
The Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) reported to Government with its 2020-21 pay award recommendations earlier this summer, and on 21 July, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice was pleased to announce the Government’s acceptance of six out of the seven recommendations. This has already delivered an above inflation pay rise of at least 2.5% for all prison staff, with cumulative awards of up to 7.5% where progression pay is taken into account.
The PSPRB report also included a recommendation (“recommendation 3”) to make a further overall increase of £3,000 for “Band 3” prison staff on modernised terms and conditions, intended to have effect from September 2020. For staff at this grade, this would represent a rise of between 14% and 21%. This group represents around one third of the prison service workforce. This recommendation presents clear affordability challenges due to its exceptional cost and is also out of step with other public sector workforces. The Government therefore committed to considering the recommendation in more detail.
Since the initial announcement, the Ministry of Justice, together with HM Treasury, has considered further the exceptional costs associated with implementing this recommendation, the impact on the overall pay structure, and the changing labour market conditions due to the exceptional economic impacts of the covid-19 pandemic.
Changes in the labour market as a result of the covid-19 pandemic, and the unpredictable changing state of the economy means that the assumptions made by the PSPRB upon which it based its recommendations have now changed.
The Department has also considered if any associated workforce reforms could be delivered alongside the recommendation which would create efficiencies and savings, and therefore deliver value for money by offsetting some of the cost of the recommendation. This was undertaken with a view to possible discussions with recognised trade unions, should an option for affordable delivery of the recommendation, which could offer value for money for taxpayers, be identified. The conclusion is that sufficient savings required to offer value for money could not be achieved, meaning the recommendation remains unaffordable.
It has therefore been decided not to accept “recommendation 3”. Nonetheless, this is the third year in a row that prison staff have benefited from an award of at least 2%—which delivers an above inflation increase.
I would like to reiterate my thanks to the PSPRB for its independent expertise, insight and rigour through which it has developed this year’s report. While the Government have not accepted the entirety of the PSPRB recommendations for 20-21, the Department remains committed to working with the review body and we will also continue to work closely with recognised trade unions.
The Chancellor has outlined that in the interest of fairness, pay rises in the public sector will be restrained and targeted for the coming year (2021-22), while also ensuring an uplift for lower earning staff who need it most. I will be shortly writing to the chair of the PSPRB to seek its independent advice on prison pay for 2021-22, in line with the Chancellor’s statement.
I am also, above all, immensely grateful for the hardworking public servants who are critical to the delivery of safe and secure running of our prisons. While the wider circumstances are unpredictable, I remain committed to supporting staff in our prison service, who work hard to help those who are the most vulnerable in our society while keeping the public safe.
[HCWS638]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, in order to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same.
Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con) [V]
My Lords, these regulations will provide an agile and robust regulatory environment for Covid-19 test providers. This is essential to ensuring that everyone has access to simple, effective and high-quality testing services that they can count on.
The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 will remove all CQC regulatory requirements for Covid-19 test services. Existing exemptions leave inconsistencies, resulting in some Covid-19 testing providers being within the scope of CQC regulation while other providers are exempt. We want to tidy this up. We will simplify the regulatory system for Covid-19 test providers, making it easier to understand for both suppliers and consumers.
The second SI is the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Testing Requirements and Standards) (England) Regulations 2020, which will impose requirements on private test providers to become accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service and to attain specific stages of a process towards this accreditation within a given timeframe, starting on 1 January 2021.
I will say a word on context. Last week, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency recommended authorising Pfizer/BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccine. While we wait for the vaccine deployment, testing and contact tracing remains one of the most effective ways of controlling the virus. During this important period, the more rapidly we can identify people at risk of infection, the quicker we can get life back to normal. In the last nine months we have built the largest diagnostic network in British history, which is helping us to tackle the spread of the disease and create the long-term capability to ensure that we are prepared to tackle future pandemics. However, we will only defeat the virus if the public and private sectors work together. The private sector has a critical role to play and has shown this time and again throughout this pandemic. I thank those in the diagnostics, logistics, data and associated industries for their contribution to our pandemic response.
In addition, it is not right to look to the NHS to provide every test for every circumstance. Private sector testing can support NHS Test and Trace by offering tests to those who have a reasonable need for testing but are outside the conventional clinical or epidemiological use cases. It can also help to drive innovation. The Government are therefore supporting the development of a private testing market. We want to ensure that everyone has access to simple, effective, high-quality and affordable testing services that they can count on, whether from the Government or a private provider.
As the demand for testing continues to grow and the number of providers increases, we need to reassure the public that quality control is as important as ever. That is why we want to support private providers to ensure that they can enter the market in a timely manner and meet the demand now without compromising the quality of their testing service.
There is currently a requirement in England to register with the CQC if you are involved in the removal of bodily cells, tissues or fluid samples or the analysing and reporting of these samples for Covid-19 testing. This requirement is subject to a number of exemptions, depending on the type of Covid-19 test sampling and analysis and on the entity undertaking the sample collection. This has resulted in inconsistent requirements for test providers, which have been a source of confusion. Test providers have emphasised the complexities surrounding entering the Covid-19 testing market and we have listened to them.
The first statutory instrument that I have laid before your Lordships will remove the requirement for Covid-19 testing providers to register with the CQC by exempting Covid-19 testing as a regulated activity under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. As the CQC is an English regulatory body, this does not apply in the other nations of the UK. These requirements will be removed, preventing confusion over the scope of regulations from causing restrictions in total testing capacity. It is imperative that a quality service is provided and testing capacity is not restricted; the change from CQC to UKAS will create an agile and robust regulatory environment.
The United Kingdom Accreditation Service, known as UKAS, is the sole national accreditation body in the UK, independent of, but appointed by, the Government. Accreditation by UKAS is the recognised gold standard for organisations offering test services. Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have been working with UKAS to ensure that Covid-19 test providers can access advice on quality assurance and become accredited. It has taken time to ensure that we get this right. Recognising this, and the urgent need for high-quality private testing, on 27 November my department and UKAS launched an adapted three-stage UKAS accreditation process for private test providers, to ensure that new and innovative providers can be accredited faster, without compromising on rigorous safety standards.
The second instrument that I have laid before your Lordships will require all providers offering test services on the English market to complete stage 1 of the UKAS accreditation scheme and attain UKAS applicant status from 31 December. After 31 December, new entrants to the market will be required to achieve UKAS applicant status before offering test services on the English market. The instrument also requires providers to achieve stage 2 UKAS appraisal and stage 3 UKAS accreditation statuses. Providers will need to complete stage 2 UKAS appraisal by 31 January 2021 or, if entering the testing market after 31 December, by whichever is later of 31 January 2021 or four weeks after gaining applicant status. Providers will then need to complete stage 3 UKAS accreditation by 30 June 2021 or, if entering the testing market after 31 December, by whichever is later of 30 June 2021 or four months after gaining appraisal status. Providers will be prevented from offering test services if they fail to meet these requirements. We have engaged closely with providers to ensure that these timelines are achievable.
Stage 1 UKAS applicant status requires applicants to self-declare that they meet 10 minimum standards, set by clinicians. Having gained applicant status, stage 2 UKAS appraisal requires test providers to demonstrate that they are progressing towards accreditation. The last stage, stage 3 UKAS accredited status, requires applicants to achieve full accreditation. As a result of the legislation that I have laid before your Lordships, test providers that provide tests commercially will be required to undergo this staged accreditation process. Employers that provide test services only to their own staff and organisations that supply tests at no cost will not be required to gain UKAS accreditation, although I would advise that they do so to ensure that their test services meet the highest possible standards. From 15 December, international arrivals will be able to opt in to “test to release” and all test services used for this purpose will be required to be working towards full accreditation.
Before I set out my final justification for these SIs, I must thank the JCSI, which scrutinised them so quickly. I will explain how the tests for the presence of antibodies are covered by these regulations. Current forms of tests for antibodies are not covered by existing CQC legislation and will not be covered by the UKAS legislation. As such, these regulations do not leave any regulatory gap for testing for antibodies that did not already exist. However, providers of tests for the presence of antibodies to Covid-19 can choose to apply for accreditation if they wish to do so.
Fundamentally, the new UKAS scheme will simplify the process of looking for a commercial test. Consumers will be able to identify providers capable of delivering a quality end-to-end test service, giving individuals and businesses the assurance they need. We strongly advise that consumers and organisations procure test services only from the gold standard providers which are on their journey to UKAS accreditation. They will be clearly listed on GOV.UK.
The legislation that I have introduced will simplify the testing landscape for test providers and regulate the market consistently, protecting consumers and helping test providers. I am enormously supportive of employers who have already chosen to begin testing their staff, but it must be done properly, using the right tests for the right purposes. These regulations will help employers and individuals to identify the right test services for their purposes and will help test providers to enter the market.
Finally, I apologise for not being with your Lordships in the Grand Committee this afternoon. I have been asked to isolate because a member of my household has tested positive. I am extremely grateful for noble Lords’ forbearance in this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have every sympathy with the Minister being in isolation and thank him for introducing these SIs. Clearly, Covid-19 testing is a critical part of the response to the pandemic, so these regulations are important in ensuring that there is a robust process in place to ensure transparency, effective monitoring and appropriate accountability.
In proposing the new regulatory regime, the Government have argued that it is necessary to remove barriers to entry into the market and that, by removing the CQC’s responsibility and replacing it with an accreditation process through the UKAS, they will achieve the agility in the market that is required, alongside rigorous safety standards.
I say at once that I am a long-standing admirer of the UKAS, but it is reasonable to ask whether it has the expertise to undertake this important task. Under the CQC, providers of testing services were required to meet the fundamental standards of quality and safety set out in the 2014 regulations. The CQC monitors the quality, safety and effectiveness of care and can take action when it identifies that people using services are at risk of harm. How much of this is UKAS going to be able to do? Does it have the expertise and capacity to do it? What happens if there is a problem? Who is able to intervene and stop the service?
I also ask the Minister about timing, and the three stages he referred to. Clearly, one of the concerns is that the current process takes too long. I note from the UKAS website, which I was referred to by the Library, that it indicates a normal lead-in time of approximately three months to arrange the first assessment visit. Will that apply in this case?
Finally, could the NHS be contracting with the private organisations covered by the regulations? The Minister will be aware of the NAO report a couple of weeks ago on the £8 billion of contracts awarded by the Government using emergency procurement regulations. It found specific examples where there was insufficient documentation on key decisions and actual conflict of interests had arisen, which diminished public transparency. If the public sector could procure those private services, can we be assured that the contractual process will be rigorous?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his clear explanation of the two SIs. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I completely understand that there is urgency in trying to ensure that we have adequate but safe testing capacity. I want to ask my noble friend a few questions in the time available.
First, I note that the instrument applies only to England. What is the position on testing in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Secondly, the Explanatory Memorandum says that it could take up to 10 weeks to register with the CQC if large numbers try to register at the same time. What timeframe does it take at the moment? Might the new system speed things up, and by how much?
The United Kingdom Accreditation Service end-to-end testing regime for Covid-19 will require extra resourcing, staffing and capacity, I assume. I wonder what budget has been set aside for that. We are told that the cost will be lower for the UKAS. Do we have an idea of how much might be saved by this alternative system? I believe that guidance will be issued for prospective providers. Could my noble friend give us an idea of when that guidance might come through?
I confess that I have some concerns about the potential quality control in the new system. Coming from the pensions world and having seen so many scams, I fear that we may be opening ourselves up for an opportunity for fraudsters to make a lot of money on these testing regimes. I note that much of the system is self-assessed, which does not fill me with enormous confidence that there will be the necessary medical director, clinical scientist or systems. How will it be monitored and enforced?
The 2014 regulations have a statutory review clause, but today’s regulations do not. Why is that? Might it be wise for them to do so, given that this is potentially such a large issue?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to associate myself with the comments just made by the noble Baroness about the risks of deregulation and self-regulation. We have seen a great deal of concerning and tragic events flowing from that in the building industry. However, my first question, of which I have given prior notice, addresses what follows from testing: self-isolation. The Minister himself is self-isolating today, and I wish him and his family all the best. It is very difficult for many people to do, for financial reasons, because of care responsibilities, or for other reasons. In recognition of that fact, the Government have brought in a £500 payment for people ordered to self-isolate, with the money paid through local authorities. I credit Martin Lewis’s MoneySavingExpert website for what I understand is its original research, published yesterday, in doing spot checks and identifying at least five local authorities where the allocation of money has run out. It is reported that therefore people are being told they cannot get a payment. Can the Minister confirm that? If so, do the Government plan to fix this as a matter of urgency?
On my second point, I appreciate the fact that the Minister took time to explain in his introduction how he saw the idea of a market operating in Covid-19 testing. I have problems with the whole idea of a market in healthcare, but at least it was outlined clearly. In that outline, he said that everyone should have access to affordable tests. The explosion in the use of food banks started before Covid-19 but has certainly increased. People are unable to afford to buy even food. It is clear that lots of people would not be able to afford the price of a Covid test that they might have very good reason to want. Will the Minister consider perhaps approaching the suppliers of these tests and seeing if they could supply some to each food bank in the land, so that they would be genuinely available to everyone who might have good cause to need them?
Secondly on the issue of markets, the purpose of trading in a market is generally to make a profit on the good or service provided. Given the clear high demand and need for Covid tests, how are the Government ensuring that windfall profits are not made? Indeed, I ask the Minister directly: what percentage profit does he consider it would be reasonable to make on a Covid test?
Finally, given that this statutory instrument is essentially a deregulatory one, how are the Government ensuring that the use and promotion of lateral flow testing, which has been reported in the real world to have up to a 50% false negative rate, is used appropriately? Clearly it can be useful at population level to identify asymptomatic infections, but does the Minister agree that it would be deeply dangerous if it was used to give people an all-clear to mix and mingle, with or without precautions?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who is always incisive. I thank my noble friend the Minister for setting out the measures so clearly and I wish him and his family all the best in the difficult situation he finds himself in. His workload is massive and this added pressure is extraordinary.
There is a clear need for testing for Covid-19, as my noble friend has set out, and that will continue for some time, notwithstanding the very good news about vaccinations. I support the measures. It is important that there is an appropriate regime for accrediting those who are carrying out testing on a commercial basis, and I recognise that the existing Care Quality Commission system had gaps in it. But the regime that is applicable under the commission meant that some test providers were within the ambit of the commission and others were not, so that was difficult to navigate. The new system seems more streamlined and straight- forward. It is to be provided by a body that we know is effective, the UK Accreditation Service. It will reduce barriers but will ensure that testing is of high quality. We should all welcome that.
Notwithstanding that, I have some questions which may tie in with some that have already been asked. The first was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt: does the UKAS have the resources, expertise and capacity to handle this? I seek some reassurance from the Minister in that regard. My second point relates to liability. As is referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, there is to be liability for failing to comply with the obligations in the instrument, and I understand that. I am not sure whether this will apply to companies or just to individuals. If it applies to companies, will it also apply to company directors? What if there are repeated breaches? Is there a scale of fines that are to apply? I believe that a fine is applicable on summary conviction. Is that a repeated fine and does it escalate? I would be grateful for some guidance from my noble friend on the matter.
Thirdly, I refer to a point made by my noble friend Lady Altmann about the cost of applications. I am not clear on how costly it was under the CQC system for applicants, and how costly it is going to be under the new system. I think that it will be cheaper, but perhaps my noble friend the Minister could give guidance on what those costs will be. With those considerations, I am otherwise supportive of what seems a very sensible move.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who always makes very perceptive comments and asks piercing questions, and I thank the Minister for introducing these statutory instruments. I echo the feeling that he works very hard and now has an extra burden; I hope that his family will recover soon.
I understand why there is a need for private sector testing—the NHS simply cannot cope—but I have concerns about the risk that these instruments could enable widespread private sector testing. Too often during the course of this pandemic, we have seen the private sector as the first port of call, with massive contracts going, for example, to Serco and Deloitte. Deloitte, it should be remembered, was running the testing centre at Chessington World of Adventures. Perhaps it was in the spirit of adventure that it approached the task, but it came in for criticism after losing the test results of NHS staff.
I share concerns that the private sector will see this as a money-making opportunity and cut corners. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I wonder whether the UKAS has the scope to cope with policing the new burdens being placed on it. I echo the fears of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, that there will be scope for fraudsters to enter this market.
There was some consultation before these proposals were made, and we are told that the feedback was “largely” in favour. Can the Minister tell us the concerns of those who were not in favour and how they are being addressed? I think, for instance, that the BMA has grave concerns about this. While we are told that the list of gold-standard providers will be available on the government website, I wonder how the Government propose to make all those who want tests aware of this. Certainly, on my very brief attempt, I failed to find the information on the website.
Can the Minister address the issue of costs? Will there be an upper limit or will providers just be able to prey on those who are desperate for a test for various reasons?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I express my good wishes to the Minister and hope his family gets well very soon. I thank him for the precise manner in which he laid out the two SIs for our consideration.
I share the concerns expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Altmann, and, like others, I do not share the Minister’s confidence that adequate safeguards exist to effectively monitor private companies —some of them at least—given the fiasco that was impactfully detailed by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft.
I have a couple of general points to make. On social care for children and adults living with disabilities and autism, it is being widely reported anecdotally and in the media that families and carers are suffering an intolerable burden without adequate support from organisations and local authorities which, because of serious budget shortfalls, are failing in their statutory obligations and to safeguard their duty to protect the most vulnerable who may be experiencing abuse and neglect. Noble Lords will be equally concerned to learn that organisations such as Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and Include Me TOO, which provide specific services for ethnic-minority children, are overwhelmed with demands for services, as many families have depleted resilience to cope and to navigate the new maze of inconsistent and inadequate access to their rightful services.
The Minister speaks with confidence about the critical importance of effective testing services being available to those who require them. My inquiries in my local area, particularly among Bangladeshi communities, continue to alarm me. Many of them remain confused about at what point to trigger testing and what options might be available to them, therefore overwhelming GPs and local hospitals. I have spoken about this in the House on a number of occasions, and to the Minister personally, because there is simply not enough information being relayed to the communities in a bilingual format. I have also spoken to the Minister about re-examining the messaging and what else might need to be done to ensure that there are proper, consistent and effective messages going out about what needs to happen and where the services can be accessed.
Finally, I hope the Minister’s department is collecting adequate data on the kinds of communities—particularly their ethnicities and age ranges—where there are serious gaps in both testing and services. It is high time that we have effective equality impact assessment of all these different SIs as well as the provisions that the Government are providing.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wei, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s move to introduce this legislation, which simplifies and standardises the regulation of private sector testing for Covid-19. The Minister’s introduction was most helpful and I hope that he manages to avoid the virus. For the asymptomatic who require a test and can afford it, making tests accessible and of a high standard is extremely important.
We have two pieces of legislation before us today. I turn first to the health protection regulations. This instrument is to ensure that all private providers offering Covid-19 testing services on a commercial basis in England provide services that are of a sufficiently high standard. It is designed to simplify the complex regulatory environment for Covid-19 testing. Under the proposal, the United Kingdom Accreditation Service would provide a national accreditation service on the wider aspects of testing, including the processing, analysing and reporting of tests. The SI imposes an obligation on providers to make an application to a three-stage scheme to ensure consistency of standards; to offer assurance to the public about the quality of private tests through UKAS; and to ensure that the testing organisation would get accreditation from UKAS.
The second SI removes all coronavirus testing from the CQC regulatory environment, as I outlined above. But let us be clear: when anyone has Covid-19 symptoms, or has been asked to take a test by the local council, there are no problems. They can go the testing station or apply for the testing kit and there will be no cost. The free testing service is not for proof of freedom from Covid for travel or other purposes, such as being sure that you are safe to mix with friends and family at Christmas.
These tests have to be purchased privately and I wonder what their margin is. According to Which? last week, the going rate for a private test from a high street pharmacy is about £120. If a negative test is a prerequisite for a flight or something you feel you should do to make a family Christmas safe, the private sector is your only option, but for many, of course, that is not financially possible and so risks may be taken. Certainly, when our children were small, there was no way we could have afforded the equivalent of nearly £500; likewise if you had hoped to get away over the Christmas holidays for some sun. I note that the CMO has said that he is anticipating a surge in cases after Christmas. Testing might be nice to have, but masks will be essential.
It looks as though one of the beneficiaries of these SIs could be pharmacies. I have two points that I would like clarification on from the Minister. First, the Health Secretary has noted that 25% of individuals taking NHS tests were not eligible. This legislation seeks to enable private testing to complement government testing and reduce pressure on test and trace. Could the Minister please provide more detail on this? Specifically, how does increasing the accessibility of private sector testing allow the Government to shift to a wider testing strategy and, crucially, the testing of asymptomatic individuals?
Secondly, someone who cannot afford a private test from a high street pharmacy and cannot access NHS testing will be left in isolation, often without appropriate financial support. In general, we will always be limited by capacity to some extent, but it is vital that we move away from the current model of testing only those with symptoms. Mass testing in Liverpool showed that testing those without symptoms can help us to interrupt the flow of transmission. I would like reassurance from the Minister that encouraging private sector testing will not create or exacerbate inequalities.
A well-off asymptomatic individual may be able to end a period of isolation and return to work or travel by paying for a private test. As with all areas involving communication with the public, we have to be aware that an Anglo-Saxon approach is probably not ideal. This is a contributing factor to the low isolation compliance—a huge challenge in controlling the virus. What is the wider strategy to ensure that the NHS and Lighthouse Labs work in harmony so that those who most need tests can access them free of charge?
Of course, I appreciate that working with the private sector is vital in this pandemic and making the pathway to test provision simpler may increase competition and reduce prices. This would: allow providers to enter the market more quickly and at lower cost; provide more comprehensive oversight of the entire market; and ensure quality of testing standards. In addition,
“novel, non-clinical testing technologies and methods”
would not need to be individually exempted from regulation.
I will finish where I started: for those who are asymptomatic who require a test and can afford it, making tests accessible and of a high standard is extremely important. However, we must be wary of exacerbating inequalities through access to testing. How do the Government intend to prevent this? I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is quite clear that the smaller first statutory instrument is a tidying-up regulation and I thank the Minister for introducing it. The other regulation is, as the Minister put it, about developing a private market for testing. The questions that have been addressed to him in this short debate will have told him that there are some concerns about how that works.
My first question is: why is the CQC not the obvious body to do this? What has led to it being the UKAS? The time it takes to be accredited does not seem that different.
That leads to my next question, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt: what additional resources and staffing has the UKAS been given to carry out this new responsibility? I looked at its website. Obviously, it is a creditable and important body. I am not undermining it at all, but I am questioning it taking on this new responsibility, which involves more expertise and more funding. Because it is a public health issue we are talking about here—the spread of Covid—what are its responsibilities when somebody gets a negative result? What happens when someone is infected with Covid? I would like to know what responsibility is being placed on the UKAS for it to place on the private sector deliverers of this service when they test someone who tests positive for Covid? It seems absolutely vital that that person is placed in the test and trace system. Can the Minister explain to the Committee what the “trace” bit of this is?
The noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Altmann, raised the potential for fraud and testing scams. How will the Government make the public aware of the need for test providers to be properly accredited? Also, how will they ensure, as part of the monitoring and regulation, that the certificates that are issued cannot be falsified or sold on, and what are their powers to intervene if they suspect or it is reported that that is happening? It is inevitable that some investigative journalist or programme will indeed try to do that in order to test the system. If it is found wanting, it will be a very serious undermining of what should be safe private testing.
There are a number of commercial providers offering Covid-19 “fit to fly” tests in the UK. As other noble Lords have mentioned, Which? found that the costs varied considerably, from £60 at London’s Gatwick Airport drive-through test—the cheapest test—up to £214 at a clinic in London. Of course, for a family of four going on holiday, that is a significant amount of money. Is there an intention to cap the price of these tests to make sure that individuals and families are not priced out? I think it is important for the Minister to explain the link and relationship between public sector procurement of these tests and the private services. We now have a long list of procurement problems—to put it mildly—in the testing and tracing regime and possibly billions of pounds of public money have been wasted; we will find out. We do not want to add to that with this new regulatory framework.
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
I thank noble Lords enormously for an incredibly thoughtful discussion and I will seek to answer as many of their piercing and thoughtful questions as I can. If I miss any I will be pleased to write to noble Lords to clear up any loose ends. I will forgo the normal warm words at the beginning of such a speech and move directly to addressing the questions raised by noble Lords.
It is absolutely vital, as we open up our economy, that NHS supplies are saved for the situations where they are most needed. That is the principle behind what we are doing here today. To be clear: we are continuing to massively upgrade our commitment to testing. The PCR testing capacity for clinical and symptomatic testing is now reaching towards 800,000 a day—a colossal number—and the turnaround times have come down dramatically. In my household’s case, the test was taken at lunchtime yesterday and the result came at 7 am today—a phenomenal logistical achievement. We are also committed to the kind of community testing that the noble Baroness referred to, with the testing of asymptomatic individuals using technology such as the lateral flow devices that noble Lords will be aware of. This is exemplified by, but not limited to, the kind of testing in universities and schools that we have been piloting this autumn and will be rolling out in a very big way over Christmas.
As I have said before, we are investing massively in NHS testing, free at the point of use and available free of charge to all those who meet the use cases defined by the CMO. To ensure that this is possible, we need to enable the provision of new and innovative testing programmes that are as reliable and effective as possible. However, the NHS cannot possibly have pressure put on it to provide every test that every person in every part of this country wants at every time of the day. That has never been the case in this country and cannot be the case in the future. If tests are needed that are outside the use case or if someone is seeking to enable activities that fall outside the responsibility of our public health regime, it is right that those tests are sought from outside the NHS. It is therefore right that we seek to regulate the provision of those tests by the private sector.
The legislation that I have set out will ensure this, providing public confidence in testing and supporting private providers to enter the market. As I have set out, we need to create an agile regulatory environment for test providers, and we can do this by removing all CQC regulatory requirements for test providers, replacing them with the gold standard UKAS accreditation for commercial test providers. It is not our intention to cap the price, but it is our expectation that, given the billions of Covid tests now being manufactured around the world, the price will fall dramatically, and it is our intention to ensure that the quality meets clinical standards.
These measures will simplify the complex regulatory system for Covid-19 test providers; simplify the process around looking for a commercial test; and give individuals and employers essential assurances over the tests they procure. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Bourne, accreditation by the UKAS is the recognised gold standard for organisations that offer test services. My officials have worked really closely with colleagues at the UKAS to ensure that the accreditation scheme for Covid-19 test providers is as agile as necessary to deal with this growing market. The adapted three-stage approach is a direct result of this, ensuring that new and innovative providers can be accredited in a timely fashion, while preserving the UKAS gold standard. My officials will continue to work with the UKAS to ensure that this process is as seamless as possible, that test providers are given the support that they require to move through the scheme, and that correct enforcement procedures are in place.
Regarding contracting private industry to supply testing services, I hope that I will not shock either the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, or the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, if I tell them that we are already engaged with the private sector in the purchasing of healthcare services for the NHS in the UK—not least in the provision of primary healthcare, which is conducted by the private sector in the form of GP practices, and through social care. That is also true in testing services. Time and again, throughout this pandemic, the private sector has shown that it has a critical role to play. While I note the comments of my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft, my experience of private-industry contractors has been largely positive; where there have been problems, we have to look at the whole partnership of government, universities, NHS and private industry for responsibility, not seek to scapegoat any particular party in this national collaboration. It is vital, as we look to open up our economy, that NHS Test and Trace supplies are focused where they are needed most. To ensure that this is possible, while utilising new testing innovations, the Government are supporting the development of the private testing market. To do this, we are bringing forward the regulations that I have laid before noble Lords today.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and to my noble friend Lady Altmann, I make it clear that the existing lengthy and costly on-boarding process is one reason for introducing this more agile system. The existing system is suited for major complex laboratories, many of which have been around for many years, and new entrants to the market are rare. We hope to have a more agile regime that will encourage innovation, but I will be glad to write to noble Lords with details of the intended costs.
My noble friend Lady Altmann is absolutely right to be concerned about fraud. She is right that there is a self-assessment at the beginning of the process, which is quicker and cheaper, to encourage new entrants and to avoid bottlenecks as this industry scales up. However, this is quickly augmented by a mandatory requirement to follow a rigorous on-boarding process with full administration. I am convinced that this will provide the necessary supervision of this industry, although I take her comments seriously and we will keep a careful eye on this threat. To answer my noble friend Lord Bourne, the test providers will be prevented from offering services if they do not have the right authorisations. If they break the rules, there are substantial—unlimited, I think —fines set by magistrates and applied to the company to ensure enforcement.
The legislation that I have introduced will simplify the regulatory landscape for test providers and regulate the market consistently. I thank Covid-19 test providers for their pivotal work at this time. We encourage the development of these sorts of test services in order to reduce pressure on the NHS and ensure that the test and trace programme can focus on situations where it is needed most; but it must be done properly, using the right tests, for the right price and the right purposes, and with the right enforcement regime. I beg to move.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Testing Requirements and Standards) (England) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Testing Requirements and Standards) (England) Regulations 2020.
Relevant documents: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and 34th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (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, to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same.
The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, we are here to discuss a further statutory instrument that is part of the Government’s package of SIs to prepare for the end of the transition period. This instrument concerns safety and security declarations, as did the SI debated here and in the other place last month. This statutory instrument was debated and agreed in the other place earlier today. If there is disruption at the border after the end of the transition period to which the Government have to respond, these powers will allow the Government to manage those issues. Noble Lords will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported the regulations as an instrument of interest in its 36th report, published on 3 December.
Allow me to set out the context of the current regime for managing the safety and security risk of goods entering and leaving the UK. The UK subscribes to the World Customs Organization’s SAFE framework of standards, which sets out minimum requirements for participating customs administrations to regulate, monitor and secure the international supply chain. Customs authorities are required to collect and risk-assess data on consignments of imported and exported goods for security purposes. The UK does this through safety and security declarations, which goods carriers are required to submit.
These declarations are currently required under the Union customs code and are retained in law in the UK after the end of the transition period by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. While part of the EU, the UK required safety and security declarations only for goods leaving or entering the EU. From the end of the transition period, the default position is that carriers will be required to complete safety and security declarations for goods moved into and out of Great Britain where those goods are moving to or from the EU, as well as the rest of the world.
As we announced in June, the Government are staging in controls at the border after the end of the transition period. As part of that we have introduced a six-month waiver on the requirement to submit entry summary declarations for goods imported from the EU into Great Britain. The requirements for entry summary declarations for goods imported from the rest of the world will not change. That waiver will allow businesses affected by Covid-19 additional time to prepare to meet their requirements for safety and security, and the full range of customs controls, at the end of the staging-in period. While the Government have waived the safety and security requirement for imports from the EU and other countries where they are not currently completed until 1 July 2021, the requirement for safety and security declarations for exported goods is in place from 1 January 2021.
Before goods leave the country, carriers are required to submit safety and security data to HMRC for risk assessing. As well as managing safety and security issues, this data is also used to meet other international obligations, such as controls on the movements of live animals. This data is normally contained in a customs export declaration. Where there is no requirement for a customs export declaration—for example, in the case of the movement of an empty truck—the safety and security requirements are met through the submission of an exit summary declaration.
This SI gives the commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs the time-limited power to waive, by public notice, the requirement for the submission of safety and security information for goods exported from Great Britain. The deadline for the pre-departure submission of this information could also be altered by public notice. Any waiver would be introduced only where necessary to preserve the flow of goods at the border. Prior to any use of this power, the Government would consider risks such as border security and manage them against risks posed by the border disruption. Without this power, in some scenarios traders may be left with no option to compliantly export goods from Great Britain if they are unable to collect and submit the appropriate data to current time limits.
These powers are limited so that they can be used only if necessary to mitigate border disruption, and only within the first six months after the end of the transition period. Within this, any mitigation can be further limited; for example, by time, location, sector of trade or type of goods. Measures could therefore be applied depending on need. The Government will update Parliament as appropriate when introducing the waiver.
The Northern Ireland protocol means that there are no safety and security requirements for goods moved between Northern Ireland and the EU. The protocol applies EU UCC rules in Northern Ireland, and therefore the public notice powers introduced by this instrument would not affect goods movements into or out of Northern Ireland. Goods moved between Northern Ireland and the rest of the world will continue to be subject to safety and security requirements.
The Government continue to work with stakeholders to support their readiness for the end of the transition period. Introducing these powers is an important step in preparing for every eventuality after the end of the transition period. They will give the Government some capacity to intervene in safety and security requirements for exports, if necessary. These powers would be used only in exceptional circumstances, where it was absolutely necessary to ensure that goods could continue to move across the border. The powers would be used only after due consideration of the risks arising from the waiving of these requirements. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, obviously I do not approve of what is happening. I think that the loss of security that the country will suffer as a result of leaving the European Union is vast and will be of great comfort mainly to people of the criminal fraternity and others seeking to evade various rules.
Can the Minister please tell us what goods he has in mind being covered by this SI? Can he give some practical examples? If they are the sorts of things which are a threat to security or are dangerous goods, it is very serious that these are going to be dealt with in this way, where Parliament has virtually no say over what is happening.
The fact that the Government have not prepared for us leaving the European Union in a proper way is their fault. Whatever they are doing to cut and paste a solution to the failures of their policy certainly does not have my support, unless the Minister can be very explicit about what is involved in this and whether it really is absolutely essential that this sort of power is given.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, the central requirement for government in the context of customs safety and security procedures is, as the Minister said, to establish the continuity of procedures so that the economy can continue to operate effectively in the context of the end of the transition period.
This is more important than ever today. As reported earlier by the BBC, a global shipping crisis is impacting the UK severely. Understandably, many businesses are stockpiling in advance of a possible no deal. Port backlogs are driving up shipping rates. UK ports are reported to be close to broken. The surge in demand and backlog of empty shipping containers are causing bottlenecks. The impact of the three Cs—Christmas, coronavirus and customs—while businesses are still lacking in confidence about what will happen in the case of a no-deal Brexit, is growing.
Accordingly, I hope my noble friend the Minister will take this opportunity to provide the Government’s view on how this crisis can be resolved, any action the Department for Transport intends to take to remedy the situation, and what proportion, if any, of the substantial port costs will be passed on to consumers. The case of Honda is important; is it the Government’s intention to intervene, given the suspension of production at its Swindon plant? What further capacity for moving containers through ports can the Government provide? Should we look towards more expensive prices for consumers, or unsustainability for businesses where the onward price cannot be increased?
On customs procedures in the event of a no-deal Brexit, I will raise an important issue that I fully appreciate might require my noble friend, despite his lexicon of knowledge, to consult further with Defra and DCMS, although he did refer specifically to the control of the movement of live animals. In that context, can he confirm that EU law on the movement of horses and equines will continue to provide a shared framework to allow Ireland, France and the UK to ensure that, from 1 January 2021, there will be a specific arrangement for the movement of racehorses through customs posts and immigration control, as at present; in other words, will he ensure that that law will be placed on the statute book in the UK?
Will the tripartite agreement—TPA—be in place? As I understand the situation, this agreement will lapse in three weeks’ time, thereby removing the free movement of racehorses between Ireland, the UK and France, and massively impairing horseracing in this country. This would draw a curtain over Cheltenham and racing in general. Trainers would understandably not submit their highly tuned racehorses to potentially lengthy delays at the borders, which would impair the movement of horses and potentially do such significant harm that trainers would not enter them in races. Any increased certification and controls would have to be electronically managed in advance. A successor agreement to the TPA may be agreed in respect of north/south movement of horses only if Northern Ireland continues to provide the necessary guarantees on maintaining high-health status, and if the UK can continue to guarantee that all other controls are carried out, including on horses coming from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, as well as from Ireland and France into the UK.
For the movement of equine animals between the UK and the EU countries I mentioned to continue after the transition period, the UK would need to be listed by the Commission as a third country eligible to export horses to the EU, and vice versa. From 1 January, when the transition period ends, racehorses entering Great Britain from Ireland or France will, I assume, only be permitted departure and entry clearance under this and related regulations. Specific controls for movement from Great Britain to Ireland, including blood testing and residency requirements, will also apply depending on the sanitary group—the health status category—the Commission assigns to the UK and the purpose and duration of the equine movement. Will this impede the current seamless free movement of racehorses across borders, as permitted by the tripartite agreement?
This categorisation has to be clear in three weeks’ time. Equine animals moving to and through the UK will be subject to UK government customs requirements. Customs controls will also apply to equine movements between Ireland and the United Kingdom. In the circumstances, is my noble friend confident that all involved should now prepare for the seamless and unimpeded movement of racehorses between Ireland, France and the United Kingdom? Is the industry ready and prepared for racehorses moving from the UK to Ireland and France? What new documentary, identity and physical health checks will be required?
Will the border be frictionless when it comes to the movement of horses from Northern Ireland to the rest of Great Britain? Are transporters of horses on both sides of the Irish, French and UK borders compliant with the relevant authorisations and certificates, irrespective of the outcome of the current round of negotiations; in other words, can my noble friend assure me that a new TPA will be in place on 1 January 2021 come what may, without any impact on Cheltenham, Ascot, the Derby or the British horseracing calendar next year?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these regulations. I note that they will introduce powers to allow a temporary waiver of the requirement for pre-departure declarations, or temporary modification of the time limit for their submission, by public notice. Obviously, some of this work would involve HMRC. I have some questions for the Minister. There have been some interesting expositions already by previous speakers.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who has just spoken, raised the issue of the equine industry. Coming from Northern Ireland, where the equine industry is quite important to our local economy, both in Northern Ireland and on the island of Ireland, I would not like to see any impediments put in the way of that industry. There are clear links between the equine industry in Ireland, north and south, and Britain, and vice versa, and it is important that the proper procedures are in place from 1 January to ensure that free movement. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that there are certain issues here in relation to security: your Lordships’ House has to be assured that these regulations will ensure a complete diminution of criminal and paramilitary activity in terms of the transport of goods. I would like to ascertain from the Minister what advice he has received from HMRC and the various police constabularies throughout the UK on this issue.
The regulations state that they will still apply to the whole of the UK. How can this be when the Northern Ireland protocol applies to Northern Ireland customs and goods, where the union customs code applies, particularly now that we have a clear definition and an explanation of what has been approved in principle before it is finally approved by the joint committee? Will the instrument apply only to businesses and intermediaries exporting goods from GB to Northern Ireland? What administrative arrangements will need to be put in place to deal with this issue? I note that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced earlier today quite substantial funding for businesses in Northern Ireland to deal with all the extraneous issues that will emerge from the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. I also note that the Minister referred in his speech to Northern Ireland-GB issues.
The Minister referred to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Its 36th report stated that
“it is not clear whether suspending pre-departure safety and security requirements on exports could lead to any adverse impacts.”
Will the Minister advise us of the exact position? The committee also noted that
“while this instrument enables HMRC to waive temporarily the requirement for pre-departure declarations for goods leaving GB, any use of this power would not help with potential disruption caused by the need for declarations for the same goods entering the EU.”
What is the Minister’s view of this statement? Will a solution be in place at the end of the transition period?
Finally, will the Minister say what arrangements are in place to publicise the use of these new powers? What will be the frequency of reports to both Houses of Parliament on the use and application of these new powers? What explanatory documents will be published online?
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has already reminded us, the news yesterday and today has highlighted fullness at our ports due to Covid, Christmas and Brexit stockpiling and a build-up of empty containers here while Asian exporters have a shortage. It is a useful reminder that logistics must be thought out well ahead—they are only going to get more complicated from January.
This SI is about outgoing not incoming goods, but I have a few questions about how it works and what can be taken into consideration. On the face of it, it looks simple enough: if there is disruption, flow rate can be made simpler by waiving pre-departure notices or modifying the time limits for submissions; it can be done on specific sectors and types of goods or at specific places to allow targeted mitigation; and the power lasts only six months.
Paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the powers can be used only for border disruption, and paragraph 2.6 narrows that to:
“in the event that requirements for pre-departure declarations cause border disruption”.
However, I cannot find an exactly corresponding provision in the regulations. Regulation 2(2) states that it is
“to relieve disruption at or near places from which goods are directly removed from Great Britain”,
but it makes no mention as to cause. I presume that the legislation is correct and, therefore, that wider causes of disruption could trigger the use of the power even if that is not the current intention. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. If the Explanatory Memorandum reflects the intent in practice, why does it not make that clear? Is it intended to have a wider contingency, or is it that it is difficult to assert causality in legislation? I understand that but, if so, why not draft the Explanatory Memorandum accordingly and give the causes more as practical examples of intention?
Looking at the legislation rather than the Explanatory Memorandum, and given the present circumstance that I just mentioned about congestion caused by imports, would a similar event, maybe through knock-on effects, qualify as a disruption near a place where goods are removed from Great Britain, because the ports have both incoming and outgoing goods? Do queues in Kent, incomplete or full Farage lorry parks count as a disruption near a place where goods are removed from Great Britain? Could, and would, this provision be used because of events that have no relation to the export of goods, such as civil protest or industrial action? If a major cause is congestion, what steps are being taken to distribute both exports and imports to other ports with capacity, to minimise the need for these powers and congestion in general? Can that be done at short notice?
A previous statutory instrument on no-deal planning made it clear that the waiver would be exercised only in relation to exports to countries where previously there was no need for documentation—basically the EU—but there is no similar mention or emphasis here. Presumably this means that waivers can be in respect of any and all countries. If that is the case, are there some countries for which there would never be a waiver because of greater security concerns? What international provisions are there about disruption? Is there anything in SAFE to enable this kind of suspension for disruption and are there examples of when and why it been done elsewhere?
I turn to a more general point: alongside requiring pre-departure declarations, there is a provision for risk assessment time, which is in Article 264 of EU Regulation 952/2013. The SI makes provision for that to be stipulated in connection with notices relating to the time limit for lodging pre-departure declarations. What is the usual current risk assessment time? Obviously it does not apply at the moment for EU goods, but it applies elsewhere, so there must be some available information. Is there a uniform target time? What is the time relationship between when the pre-departure declaration must be lodged and the risk assessment time?
Finally, what is the timescale for changing or bringing out a notice? How quickly would it be disseminated and expected to have an effect, and for what duration would it typically be expected to run? What happens to the live animal aspects, which the Minister mentioned, saying that they would use the same documentation? If the documentation is suspended, what happens to checks on live animals: are they abandoned, or will they run separately?
I do not really have any fundamental objection to the SI but, as the Minister will be able to tell from my questions, more surrounding information is really needed to put it in proper operational context. Brexit is an extraordinary event, but it is of some comfort to know whether international norms cater for extraordinary events or whether contingency measures that we have to take cause strain to those norms and, therefore, to other international relationships.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this latest statutory instrument from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Having dealt with the issue of imports three weeks ago, we now turn to the export of goods. As he outlined, HMRC is establishing a new power, described as a “contingency option”, to temporarily waive the requirement for pre-departure declarations if it is felt that this will lessen the disruption at the border. This power would also allow temporary change to the time limit for submission of these declarations. As with the import measures discussed previously, the potential grace period is limited to six months, which is designed to provide time for hauliers and ports to adjust to the realities of life outside the EU and beyond the transition period.
Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that there are potential risks to border security if these powers are used. Can the Minister explain the process that HMRC will use in relation to this contingency measure? Can he confirm whether that process has been decided? The phrasing of the Explanatory Memorandum suggests that it is in progress, but that would be surprising, given that the power will be available to Ministers in just three weeks’ time.
Given the risks involved, it is doubtful that the Government would want to extend the power beyond the envisaged six months. However, if HMRC were to decide to extend the intended sunset, would that be done by a further statutory instrument? While there may be a rationale for making it available, this unilateral power will get us only so far; it may help to limit disruption on the roads of Kent, but the problem will merely be shifted to the other side of the English Channel, where other forms will be needed for goods to move any further. This represents as much of a change to current arrangements as the need for pre-departure safety and security declarations, which have hitherto not been required under the terms of the Union customs code. It is regrettable that the haulage industry and others have not been afforded more time to prepare themselves for these new processes; it is worth remembering that such an option was on the table, only to be rejected by No. 10.
While we do not oppose this instrument, we remain deeply disappointed and troubled by the Government’s handling of the ongoing negotiations with the EU. They are now operating to a deadline of Sunday but, given the nature of the briefings last night, it is hard to be optimistic. We must therefore assume, as this SI does, that there will be no trade agreement. Let us not forget that, over three years ago, the former International Trade Secretary told the nation that the task of negotiating a comprehensive trade deal with the EU would be
“one of the easiest in human history”.
Since then, every deadline set by the Government for either a withdrawal agreement or a trade deal has been missed. Before leaving for his last-ditch dinner in Brussels yesterday, the Prime Minister pre-emptively sought to blame the EU for supposedly negotiating in bad faith. However, while the Government may not like its contents, the EU’s mandate is consistent with the political declaration signed by the Prime Minister in October last year.
The Minister is no doubt familiar with the reasonable worst-case scenario outlined in a Cabinet Office document earlier this year. A leak of that document has allowed all noble Lords to find out just how severe disruption could be in the event of no trade agreement. On exports, it warns that between 40% and 70% of trucks travelling to the EU might not be ready for new border controls; flow across the short Channel could be reduced to between 68% and 80% of normal levels; and queues on the roads of Kent could reach 7,000 trucks, equating to a two-day delay.
This is not what we were promised. At no point have the public been warned of the potential issues with imports if there is no trade deal. The document states that the flow of medicines and medical products could be reduced to between 60% and 80% of normal levels for a period of three months. Food supplies could be threatened, with low-income groups disproportionately impacted by price hikes. There is even a warning that some local areas could experience disruption in fuel supplies.
The Prime Minister promised the nation an oven-ready deal, not an outcome that prevents shops from stocking oven-ready meals. To avoid the chaos envisaged by the leaked document and this SI, it is vital that he gets his act together and secures a trade deal by Sunday.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I am grateful for the chance to respond to the points raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about the impact on the country’s security of this statutory instrument which, to reassure the noble Lord, is for the export of goods, and so, in that direct context, is not of concern. However, the powers contained within SIs can be limited to apply only to certain types of goods. This has been provided for to allow targeted mitigation and to minimise security risks by providing a waiver only where necessary. Movements of prohibited and restricted goods are controlled by information contained in the customs export declaration and other licences, and the powers in this SI relate only to the safety and security declaration requirements. Even if a waiver were put in place that covered all goods, Border Force would continue to have access to additional intelligence to control border risks. It is also worth noting that we do not currently collect any safety and security data on exports to the EU, so any waiver here would not result in an increase in risks.
The noble Lord also spoke about this being a cut-and-paste solution. Safety and security declaration data is not currently gathered on all exports to the EU, so a waiver of these movements would retain the status quo. These powers could also be used to waive requirements for exports for the rest of the world if needed, but associated safety and security risks are minimal, since these goods are leaving Great Britain.
The Government intend to use these powers only where absolutely necessary to mitigate border disruption. Any waiver would be limited—for example, by time, location, sector of trade or type of goods—allowing targeted mitigation. Prior to any use of the power, the Government would consider the safety and security risks and manage them against the risks posed by the border disruption.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked specifically about the movement of horses. The use of a public notice is the only method that would allow the Government to react as swiftly as may be needed to any disruption at the border after the end of the transition period. Without these powers, traders may be left in an unacceptable situation, where they are unable to compliantly export goods from Great Britain. The tripartite agreement to which the noble Lord referred is a specific agreement and, as I understand it, discussions are ongoing, but I will write with further information.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about security and the risks of enabling increased criminality. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government take border security extremely seriously and would use these powers only where absolutely necessary and within limits to alleviate border disruption. The Home Office would be consulted and would continue to be involved in the event that the powers were used to ensure that risks were kept to a minimum. Border Force would also continue to have access to other intelligence. The noble Baroness asked about the application to the whole of the UK. Just to be specific: while this is UK legislation, these powers could be used only to apply to goods moving out of Great Britain.
On publicising the use of the powers, this would be published as an online notice in the first instance, and Parliament would be updated as appropriate. We would also support the introduction of any measures with other methods of communication to ensure that traders were made aware as quickly as possible. The noble Baroness asked about causes of disruption. A waiver could be for exports to any country or any cause of disruption. This is necessary to be able to manage different scenarios. Equally, the powers allow for a waiver to apply only to certain exports. In the event of any use of these powers, we would need to weigh up the associated risks and take the appropriate action. The powers are restricted to the first six months of next year, since they are intended specifically to tackle border disruption as a result of the new safety and security requirements.
As to the question of how quickly it would take us to issue the notice, powers allow for a public notice to be published implementing a change in less than two days. A notice would last for a maximum of six months, for the first half of next year. However, the powers would also allow for the notice to be put in place for a shorter period of time within that to ensure that we have the maximum flexibility to manage these risks appropriately.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked how HMRC will use this contingency measure. We have established a process to ensure that we are able to assess any need for this contingency and balance risks. The process includes evidence-gathering and consultation with other departments, including the Home Office. We have been clear that these powers will be used only where absolutely necessary to avoid border disruption, and the Government will update Parliament in the event that we use the powers.
The noble Lord asked about any extension to the sunset clause. I reassure him that the powers can be used only within the first six months of next year and only to mitigate disruption. The Government have no plans to extend this contingency beyond the first six months of next year, as we do not anticipate that there will be any risk of disruption, as a result of the safety and security requirements on exports after that period. The Government could consider extending these powers further, but this would require a further statutory instrument which would be subject, as this one has been, to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
I hear and understand the noble Lord’s concerns about the cliff-edge nature of the negotiations. I would like to offer a little more optimism in that, behind the scenes, a great deal of agreement has been achieved. There are some outstanding issues, but I remain confident that we will secure a deal with the EU in the next few days.
The Government are introducing this SI as a step towards being as prepared as we can be for all possible scenarios at the end of the transition period. We have been clear that these powers will be used only with due consideration of the risks, and only as is necessary to ease potential disruption at the border within the first six months of next year. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Motion agreed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room. The Committee is adjourned, and I wish you all a nice weekend.
Committee adjourned at 4.25 pm.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Spencer of Alresford
Arrangement of Business
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 can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers are also brief in their answers.
War Widows Pensions
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Crawley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in resolving the issues faced by those war widows who were required to surrender their War Widows Pension due to marriage or cohabitation.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the War Widows’ Association.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government continue to examine alternative methods to see whether we can mitigate the impact on those survivors who remarried or cohabited before the introduction of the pensions-for-life changes in 2015. Much progress has been made and the issue remains a priority for the Ministry of Defence, but it is very complex.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer, but I am very disappointed. I am sure that she herself is tired of having to repeat it. It is shameful that 200 war widows are still waiting for their pensions to be reinstated. In the last five years, 100 widows have, sadly, died while waiting. What has happened to the plan that was meant to have gone from the Secretary of State for Defence to the Treasury, and when will we see a timetable for meaningful action in this matter?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I pay tribute to her commitment and passion on this issue and I understand her frustration. It might help her if I explain the nature of the complexity. Quite simply, it has been the policy of successive Governments not to make retrospective payments by government to individuals. That has been an established position and I think that many Members of your Lordships’ Chamber who have been Ministers will understand that. It means that, although I, the Secretary of State and the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff all personally want to try to find a solution to this, we are not able to act unilaterally. We are investigating a number of options, but as yet none of these has been confirmed as avoiding the challenges to which I have referred.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, what bearing does the Minister think the Armed Forces covenant has on this issue? The covenant, quite rightly, says:
“Families … play a vital role in supporting the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces.”
So our moral obligation is not just to members of the Armed Forces; it is also to their families. Times and attitudes change. Rules from the past are no longer regarded as acceptable. We should not let concern about retrospection be a barrier to what we all now regard as the right thing to do.
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
Of course, I reaffirm that the Government recognise the unique commitment that service families make to our country and we remain sympathetic to the circumstances of those who remarried and cohabited before 1 April 2015. But the Ministry of Defence is not able to act unilaterally because, in doing that, it could well compromise the position of other government departments and it might unintentionally interfere with or prejudice active litigation in which other departments are involved. That is why I thought it important to explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, the nature of the complexity. This is not something that the current Government have dreamed up and it is not an artificial obstruction that the Ministry of Defence has created; it is, I am afraid, the consequence of established policy covering such matters as payments when a request is made to make these retrospectively.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
But does the Minister understand the contrast between the actions of a Government, who, up till yesterday, were willing to break the law but today will not modify slightly a policy to benefit 200 citizens whose spouses gave their service on behalf of this nation?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
It is not a question of whether the MoD chooses to break the law, which it would never wish to do; it is a question of established government policy. The noble Lord has been a Minister in government and I think he will understand why that policy exists. That is why the MoD cannot act unilaterally on this. It has been investigating a range of options. I have discussed this matter personally with the Secretary of State, the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Permanent Secretary to try to find a way round the obstacles. That means exploring a range of options, including hardship payments and ex gratia and statutory schemes. That is what we are currently engaged in doing, but these are complex, challenging issues and they have to be dealt with carefully.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, as president of the War Widows’ Association, I am enraged by the failure of government to find a solution. Is it the Government’s intention to procrastinate for so long that these few elderly widows will all be dead?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
No. I say to my noble friend that of course it is not. I have no wish to be evasive. That is why, at the risk of incurring the displeasure of the Deputy Speaker, I thought it important to give the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, as full an explanation as I could of the complexities. I am being very frank with the Chamber. This is not about a lack of will on the part of the MoD to find a solution; it is about recognising the challenges of getting a route towards a solution. That is the difficulty. These are not manufactured complexities; they affect the whole of government.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I salute the noble Baronesses, Lady Crawley and Lady Fookes, and it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Baroness Fookes, who has given so much to the cause. I share her disappointment that the Government have not found a solution to this problem, which has been on the table for so long.
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I merely seek to reassure the noble Lord that active investigations are taking place, options are being explored and indeed, the President of the War Widows’ Association met with the Secretary of State on 30 November. Therefore, very recently he was able to explain to her personally that this is nothing to do with lack of political will or of a personal determination to find a solution. It is a question of trying to navigate a way through the reefs and shoals of the complexities.
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in an interview in The Yorkshire Post on 8 May, the Veterans Minister, Mr Mercer, said:
“You’ve got to remember that the military is as much about families as anything else … which is why we take families welfare so seriously.”
The whole House will applaud him for that. Therefore, can I ask the Minister if she will go back to her Department and remind the Veterans Minister of his words, and together park their tanks on the Treasury lawn and insist that the Chancellor of the Exchequer do as my noble friend Lady Crawley and others have asked and resolve this problem once and for all?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord and share the sentiments of my colleague Johnny Mercer. The noble Lord is realistic in recognising that the difficulties to which I have referred are not of the MoD’s making. He gives a powerful message. I am sure it will be relayed, and I shall play my part in promoting its relaying.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I too am a vice-president of the War Widows’ Association. As a military wife I moved 24 times, so I had no chance of a career. Military wives were totally dependent on their husbands’ incomes and pensions. It was particularly distressing when the pension the husband had built up for his widow was cancelled if she remarried. With so few widows still in the frame of this cruel policy, how can the Government use retrospection as an excuse for inaction when the 2019 Northern Ireland victims’ payments Act allows payments to be made in respect of past periods?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I understand the noble Baroness’s frustration and anger and I have no wish to seek to diffuse that. All I can say is that the difficulty to which I have referred real: it is not of the MoD’s making, and the MoD is trying to find a way round it. I am not familiar with the scheme to which she refers, but I shall make inquiries about that.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough [V]
My Lords, David Cameron, under whose premiership the new rules came in, has admitted that the current situation is a mistake and was not intended. It is manifestly unjust and betrays those who have served our country. The ridiculous rule that people could rectify the situation by divorcing and then remarrying undermines the institution of marriage. Does this not make it entirely justifiable to overturn, or at least suspend, the policy to which the Minister refers?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I thank the right reverend Prelate; he too delivers a powerful message. I totally uphold the institution of marriage. He refers to an anomaly that many of us find completely unacceptable, and I can only reiterate what I have said. I undertake to ensure that his sentiments are conveyed to the department, and they will form part of our endeavour to find a solution.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
International Human Rights Day
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have (1) to participate in, and (2) to promote, the United Nations’ International Human Rights Day on Thursday 10 December.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we are marking International Human Rights Day with activities in the United Kingdom and overseas. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will have more to say on our plans later today. Tomorrow, I will be hosting an event with human rights groups. We fully support this year’s UN theme of ensuring that human rights are central to Covid-19 recovery efforts. The pandemic has exacerbated many global challenges, underscoring the need for British leadership to protect, promote and strengthen human rights. We are committed to acting as a force for good in the world.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, human rights defenders are the most effective partners for achieving sustainable human rights change. Will my noble friend ensure that support for them will now be built into all FCDO priority campaigns, and will he consider committing to a strategic approach to supporting human rights defenders, as exists for other human rights work?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend makes a very important point and I share her view that human rights defenders go across all pillars of human rights priorities. Earlier this week I had a very constructive meeting with Amnesty International on this very issue. I assure my noble friend that I am looking to our key partners in that sphere to see how we can strengthen the various human rights pillars, be it media freedom, freedom of religion, addressing gender- based violence or LGBT rights. There are so many areas where human rights defenders play a brave role in the field, and it is right that we defend them.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, today is International Human Rights Day, but not for trans people. In the United Kingdom, trans women and trans men face unrelenting organised attacks, defamation and blatant misrepresentation, which has created a climate of fear, sadly whipped up by some Members of your Lordships’ House. The attack is now on trans teenagers and their parents. Will the Minister discuss with other ministerial colleagues across government what legal protections can be afforded to trans people in the United Kingdom to allow them to live their lives without fear or harm and enjoy their human rights?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord highlights a very disturbing issue. It is right that, when we go out and defend human rights—particularly the rights of the LGBT community—we stand up for rights at home. I will certainly take those concerns forward. If he is aware of particular issues or cases, I ask him to write to both me and my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Home Office. I assure him that, as a co-chair of the Equal Rights Coalition alongside Argentina, we are sharing best practice and promoting LGBT rights equality globally. Even in countries such as Pakistan, we have seen transgender legislation being brought forward, which is encouraging for a country that is substantially challenged on a whole range of human rights.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
Does the Minister agree that it is often women and children who bear the brunt of day-to-day human rights abuses, especially during conflict? Covid has contributed to putting women in more danger of being abused and of their rights being pushed back, so it is imperative that the excellent UK work on PSVI and women, peace and security continues. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that gender issues and putting women and girls at the heart of international development—beyond just education, worthy though that is—will remain central to the work of the merged department and the decreased aid budget?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
In the interests of brevity, the short answer to my noble friend is: absolutely. PSVI and women, peace and security are central to our thinking and we have raised these issues and priorities, including ICAN support for the protection framework for women mediators. They will be central to our work in places such as Yemen, Afghanistan and South Sudan.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for what he does for human rights every day. Does he share my concern about continuing discrimination in India against Muslims, Christians and other minorities such as the Dalits and the Adivasis, and the impact that this has on India’s international status and Commonwealth profile? Is there anything that the FCDO has done or can do about this?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can confirm for the noble Earl that we raise human rights concerns across the globe. We have very constructive relations with India; in that respect, we raise our candid concerns about human rights in India. I assure him that the issue of human rights, particularly freedom of religion, is enshrined in the Indian constitution, and we continue to engage very constructively on this agenda with India.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the Minister’s commitment in this field and that of his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Does he agree that there is great value in giving young people an appreciation of the importance of human rights? To that end, would he consider relevant educational initiatives, such as including a human rights component in curriculums and encouraging schools to invite speakers with a known human rights commitment to speak to them—particularly those with personal experience of human rights violations?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. I join him in paying tribute to my predecessor in this role, who played a vital role on a whole range of human rights priorities. The noble Lord has some very practical suggestions. I assure him that I will take them back and write to my opposite number in the Department for Education to see how we could best take that forward.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will have read the concluding statements from Andy Heyn, the consul-general in Hong Kong, on the restriction on dissent that he has seen during his time there and the fundamental changes that that has brought about in Hong Kong. What chances does the Minister see for the continuation of the vital independence of the judiciary there?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness and I have had many a conversation on this issue. Of course, the instigation of the national security laws has caused great concern, including about the appointment of judges, which now sits with the Chief Executive. That is a concern. I cannot say what the future holds; that would be mere speculation. What is important is that we continuously remind the Hong Kong authorities of the importance of the independence of the judiciary.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, as we mark Human Rights Day, hundreds of political prisoners, many of them women, are incarcerated by our ally and trade partner, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. One of them is Loujain al-Hathloul, who has been in prison since 2018. As I speak, she is appearing in front of a terrorism court in Saudi Arabia. I know that the UK Government have raised the case with the Government of Saudi Arabia, but can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what answer was received and what steps will be taken next? Will Ministers use the opportunity of a new Administration in the United States to work actively to secure Ms al-Hathloul’s release and that of other activists like her?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I share my noble friend’s concern. I and my right honourable friend the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa have consistently raised the issue of human rights defenders, particularly women human rights defenders. At least five women human rights defenders remain in detention in Saudi Arabia. We raise these cases. My noble friend makes a practical suggestion; again, with a new Administration coming in, we continue to look at how we can work constructively with Saudi Arabia in raising these concerns on a regular and consistent basis.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to follow up on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on sexual violence, and the Minister’s response. The 2020 report of the UN Secretary-General found that domestic legislation in many countries meant that justice was still too often not served. What is the Minister’s department doing about that? Is it offering technical support to countries, either multilaterally or bilaterally, to address this issue?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As the Prime Minister’s representative on PSVI, this is an issue very close to my heart. I assure the noble Lord that we are looking at all elements, including technical support. As we move out of conflict, that is when the laws, regulations and constitutions of countries are created. They must be all-inclusive, which is why women mediators in particular have to be central and pivotal to that cause.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests as disclosed in the register. Does the Minister agree that the reason why this country should wholeheartedly support this United Nations international Human Rights Day is that this country’s unwritten constitution has developed the observance of the rule of law and human rights and has become increasingly critical of efforts to restrict their applicability?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
At this juncture, I have to say, I totally agree with the noble and learned Lord. We are proud of our traditions in this respect.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
On 2 December, the UN General Assembly once again neglected the human rights repression by serial abusers such as Iran, China and Russia and devoted an entire session to deriding Israel. The five resolutions voted on in that session are yet more distractions from tragedies unfolding in many countries but, unlike Canada and our other allies, the UK voted against only one of them. Does the Minister agree that it is time for the UK to stand up not just against item 7 but against oppressive regimes by introducing resolutions that condemn human rights abuses?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I totally agree with my noble friend that we need to consider and show leadership on resolutions against repressive regimes. He is right to raise the issue of the Human Rights Council and item 7. We have seen an incremental change and I feel very strongly on a personal level that resolutions, particularly those of a technical nature, need to be looked at. This is not just about creating bureaucracy; it is about creating effective change on the ground. We must hold regimes, wherever they are in the world, that are repressive towards human rights to account and make sure that the perpetrators of crimes are brought to justice.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Carbon-neutral Homes
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards (1) the target for carbon neutral homes by 2050, and (2) improving energy efficiency standards for existing buildings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
Between 2010 and 2019, UK energy consumption per household has reduced by 21 %. Through our energy company obligation, we have upgraded over 2.2 million properties since 2013, and this year we announced a £2 billion green homes grant to help up to 600,000 more homes reduce their emissions.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer and I hope he will agree that, with these things, the devil will be in the detail. For example, the Government’s ambition to install 600,000 heat pumps by 2028 is laudable, but how do they intend to incentivise owner occupiers to meet the £10,000 upfront cost of installing them in their homes? The retrofitting of homes, which is a massively significant issue, has actually stalled. Can the Minister explain why the Government believe that this has happened and say how far the £2 billion grant that he just mentioned will actually go, given that a report in 2017 to the energy efficiency group estimated that £5.2 billion would be needed every year until 2035 to get all our homes up to the EPC band C level, which at the moment 75% of our homes fail?
Lord Callanan (Con)
we are making considerable progress towards the target, but we recognise the role that energy efficiency will play in the decarbonisation of buildings. We remain committed to meeting our legally binding carbon budgets and will set out further action in the forthcoming heat and buildings strategy.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The Scottish Government have published proposals for point-of-sale standards to require all owner-occupied homes to meet a rating of EPC band C from 2024. Do the Government plan to implement the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation that all homes—not just owner-occupied ones—are at least at band C by 2028?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are constantly improving the number of homes: 34% of homes are now above EPC band C, which is up from 9% in 2009. Our various funding schemes. such as the ECO scheme and the green homes grant scheme, will all contribute towards raising those numbers.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is well aware that, since 2017, 1 million homes have been built that will need retrofitting. Yesterday, the MCS Charitable Foundation released its Energising Advice Report. It recommends having a publicly funded one-stop shop for advice to homeowners on how to retrofit their homes—something to make it easy for them. Is that sort of advice something the Government might accept?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for drawing my attention to the report, but we already have a digitally led advice service, Simple Energy Advice, which provides tailored advice to homeowners and landlords on energy performance improvements that they can make to their homes. It also signposts further funding and directs them to suitably qualified tradespeople
Lord Lilley (Con)
I draw attention to my interests in the register. Carbon-neutral homes will require a massive expansion of carbon-neutral electricity. How confident is my noble friend in the optimistic projections of the future cost of renewables and carbon capture and storage, given that most large projects—from the Channel Tunnel through nuclear electricity to HS2—feature enormous cost overruns?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I understand my noble friend’s scepticism on this, but I point him to offshore wind, the cost of which has plummeted over recent years. It is possible that we can meet the standards, but of course we have to be fully aware of the potential for cost overruns in the future.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest in the register as the CEO of the Energy Managers Association. Covid has led to millions of employees working from home, and while this would not have had a major effect during the first lockdown, due to the lack of heating, the second lockdown is of course during the winter and there has been a marked increase in the amount of gas used by people working from home and putting their heating on at times when they would not have in the past. Have the Minister and BEIS looked into the amount of carbon emissions that this has led to in the UK? Are plans afoot to allow companies to install energy efficiency measures if they are contributing to the fuel cost—as they can under the Treasury rules—so that the home becomes a place of work?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes some interesting points. I think we are all aware of the limitations of working from home, but companies should be as open and transparent as possible in their reports about the energy and emissions that they are responsible for. This includes employees who work from home.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend join me in congratulating National Energy Action on all it does on home insulation and warm homes? I have the honour to be the honorary president of National Energy Action. Is it fair that new homes are still being built using gas boilers, which will eventually be banned, given that there will be an enormous cost for the occupiers of those homes in retrofitting new boilers at some future date?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are consulting on these matters at the moment. The noble Baroness makes a very good point and I happily pay tribute to the work that National Energy Action does.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
[Inaudible]—climate change risk assessment concludes that the risks from overheating in residential and public buildings as a result of climate change are a top priority for urgent action. Can the Minister update us on progress in reducing this risk, and explain what the Government meant when the noble Baroness said on Tuesday that the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendations for the most cost-effective path for getting to net zero by 2050 are
“often a bit more ambitious than our plans”?—[Official Report, 8/12/20; col. 1109.]
Lord Callanan (Con)
I did not hear the first part of the noble Lord’s question as he was cut off. On the second part, I have not seen the remarks that he refers to, so I shall write to him on that.
Lord Grantchester (Lab) [V]
Point 7 in this scatter-gun 10-point environment plan identifies another two missing strategies: the national retrofit strategy and the fuel poverty strategy. What assessment have the Government made of the “help to fix” interest-free loan scheme proposed by the Chartered Institute of Building to deliver the future homes standard, and will the fuel poverty strategy still be forthcoming before the end of the year?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are committed to reviewing the decent homes standard for social housing around energy performance and decarbonisation. We will be consulting on further regulations for homeowners in 2021.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
In Greater Manchester, there are over 1 million homes needing energy efficiency upgrades but only about three homes are being assessed daily, so a householder who applies for a grant today is likely to face a three-month wait to get the go-ahead to start work. It will take more than a thousand years, at the current rate, to bring all Greater Manchester’s homes up to EPC level C. Does the Minister now accept that recruiting and training green home assessors, and upskilling the construction workforce, has to be his top priority, and that underpinning that has to be a decades-long investment plan to give certainty to those who are ready to invest their lives in this key endeavour?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that we need to invest further in training opportunities and upskilling. There are many jobs available in this sector and that is exactly what we are doing under the green home grant scheme. As well as grants to home- owners and the local authority delivery scheme, we are also investing in training places to bring those new jobs into fruition.
Lord Best (CB) [V]
My Lords, much of the problem of poor energy efficiency in homes is found in the private rented sector. Although the Government have launched their fund for the decarbonisation of social housing, what combination of sticks and carrots are they planning to deploy to secure decarbonisation and energy efficiency in the private rented sector?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. Our stick is that we are consulting on raising the minimum energy efficiency standards of privately rented homes, and our carrot is that landlords can apply through the green homes grant scheme to get grant aid to help them.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
Does my noble friend agree that the climate change commission’s recently published sixth carbon budget just gives further impetus to Her Majesty’s Government bringing forward more measures to accelerate the rate at which targets can be met?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Since committing in law to eradicating our contribution to climate change by 2050, we have announced a series of ambitious plans to cut emissions, including through the Prime Minister’s recent 10-point plan. We will of course consider the committee’s most recent advice carefully as we take further opportunities to cut emissions and build the low-carbon future that we all wish to see.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked and we move to the next Question.
Puberty-blocker Drugs
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Norwood Green
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the administration of puberty-blocker drugs to children under the age of 16.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government are committed to providing the best possible care for children and young people accessing gender identity services. Earlier this year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence was asked by NHS England to undertake a thorough review of the latest clinical evidence on the use of puberty suppressants and cross-sex hormones. An independent group, under the chairmanship of Dr Hilary Cass, will make recommendations about the existing clinical policies based on this evidence.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I wish to make my position clear: I am opposed to all forms of transphobia and transgender discrimination, but this should not override the rights of women as defined in law. I welcome the Minister’s statement on the guidance and the research, and I am sure he agrees with me on the importance of the NHS guidance. Does he also recognise that this needs to be ported? What actions will the Government take to ensure that local services, such as CAMHS, are sufficiently resourced to provide psychological support to all children and young people with gender-related distress?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord puts his point extremely well. I share his concern for those with trans or gender concerns of any kind. I reassure him that provision of gender identity services at all levels is an absolute priority for the NHS. In the recent court case, we have seen a clarification of the guidelines attributed to some of those services, but it in no way mitigates against or suggests a lack of commitment on the part of the NHS to such services.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that since no baby can be born in the wrong body and human sex cannot be changed post- birth, the extensive plastic surgery, castration, double mastectomies and concomitant lifetime of heavy unnatural drug use that follow the introduction of puberty blockers are not the right way to assist a troubled child to gain mental stability and a contented and healthy future?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
I reassure my noble friend that people with gender dysphoria cannot access gender reassignment surgery under the age of 18, so young people are not eligible for the type of procedure that she describes. Gender identity services are clinically led and focus on enabling the young person to choose the path which suits their needs. They support children to explore their feelings, recognising that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach. This seems an appropriate approach in the circumstances.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the court ruling that children cannot consent to treatment to suspend puberty. Will the Minister join me in saluting the bravery of Keira Bell for taking this action and echo her message that being a tomboy or not liking stereotypically girly things does not make girls or young women any less female? Crucially, will he clarify that this ruling does not undermine the 1985 Gillick judgment giving young women the legal right to reproductive healthcare without parental consent and that the false and scaremongering misinformation circulated by certain organisations, including Amnesty International and Mermaids, is driven by a particular agenda rather than a concern for trans- gender people’s rights?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, I salute the court’s thoughtful and lengthy judgment, which brought enormous clarity to an area which is very important but which has also caused concern and ambiguity. The court has made it clear that children under a certain age are not ordinarily able to make the kind of decisions that have previously been asked of them, but there are openings. No one under the age of 16 can now be referred on to puberty blockers unless a court rules that it is in the child’s best interest. These are helpful clarifications and we look forward to further work to clarify this area.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the mental health and well-being of young children and teenagers who present with gender dysphoria are paramount. Given the NHS England announcement on puberty blockers, what support are the Government giving to children and teenagers affected by the revised guidelines and their families and schools? On medical matters, will a young person under 16 concerned about gender dysphoria who approaches a GP continue to be covered by the duty of doctor-patient confidentiality?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
I reassure the noble Baroness that patient-doctor confidentiality remains paramount and is respected. To update her, the Tavistock has immediately suspended new referrals for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for under-16s. In future, they will be permitted only where a court specifically authorises it. I reassure the noble Baroness that those already on the programme will continue their medication until the review has been finalised.
Baroness Barker (LD)
The legal team that brought the recent case has, over recent years, brought several cases designed to oppose LGBT rights and to restrict the reproductive rights of women and girls. All those actions are consistent with campaigns run by organisations including the Heritage Foundation and the Alliance Defending Freedom—extreme evangelical right-wing American organisations. Will the Minister tell the House which NHS England boards and committees approved the amendment of the gender identity service specification on 1 December, prior to the court requiring them to do so, and in the light of the fact that this judgment can and will be appealed? If he does not have that information now, will he write to me?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
Well, my Lords, it is not appropriate for me to comment on those who have brought these cases, and outstanding judicial proceedings exist and are in place at the moment, so it is not possible for me to comment from the Dispatch Box in response to the noble Baroness’s remarks. All I can say is that the NHS, NICE and the Tavistock all have the interests of patients at their heart; we are not ideological about that. We are absolutely committed to the best interests of patients, and I would be glad to write to the noble Baroness to answer in any way that I can the questions she asked.
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]
Is the Minister aware that the ruling and the NHS England response to it have caused significant uncertainty and distress among young people and families currently supported by the Tavistock clinic and those on its waiting list? Can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure continuation of care for young people currently in the care of the Tavistock who are affected by the NHS England response to the court ruling?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
I am sure that the noble Baroness’s testimony is entirely right, and it concerns me that anyone has any concerns in this matter. I reassure her that the Tavistock is doing absolutely all it can to reassure current patients and those who are on the referral list; its communications have been excellent throughout. The provision of puberty-blocker services to existing patients has continued, and it will remain in close contact with those patients as the review plays out.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, I hope this is an appropriate moment to reflect on the life of Jan Morris, that glorious writer who died just over two weeks ago. She was born a man, served in the British Army, fathered four children with her beloved wife Elizabeth and then transitioned from male to female in the 1970s—a challenge she bore with extraordinary humour and patience. So perhaps I may recommend that my noble friend reads all her books in his spare time. Would he agree that Jan Morris’s example of seeing the world in glorious colours, rather than narrowly in black and white, and of always showing kindness and tolerance even to those who disagreed with, and perhaps disapproved of, her, is an example that should inspire all sides of this debate and give comfort to those, in particular children and their parents, who find themselves struggling with the same difficult situation she did?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—to be more affected by their warmth and kindness. Jan was an absolute model of warmth and kindness. Having worked in the nightclub industry, I have met, worked with and enjoyed the company of many trans people, which has always proved to be an extremely uplifting experience. I am a massive supporter of the trans movement in the round.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Prohibition on Quantitative Restrictions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 November be approved.
Relevant document: 35th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.
Jurisdiction, Judgments and Applicable Law (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 September be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Regulations laid before the House on 18 November be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I will refer to this instrument as the consequential amendments SI. Parliament has approved the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020, which will end free movement on 31 December, at the end of the transition period. The Act gives the Government full control of UK borders for the first time in decades, delivering on our promise to the British people. It represents an important milestone in paving the way for the new UK points-based immigration system, to operate from 1 January 2021.
The consequential amendments SI is the next step in ending free movement, and completes the legislative changes necessary for this historic act. It is made under the regulation-making power in Section 5 of the Act, the scope of which we and the other place debated extensively during the passage of the legislation. I was pleased to share with noble Lords an illustrative text of the SI in early September.
The SI amends primary and secondary UK legislation as a consequence of, or in connection with, the provisions in Part 1 of the Act, which end free movement and make provisions for the new status for Irish citizens. It amends legislation relating to immigration, nationality, benefits and services. It amends devolved matters where changes are required for an immigration purpose, to reflect the end of free movement.
As noble Lords will have noted, the SI is lengthy, given the breadth of amendments to domestic legislation required. The effect of the legislative changes is to align the immigration treatment of EEA citizens and their family members who are not protected by the withdrawal agreements and the UK’s implementation of these agreements, with that of non-EEA citizens under the UK’s immigration system. Once free movement has ended, newly arriving EEA citizens and their family members will be subject to the same UK immigration law as non-EEA citizens. They will need to meet the requirements of the new points-based immigration system set out in the immigration rules made under the Immigration Act 1971.
The SI provides clear protection for Irish citizens and EEA citizens and their family members who have been granted status under the EU settlement scheme. It also removes references in domestic legislation to the UK’s membership of the European Union and EU-derived law that has been retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, at the end of the transition period.
Most of the changes will come into force at 11 pm on 31 December, at the end of the transition period. There are some exceptions, which include the provision to bring EEA citizens within scope of the immigration skills charge, which came into force on 1 December to coincide with the opening of the new skilled worker route. It means that the charge will apply to EEA citizens who arrive in the UK from 1 January 2021 under this route.
Another exception consists of the various provisions that bring EEA citizens within the scope of the sham marriage and civil partnership referral and investigation scheme. They will come into force on 1 July 2021, after the deadline for applications to the EU settlement scheme, at which point it will be easier for the Anglican Church to differentiate between EEA citizens who have status under the EU settlement scheme and those who do not.
The consequential amendments SI reflects the repeal of free movement at the end of the transition period, as enacted by Parliament’s approval of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act. It makes the statute book coherent, and terminates arrangements relevant to the operation of free movement law in UK legislation, which will no longer be appropriate, while implementing our obligations under the withdrawal agreements. It is an essential step in fulfilling our promise to end free movement. I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Home Secretary is a keen proponent of the ending of free movement. One of her recent triumphant tweets coincided with articles in both the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph about how outrageous it was that British owners of second homes in an EU country would have to get a Schengen visa for stays of more than three months. I have no idea why they have only just found that out. Of course, they are blaming the nasty, punishing, perfidious EU—although that was the known situation for third countries. There was a certain bitter irony in those reports. They were a salutary reminder that free movement, and its termination, is a two-way street—a curb on the liberties of Britons as well as on those of foreigners. That seems never to have been recognised by Brexiters.
Let us remember the huge contribution that the 4 million or so EEA citizens have made to every aspect of life in the UK, from health and social care, to business, to farming and horticulture, to the arts and much more. The same goes for UK citizens living in EEA countries. I am still reeling from the utter meanness of the Government in refusing to allow UK citizens living abroad beyond March 2022 to decide whether to move back here without facing the same hurdles to family reunion as migrants. I am still amazed that this Government could so persecute their own citizens.
The 64 pages of this complex SI, which Parliament cannot amend, perfectly illustrate the justification for our opposition to the huge and broad powers that the Government gifted themselves in Clause 4 of the Bill, which became Section 5 of the Act. Our Constitution Committee rightly called them “constitutionally unacceptable”.
The SI extends the hostile environment to cover EU citizens, except those who have been granted settled status by 30 June next year. Even the horrors of the Windrush scandal failed to prompt the Government to end the hostile environment that created so much pain for those victims.
There is much concern, which I share, about the position of EU citizens who have not applied to the settlement scheme by 1 July next year. Even those who have applied for settled status but have not received a decision will on that date lose their right to a job or to rent, as well as access to services such as homelessness assistance and benefits. That is of great concern. In the other place the Minister promised a written response to some pertinent questions raised about that situation, and I regret that we do not have that in time for today’s debate.
I would therefore like to ask the Minister very specifically about the compatibility of this SI with Article 18.3 of the withdrawal agreement, in the chapter on citizens’ rights. It says:
“Pending a final decision by the competent authorities on any application … and pending a final judgment handed down in case of judicial redress sought against any rejection of such application … all rights provided for in this Part shall be deemed to apply to the applicant”.
How is this SI compatible with the withdrawal agreement, in denying rights to all those who lack status on 1 July next year?
Finally, may I ask about the right to work in the Civil Service? The Explanatory Memorandum seems to suggest that while newly arriving EEA citizens will lose that right from January, some Turkish citizens will retain it. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me if I have correctly understood that—and if I have, if she could justify why EEA citizens are second class in comparison with Turkish citizens.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, the title of this statutory instrument is quite a mouthful, even when delivered in the dulcet tones of my noble friend. It has been brought about by the UK’s exiting the European Union and therefore also leaving the free movement of people system, which prevails within the EU. This is a historic step for this country, and it is perhaps worth pausing for a moment to reflect on that. Free movement of people is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the European Union, and it is easy to see why, when devising the single market structure, it was included along with the other three. But it has always been controversial.
Interestingly enough, the person who most accurately put his finger on the problem with free movement of people is Bernie Sanders, the former self-declared socialist candidate for the US presidency. Questioned about free movement in an interview in 2005, he said that that meant
“doing away with the concept of the nation state”.
He is right, of course. The simple fact is that the world has organised itself into nation states. With nation states come borders, and with borders come border controls.
Moreover, if you are not well-off and have few skills, you welcome that. Your country is there to protect you. It is okay if you are Sir Philip Green, who appears to live mostly on a yacht off Monaco; borders do not matter to people like that. But if you are an NHS porter in Darlington, they do.
That is why it surprised many people that the Blair Labour Government bought so heavily into free movement. Noble Lords may recall that they even eschewed the seven-year transition period allowed under the rules, which other European Union countries adopted. That Labour Government also, of course, increased immigration from other non-European sources, for example by dropping the primary purpose rule and by expanding the work visa system. Net immigration, which had been steady at tens of thousands a year and not caused a problem for decades, surged to hundreds of thousands a year.
The results were devastating for some working-class communities. For instance, as Paul Embery, the Labour and trade union activist, writes in his book, Despised, the non-UK-born population of Barking and Dagenham, where he lives, increased by 205% between 2001 and 2011. Local services were overwhelmed; the demographic shifts were rapid and huge. Local papers were filled with complaints but no one listened. When a Labour supporter in Rochdale raised the question of immigration in the 2010 election, Labour’s Prime Minister simply called her a bigot—when, of course, he thought she was out of earshot. The Conservatives promised to do something, and had some initial successes in closing down bogus colleges, for example, but they appeared to run out of steam under pressure from business interests—and, of course, they could do little about European Union immigration, as much as David Cameron clearly tried.
There were two political results from this. The first has been Brexit, which has not been entirely about immigration, but I think that leave leaders would admit that the campaign could not have been won without it. One of the supreme ironies of the Brexit saga has been to listen to Labour and Liberal remainers in your Lordships’ House complaining bitterly about Brexit without understanding how much it was their doing. Secondly, there has been the collapse of support for Labour among the working class—as instanced in the last election, when they realised that, on this issue, Labour was not on their side. The party that was built to represent the working class got only 33% of its vote in 2019, while the Conservatives got 48%. What a shocking indictment of the Labour leadership that is.
It would have been better if Labour, Conservative or Liberal politicians had got a grip on the problem at an earlier stage, and better if the politicians of the European Union had been less dogmatic in their defence of free movement. Now we are closing in on a defining moment in the UK as free movement ends and we move to a new system, as my noble friend has explained, with immigration controls. One can only hope that present politicians of all strands understand the lessons of the past 20 years and listen more to the views of the British people. It is not rocket science.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, first, I endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Horam. I agree entirely with everything he said. These regulations just cross the t’s and dot the i’s of the main Immigration Bill, all very well summarised by the Minister. However, the passage of the main Bill did not allow for any serious discussion of a key element —the new points-based system—and the Government still have not found time for the House to debate the issues that this raises, despite the fact that the new system is already open for applications and will come into effect on 1 January. Therefore, I want to take this opportunity to outline very briefly some of the main and important effects.
As the House will know, the new system for work permits has three broad elements. First, it introduces lower salary and lower skills requirements; secondly, it removes any requirements first to advertise jobs in the UK; and, thirdly, it provides a new route for workers under the age of 26 at remarkably low salary rates not much higher than the national living wage. More generally, it opens the work permit system to the entire world, while excluding most low-skilled workers.
The effect of these changes will be huge. They involve opening approximately 7 million UK jobs to new or increased international competition. Meanwhile, the number of people worldwide who will meet these new requirements runs, literally, into hundreds of millions. Obviously, they will not all come, but the number who do so could be very large indeed. The obvious and sensible course would be to set a cap now, at least initially. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the new Immigration Rules about how such a cap might be introduced, so I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to comment on this when she winds up.
Finally, the Government have repeatedly promised to “control” immigration. In fact, as I have indicated, the new system is far more likely to lead to a very considerable increase in net migration. For the time being, attention is elsewhere—on Covid and Brexit—but that could well change, to the detriment of a Government who have failed to keep a key promise to an important sector of the electorate.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her explanation of these regulations, which make a series of changes that the Government describe as necessary following the ending of free movement. Those changes will come into effect at 11 pm on New Year’s Eve.
I regret and am opposed to the ending of free movement, and would like to see a debate take place in your Lordships’ House on the new points-based system. It is important that it takes place and that we fully understand the impact of that system—and the impact that it will have on our wider healthcare and business communities.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, I regret the ending of free movement. Having people come into the UK from many countries allowed our society to be enriched and more inclusive. Ending free movement ensures that that inclusivity will be dissipated, which I deeply regret.
In respect of the regulations, I have some questions for the Minister. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated in its report in August that
“very significant delegations of power … relating to ending free movement … and … relating to social security co-ordination … have potentially significant implications for EEA citizens in the UK and UK citizens in EEA countries.”
In that regard, does the Minister recognise that those provisions and these regulations will have significant impacts on our health and care services, our agri-food industry and wider business activity in the UK? Have the Government undertaken an assessment of the potential impact of the ending of free movement on our principal sectors, health and social care services, farming and the agricultural community and the various sections of business activity in the UK? Many of the workers involved in those sectors come from other EEA countries and, as a consequence, Britons going to EEA countries could face severe repercussions. Have the Government fully thought out this particular policy? Why were these regulations made according to the affirmative procedure rather than the usual draft affirmative procedure, particularly when it is not possible to amend statutory regulations?
I look forward to the Minister’s answer to those two questions and to how the Government will ensure that the NHS in particular has the human resource capacity to deal with the continued consequences of the pandemic and rollout of the vaccination programme as a result of the implementation of these regulations, which will severely reduce our workforce—but also that particular ingredient of expertise in the wider health and social care sector, among the nursing and medical professions.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear explanation, and I thank my noble friend Lord Horam for his fascinating historical perspective. I agree with all he said and all that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Green, the leading expert in this field.
The bad news is this: the country will expect this Government to bring about a significant reduction in immigration. That is, after all, what they implied they would do. But the current government plans will not bring this about. Accordingly, there is a real risk that this failure, as much of the electorate will see it, will be reflected in voter disillusion at forthcoming elections.
This is a minority view in elite circles and especially in your Lordships’ House. But time will tell. Meanwhile, we need to establish the facts, which successive Governments have proved very coy either to establish or to acknowledge. Therefore, I ask the Minister to explain how the Secretary of State plans to monitor the operation of these regulations, and the whole new points-based system, to establish quickly who is coming into the country in the various categories and from where.
Let us start with the numbers registered under the EUSS—some 4 million people, generously offered a home here under the withdrawal Act. Where in the EU have they come from, in both large and small numbers? Then add those waiting to be processed. “Processed” is probably the wrong word, but there is asylum, family reunion, arrival by boat across the channel, leave to remain, students—most of whom, I acknowledge, will return home—and other categories. What do the totals, both from the EU and elsewhere, look like, and what is the breakdown by occupation? Perhaps we could then see similar figures for those leaving the UK to get a net picture.
How up to date are the figures currently held by the Home Office? Given the huge numbers, it is vital that the Secretary of State has up-to-date figures. There is a parallel with critical movements or sales figures in a company. I remember doing home affairs at No. 10 in the 1990s, when the numbers were relatively small, and there were a lot of lags in the figures.
We are putting faith in the Government, which I support, and they have refused, to my concern, to introduce a cap or any other realistic measures of the kind proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. The flow must be tightly monitored so that changes can be introduced when the need arises. I would like evidence that the data needed is being collected, perhaps by a powerful data and economic division reporting weekly to the Secretary of State, and not by the MAC, whose main interest is the supply of labour and talent to demanding employers.
I suspect, as has been said, that Covid will slow the numbers down as there are now so few jobs on offer, even for young UK citizens. But we need to spot when that changes, as the noble Lord, Lord Green, suggests, and act fast if it becomes a problem, hence my emphasis on reliable, up-to-date numbers. I would like the data to be published, but that might take time given cultural issues in a department such as the Home Office.
The use of data by Ministers to inform immigration policy is the most important thing of all. Better statistics would also help other departments to plan the infrastructure, health, education and housing needed. Lack of planning for such services, the resulting bottlenecks and fear for their jobs are reasons many normal people dislike immigration. My noble friend Lord Horam cited a graphic example from Barking and Dagenham, and we must make sure that is not repeated.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, have withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister in the Commons said that he
“would not expect employers on 1 July suddenly to check that every member of their staff has EUSS status.” —[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 8/12/20; col. 12.]
I know someone from the EU who, several years ago, became a British national. A few days ago, she was asked by a confused and anxious HR manager to prove her status. She was, and is, understandably distressed. Her sister has been in the UK for 15 years but does not want to take British nationality. I hoped that she had applied to the settled status scheme; she had, but the Home Office keeps asking her for her reference, having repeatedly failed to give her one. Is this the legacy?
This SI renders the statute book coherent, we are told. It is coherent in a narrow, technical sense, but is it accessible? I understand free movement is about to end; I understand the Government will emphasise that the SI merely implements the recent Act; I understand this SI will become law. But we have an important task today. This is not to ignore that the inability to amend an SI means we are almost always reduced to an empty gesture, that the instrument’s sheer size presents parliamentarians with an exercise I, for one, feel incapable of fulfilling, or that it raises some considerable concerns. It is incumbent on the Government to do all they can and support others to do all they can, to ensure that people affected are clearly informed as to their position.
I do not deny that to have processed over 4 million applications is really going some. But 42% of the grants, so far, are of pre-settled status, with the difficulties and uncertainties that go with that. By definition, we do not know how many people have not applied. We can be pretty sure that the great majority of them are individuals least able to look out for themselves. Many are likely to have the most difficulty in satisfying the Home Office of their entitlement, and many are likely to be the most in need of support, by way of benefits and housing.
The Government accept there is a big communication job to be done: before the end of the transition period; in the first six months of 2021; and after 30 June. Can the Minister update us on this? I hope it is not going to be more of the same, because we know where it leads when one repeats oneself. I make the point about the different time periods because the rights that follow are different, and different again depending on the basis for the grant of status, whether residence or exercising treaty rights.
The organisations to which potential applicants are directed—and this is no criticism of them—may well have difficulty advising on which rights an individual has in his particular circumstances. There is no duty on them to direct him to where advice may be had. And there is no duty on a public body approached by an EEA national without settled status to direct him to the scheme so that he can be put in a position where that public body can respond; for instance, to deal with a benefit claim. It is no answer that this is complicated. That is precisely why it is incumbent on the Home Office to ensure accurate advice is available.
There is further scope for confusion from an apparent inconsistency between these regulations and the health regulations. I am certainly not arguing for reducing access to the NHS, but to give access to—I think—all NHS treatment but not to housing support is bewildering and illogical. We know the impact of poor housing, and especially homelessness, on health.
I have a specific request of the Home Office: a chart, made available to anyone who needs to understand who is entitled to what, setting out what the rights and protections are for those granted status, applied for at different times, and for those with and without treaty rights—every permutation. If it has already been produced, can it be made widely available?
I understand that among those one would expect to be able to advise, there is uncertainty and unease as to just what the regulations will mean in practice. I have sympathy with the Minister in the Commons, who offered to write with answers to various scenarios that were posed during the debate on Tuesday. That illustrates the complexity, and noble Lords will appreciate that any letter will arrive after the SI is in law.
Noble Lords have indicated very different views today. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, and, as my noble friend made clear, we are enthusiasts for free movement. My noble friend raised the compatibility, or otherwise, of the SI with Article 18.3. The Explanatory Memorandum published with the SI is helpful, but it can go only so far and is itself puzzling in part, to me at least. We are told that certain existing regulations are revoked
“because they omit provisions made as a contingency in the event of a no deal exit, which are no longer required”.
Is this foresight or wishful thinking? There are difficulties and concerns with the substance and with the form, but the Home Office is in a position to help with the translation.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The Explanatory Memorandum for these regulations says that their purpose is to amend or revoke a range of some 80 or so existing pieces of domestic primary and secondary legislation, using powers primarily under Section 5 of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020, which ends free movement at the end of this month. The Section 5 powers can be used to modify, by regulations, Acts of Parliament—Henry VIII powers—statutory instruments and retained EU law. Nobody could accuse the Government of being shy about using this power, which diminishes the role that Parliament can play in amending, challenging and questioning the detailed changes to the laws of this land which the Government are making in some 55 pages of amendments and schedules in these regulations.
There does not appear to be anything in these regulations that would be different depending on whether there was a deal or no deal, so all of this will have been known to the Government months ago. Why then are these regulations, all 55 pages of amendments and schedules, including involving the use of Henry VIII powers taking away rights and protections, being brought forward for approval by the Government so late in the day? I ask them in their response to give a clear assurance, on the record, that the legislative changes in these rushed regulations will work as intended and are in scope of the Section 5 power, and that further amendments, which could and should have been in these regulations, will not be needed. I will wait to see whether they give that clear assurance on the record and, if they do, whether it is caveat free.
I will raise a few specific points. Will the Government say whether all the detailed legislative changes in these regulations arise from the ending of free movement? I ask that because there is a change to the Immigration Act 1971 which widens the power to exclude people arriving from the common travel area—Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—so that exclusions on “conducive to the public good” grounds need no longer solely be on a national security ground but on a much wider basis, and also that notice of exclusion need no longer be in writing. This does not appear to be a necessary consequence of the withdrawal agreement, so why is a Henry VIII power being used here to make a non-Brexit related change, and why is the change being made?
Further, there also appears to be an amendment to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, replacing “a qualifying CTA entitlement” with
“the relevant status as an Irish citizen”.
That language suggests that the CTA covers only the UK and the Republic of Ireland, as it omits the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Will the Government comment on the significance of the wording to which I have referred?
There is also an amendment made to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Fees Order 2011, which would omit the paragraph saying that there is
“no fee payable for an appeal against a decision made under section 5(1) of the 1971 Act (a decision to make a deportation order).”
This would appear to have the possible effect of making it more costly and difficult to appeal a deportation order. Once again, this would appear to be a change being made, this time to an SI, which is unrelated to our leaving the EU and the ending of free movement. Will the Government confirm whether this is the case, and what the real purpose is behind the amendment to this particular SI? Will they also say how many, and which, of the amendments and schedules, in whole or in part, in these regulations are not directly related to our leaving the EU and the end of free movement?
The amendment to the Aliens’ Employment Act 1955 leaves EU citizens and family members with leave to enter or remain on a basis outside the EU settlement scheme—for example, as family members or as skilled workers—with restricted access to Civil Service jobs, as has already been mentioned. This issue was raised in the Commons, when the government answer was that it was right that someone who works in the Civil Service has the appropriate immigration permission for the UK. That does not answer the question, though, of why the Government are placing this restricted access on people who are lawfully resident. I would be grateful for a response from the Government to that question.
The regulations relating to changes to marriage and regarding sham marriage come into force on 1 July 2021, as the Minister said. In the Commons, the Government said that this will make it easier for those conducting legal ceremonies, since the grace period for the EU settlement scheme will have ended by then. Was this delayed coming-into-force date the result of representations to the Government, or was it a delayed date that the Government decided to introduce off their own bat? I ask that since there has been no public consultation on these regulations—apparently not even with the Law Commission—so organisations or bodies that might, for example, have been able to make a credible case for a later introduction date for some of these regulations have not been given the opportunity by the Government to do so. In reality, this was presumably because of the way these rushed regulations have been brought forward so late in the day.
Finally, what views did the devolved Administrations express on these regulations? I await the Government’s response to the questions raised in this debate.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their questions. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will forgive me—he asked so many questions that I am not sure I can get through all of them this afternoon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about the complexity of the SI—a point reiterated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The changes are required to fully implement the end of free movement by removing references to retained EU law and preferential arrangements for EEA citizens and their family members. Domestic legislation includes these references as a result of decades of membership of the EU. So the SI contains these consequential provisions; it is not a self-contained new policy, and it needs to operate on the statute book as it is now. As a result, yes, the SI is lengthy and includes amendments to a wide range of primary and secondary legislation. However, the overarching effect is simple: the SI aligns EEA citizens and their family members, except Irish citizens and those protected under the withdrawal agreement, with non-EEA citizens. This will pave the way for the points-based immigration system that will treat people on the basis of their skills and their contribution, not their nationality.
The noble Baroness talked also about the examples raised in the House of Commons. I actually did look at the Hansard of the questions raised there. I would not have wanted to reply to those questions because obviously, every single case is different and there may be elements in people’s circumstances that do not elicit a one-size-fits-all response. That also goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—if there will be a chart setting out the rights in all sorts of eventualities. I would have thought that that would be the wrong thing to do because, as I say, everyone’s case is slightly different. We have the Settlement Resolution Centre and GOV.UK, which assist people, and we have also launched a further awareness campaign so that people know their rights.
The noble Baroness also brought up the issue of over 4 million people now applying. The EU settlement scheme is clearly a system that works, given the number of people who have already applied. Yes, some have pre-settled status—that is absolutely to be expected—and there are some with full settled status as well. She asked whether the SI is compatible with Article 18(3), and I can confirm that it is. She asked about the EEA, Turkish citizens and the Civil Service, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. As he said, the SI makes changes to the Aliens’ Employment Act 1955, which will lead to changes in the Civil Service nationality rules concerning who is eligible to work in the Civil Service.
The effect is that newly arriving EEA citizens from 1 January next year will no longer be eligible to work in the Civil Service on the basis of exercising free movement rights, since we are ending free movement. But the instrument protects those EEA citizens and their family members with status under the very successful EU settlement scheme, those who would have been eligible for status at the end of the transition period but have other leave to remain granted before the end of the transition period, and Turkish nationals in specified circumstances in relation to the EC Association Agreement with Turkey. Separate provision has been made in the grace period SI, of course, to protect existing rights to work in the Civil Service during the grace period.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, questioned not only the affirmative SI process but the illustrative draft SI process. It was requested and made available ahead of Committee stage of the immigration Bill to facilitate scrutiny of the legislation, so if there is any doubt about parliamentary scrutiny, that was an opportunity for Parliament—both Houses—to scrutinise this SI.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether some of the provisions are unrelated to the end of free movement, and about the compatibility with Section 5. The power to make regulation is provided by Section 5 of the immigration Act, as he said, and that provision is to make changes appropriate as a
“consequence of, or in connection with”
the ending of free movement and provisions in the Act relating to the rights of Irish citizens, so all the provisions in the SI are made accordingly.
The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe asked about the cap. It is a very pertinent point. We have ended free movement and introduced the new points-based immigration system. It is absolutely right and fair that in the coming months and years, we look at how that all pans out. My noble friend made a point about the data, which is so important here. It will be kept under review. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, asked for a debate on the points-based system—obviously, over to noble Lords on that. These things are allowed for in your Lordships’ House, and I look forward to having a debate, perhaps in the first quarter, on how that new system is working. The resident labour market and the key sectors will be kept under very close scrutiny, and we will of course retain the ability to make any changes necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, also asked about the impact assessment on health and social care. Noble Lords will recall that back in the debates on the immigration Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked if we could publish an independent review on the impact on the sector of ending free movement, and I undertook to do that.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe asked about monitoring. She asked me not to talk about the MAC all the time, but I think it will monitor the impact of the new system. She asked for a breakdown by country and sector of who was applying to the EU settlement scheme. I do not have that at the moment, but I can look into it for her and see if we have any information to date.
I hope I have answered all noble Lords’ questions. I will have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on some of his points because I could not write them down quickly enough. On that note, I beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing. I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair will call each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to de-group an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group.
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill
Thursday 10th December 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 View all Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 144(Corr)-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (7 Dec 2020)
Lord Davies of Gower
“(8A) A person may grant a criminal conduct authorisation to authorise criminal conduct that has already been committed if the following requirements are met—(a) the conduct by or in relation to the person who is specified or described as the covert human intelligence source to whom the authorisation relates was necessary on grounds falling within subsection (5), in the view of the person granting the authorisation, to avert or mitigate a threat to the physical safety of the person specified or described as the covert human intelligence source, or to avert or mitigate a threat to the physical safety of some other person engaged in the conduct;(b) the conduct was brought to the attention of the authorising officer immediately or at the first available opportunity, by the person who is specified or described as the covert human intelligence source to whom the authorisation relates;(c) the person granting the authorisation is satisfied that the threat to the physical safety of the person specified or described as the covert human intelligence source, or a threat to some other person engaged in the conduct, could not have reasonably been averted or sufficiently mitigated by other conduct which would not have constituted crime.(8B) Subsection (8A)(c) is without prejudice to the need to take into account other matters so far as they are relevant (for example, the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998).”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con) [V]
My Lords, this amendment in my name seeks to address the current inadequacies in respect of protection afforded to undercover operatives. I apologise at the outset to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but I intend using the word “CHIS”, which I also find unsuitable—I prefer the phrase “undercover operative”, but I will refer to CHIS throughout my speech.
I seek to address the current inadequacies in respect of the protection afforded to an undercover operative when faced with a potentially life-threatening situation while engaged in an operation by inserting new subsections (8A) and (8B) into the new Section 29B of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The effect of this new insertion would be to allow authorisation in certain circumstances after the event, and I will explain the circumstances as I progress.
It seems clear to me from noble Lords’ contributions to the Committee—I say this acknowledging the many and varied concerns expressed by noble Lords in their contributions—that there is a tendency, indeed more than a tendency, to overlook the threats and dangers that these undercover operatives are faced with at crucial times during their deployment. It is that, and that alone, which I seek to call attention to and address with this amendment.
We have heard a great deal from noble and learned Lords who have considerable experience at unravelling the machinations of the criminal law, and we have, quite understandably, also heard a great deal from noble Lords who have concerns for human rights. However, little has been said that provides for the security and protection of the undercover operative, and I suggest that the operational safeguards for a CHIS are not being addressed in this Bill. We now have an opportunity to do so.
I should add at this point that I am of course very mindful of the criminal conduct authorisation requirements, which are set out in subsection (5) of new Section 29B, and the amendment recognises that. The amendment does not for one moment propose or recommend that a CHIS should be given carte blanche to commit serious crime—given a free ticket, as it were. It is intended to ensure that those who are prepared to risk themselves for the benefit of the state should be afforded the comfort of knowing that, when they embark on a particularly serious operation, they have the full support of the law behind them at the outset, given that they may be operationally forced into a situation where they are required to take a course of action to avert or mitigate a threat to their physical safety or that of some other person which results in them committing a criminal offence not previously authorised or foreseen.
It will doubtless be maintained that the law caters for and provides protection at present—we have heard during the course of the Bill that prosecutors and the courts offer a degree of protection in such situations—but I maintain that that is not good enough.
We have also heard, with good reason, during Second Reading and in Committee, of the need to respect the requirements of the Human Rights Act. I say that it should apply collectively and that we should be very clear that the legislation applies to all, and so we must demonstrate that in the Bill. To rely on a prosecutor’s decision or a judges’ disposition on a particular day, in the hope that, after the event, they will support any previously unauthorised but necessary and vital action by an undercover operative taken to protect him or herself, or another, is just unacceptable to my mind.
Having managed quite a number of successful CHIS operations in my 32 years as a front-line detective, I have seen at first hand informants, agents and undercover operatives place themselves at incredible risk. While I do not doubt for one moment that the view of those currently at the head of organisations responsible for conducting such operations has been sought and will have perhaps influenced the course of the Bill, that does not alter the reality of the situation for the operative on the ground when challenged with the protection of life.
Unlike many policing procedures and operations that can be fine-tuned, undercover operations can be very unpredictable, to say the least. These operations present themselves in a variety of ways. It may be the activity of a drug-related gang—perhaps so-called county lines gang activity, where, sadly, juveniles are invariably involved as couriers; it may be an imminent threat of harm during a kidnap scenario requiring an instantaneous response; it could be an armed gang involved in robberies on high-profile celebrities while at home with their families; or it could just be a straightforward test purchase scenario that takes an ugly turn in order to test the veracity of the CHIS. These are not hypothetical cases: they are real-life scenarios that I can vouch for. Frankly, the list is endless. However, one thing is for sure: these organised criminals are, in the main, extremely violent people, often under the influence of extremely dangerous drugs which render them devoid of any sense of responsibility or fear.
My concern is that we should not tie the hands of undercover operatives. We should not allow them to undertake these extremely dangerous, often life-threatening roles with one hand tied behind their backs, in the sense that they fear prosecution if they follow a particular course of unanticipated action in order to protect life or prevent serious harm. They should not have the sword of Damocles hanging over them.
Of course, undercover operatives will be briefed and tasked; they will know what is before them, as well as can be expected on the available intelligence. However, once in theatre, as it were, they are on their own. Yes, there will be back-up not too far away, but this will not be instantaneous and will not allow for the situation where a CHIS, whether part of the criminal gang or a deployed undercover operative, may be put to an immediate test of their genuineness by organised criminals through circumstances that were not foreseen or allowed for in the planning, briefing and authorising stages.
Organised criminals are not, in the main, rational-thinking people. I can think of many scenarios, such as a test purchase, whereby an undercover operative is forced to partake in a class-A substance as proof of being genuine and, in the ugliest of scenarios, perhaps has a knife pressed to his or her body, with unthinkable consequences, for failing to surrender to the test. Surely, in situations such as that, where the CHIS must retain his or her credibility, they must be afforded support in the Bill. The operative should not have to rely on the good will of a prosecutor or the court. On the one hand, we are seeking in the Bill to legitimise criminal activity, yet, on the other, failing after the event to acknowledge and support the actions of a CHIS in life-threatening situations. There could be, say, an ambush attack from a rival gang, during which the undercover operative must take some immediate and previously unauthorised action to avert or mitigate a threat to life. The scenarios are endless and allowance should be made in the Bill for such eventualities in order to provide protection through law for CHIS. The question as to who authorises such previously unauthorised action is perhaps a matter for further consideration. I accept fully that that decision may rest with a person other than the initial authorising officer.
It is therefore my belief that human rights and our obligation to provide a duty of care would be properly served by the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief. In earlier consideration of the Bill, the House has been concerned with prior authorisation—I repeat, prior. I do not resile for a moment from the importance of prior authorisation and I hope that we will have the opportunity to consider it in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, who has considerable experience in these matters, raises a narrow point relating to post-authorisation for the protection of officers. I should be interested in the Minister’s reply. My understanding is that the noble Lord seeks to deal with threats to the physical safety of the persons named in the amendment in narrow and possibly important circumstances. Its thrust, while dealing with another aspect, is in the spirit of your Lordships’ consideration of authorisation—in this case post, as opposed to prior, authorisation. Hence, my understanding is that he seeks to plug a possible gap by urging upon noble Lords the need for a statutory requirement for speedy, post-hoc authorisation in certain circumstances.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, how likely is such a situation to arise? Secondly, can we properly be told whether such situations have arisen in the past? In the circumstances, while I pay tribute to the noble Lord for raising this matter, I should like to hear the Minister’s reply on the need for the amendment and its practicalities.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who has great experience of these issues, spoke about our having thus far overlooked the dangers faced by undercover operatives. Little has been said about operational safeguards. Indeed, perhaps I may take this opportunity to mention that I was contacted by a noble friend this morning who emphasised the bravery of undercover operatives, who place themselves at considerable risk in many such situations.
The amendment highlights the limitations of the whole idea of granting pre-event immunity from prosecution within what the Government variously describe as criminal conduct authorisations that are tightly bound, specific, tightly drawn and within strict parameters. What the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has described is all too possible: that a CHIS—whether a highly trained agent, an undercover police officer or a 16 year-old child informant—encounters a situation that, even if foreseen as a possibility, the handler and authorising officer felt unable to authorise and grant immunity for in advance.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, seeks to amend the Bill to allow for a criminal conduct organisation to retrospectively authorise action if it was to save someone from harm. Clearly, the noble Lord speaks with considerable knowledge and experience from his time as a serving police officer. I have great respect for the work that he has done in the past, and I pay tribute to those brave officers whom the noble Lord referred to, who every day put themselves at risk of considerable harm to protect us and keep us safe, and who also work to turn people so that they become informants. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, the whole question of child CHISs has been discussed, and we will return to it on Report. These are very serious issues.
So I see the point that the noble Lord is making, but we should not use this Bill, when it becomes law, to retrospectively authorise conduct. That would not be right. I see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made, but on previous conduct we have a position now, and that must be the position going forward. I do not see this Bill being used for what the noble Lord seeks to do. I hope that the Minister when he responds will set out the Government’s thinking on this. I hope he will say that they do not support the amendment as it stands, because it would not be the right thing to do, but will set out carefully how the Government will address this issue in the future
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Davies has called for the Bill to enable an authorising officer retrospectively to authorise conduct in certain situations. The noble Lord referred to his experiences in the field, as it were, and it will have been obvious to all noble Lords that he drew on a considerable wealth of practical wisdom which informed his thoughtful contribution to this debate.
We on this side thank him also for his thoughtful engagement with the Minister in the other place on this matter. However, while I understand the concerns behind this amendment, it is not the intention of the Bill to allow any retrospective authorisations. All criminal conduct authorisations are granted by an experienced authorising officer, who will scrutinise each authorisation to ensure that it has strict parameters, that it is necessary and proportionate to the threat it seeks to disrupt and that the criminality authorised is at the lowest level possible to achieve the aims of the operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and other noble Lords asked for an outline of the Government’s position. It is clear that this must be a matter of balancing. We consider that, by allowing retrospective authorisations, we remove the ability of the authorising officer to scrutinise the criminal conduct before it takes place, or we remove from the centre of our consideration that advance consideration. While I share the sentiment that we would not want undercover operatives to be placed in difficult positions simply for acting in the public interest, none the less, one of the key components in the present arrangement is control. The authorising officer must have confidence that proper thought has been given to the consequences of the authorisation, and we do not believe that an after-the-fact analysis, when the activities were not under the control of the public authority, should be retrospectively authorised where an authorisation has such an important legal effect.
As now, in the rare situation described here, authorities will make their assessment of the public interest in relation to the actions of the CHIS, the undercover operative, and rely upon prosecutorial—and, ultimately, judicial—discretion, which is no small thing, if I may draw on my own experience and set it against the experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, proposing this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others who have spoken. I repeat that it is a matter of balance of important considerations. We consider it important—indeed, essential—to emphasise that illegal criminal conduct should be authorised in advance of any actions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, sought to explore two questions in particular: how likely a situation is to arise where conduct would be sought to be justified retrospectively, and how often has it arisen in practice? To address those matters, it is appropriate to refer again to the code of practice, which has been a matter of discussion before your Lordships earlier in Committee. Referring to the code of practice, which has the force of law, your Lordships will see that while criminal conduct authorisations must be specific in nature and contain clear parameters, they will not be granted in terms that are too narrow. I refer your Lordships to chapter 7 of the code of conduct in that regard. As to how often these matters have been raised in the past, I cannot provide the noble and learned Lord with specifics on the matter, but I will undertake to explore the matter with him in writing.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, presented a highly specific example, drawn no doubt from his experience in the field, in the same way that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, drew on his. There is a sense that such a very specific example itself allows us to emphasise the need for discretion in the matter, to acknowledge that the situations in which CHISs will be exposed to danger are very broad and to allow me to reply with a degree of confidence that the very breadth of the situations which may possibly be encountered is such as to necessitate the anticipatory use of the authorisations we seek to put in place.
I say further that, in the course of preparation of the Bill, the matter was discussed with operational partners who would control and handle the operation of such persons in the field. They have told us that they are content that the approach which we seek to take is the correct one.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate and am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, for the points he made. As he says, it is a narrow but very important issue. I am grateful to the Minister for responding to that. I accept that it is a matter of balance, but I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who speaks with authority on this matter and has great experience of such issues. For the time being, I am content with the Minister’s response. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 57. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate. I should inform the House that, if Amendment 57 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 58.
Amendment 57
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is tabled to discuss the extent to which the operation of criminal conduct authorisations can be amended by regulation.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 57, I will also speak to Amendment 74.
These two probing amendments are designed to explore how the Government plan to use their regulatory powers in the Bill. I am informed on this because I am the chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. Along with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—chaired by my noble friend Lord Blencathra—my committee has been concerned by the increasing use of skeleton Bills, where only the broadest frameworks are set out in primary legislation and all the practical details are left to regulation.
As a result, Parliament too often has only a general idea of what it may be approving when it passes the primary legislation. The Government may—they probably will—argue that all regulations have to be approved by Parliament, but Members of your Lordships’ House are well aware of the weakness of the scrutiny of regulations, which is that they are unamendable. The House is left with only what I call the nuclear option of complete rejection. Unsurprisingly, in these circumstances, neither House has felt able to press the button, except in the most exceptional circumstances.
Our two committees—my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s and mine—have written to Jacob Rees-Mogg, as Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, to express our concern and make suggestions for improvement. Let me take an example from earlier debates in Committee. My noble friend the Minister and other noble Lords—notably my noble friend Lord King and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew—referred Members to the revised code of practice as providing a reassurance against bad behaviour in the operation of CCAs. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, urged every Member of the Committee to read through the code. I followed the noble Lord’s advice and read it, all 73 pages of it. I agree that, at least to my untutored and inexperienced eye, it appears extensive and comprehensive, but its weakness is that it is made by regulation—in this case, Section 71 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. So its contents depend on ministerial policy decisions and can be changed, at any time, by the tabling of an unamendable regulation.
I do not doubt for a moment the good intentions of my noble friends on the Front Bench, nor the good intentions of the Front Benches of the other parties in this House or the other place, but none of them will be in their seat for ever. Amendment 57 is designed to explore the risk of what I described in my remarks at Second Reading as “mission creep”, or, more specifically, how wide the room for manoeuvre is for a future Secretary of State using the powers available under Clause 1(5)(10) on page 3 of the Bill.
I pose three simple questions for my noble friend the Minister to answer when he replies. First, can the Secretary of State, under this clause, add to or remove bodies from the list of relevant authorities given on page 4 of the Bill? Secondly, is there any limit to the changes that the Secretary of State may make, under this clause, to the authorisation levels for CCAs, given in annexes A and B of the draft revised code of practice? This issue has been raised on a number of occasions, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. Thirdly, is there any limit to the changes that the Secretary of State may make to the purposes for which a CCA is sought? That was a discussion on Amendment 22. In particular, what is meant by “impose requirements” in line 13? That issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Before I finish, I turn briefly to Amendment 74. This poses the same questions for Scotland as Amendment 57 does for the rest of the United Kingdom, but there is one additional point of concern: whether, as a result of two systems existing, what is known as forum shopping can take place. Historically, in cases involving extradition, prosecuting authorities were in the habit of surveying the legal options open to them and picking the route, courts and jurisdiction that, on past experience and record, were most likely to give them a favourable result. As I see it, the two CHIS systems begin in identical form but, over time, can and probably must be expected to diverge. How far that will be is impossible to predict now, but the possibility of forum shopping emerges. Can my noble friend comment on the interchangeability of CCAs granted under Scottish law being used in the rest of the United Kingdom, and vice versa? I beg to move Amendment 57.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord decided to probe these two provisions. I have seen the correspondence published by the three committees. I was struck when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, in responding to the previous group, referred to the code of practice having the force of law. I do not dispute that, but it is of course law that can be changed by government Ministers without coming to Parliament.
The point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about forum shopping is interesting. As he said, I have asked for assistance on the meaning of some terms during the passage of the Bill. I questioned what is envisaged by the terms “conduct” and “requirements”. I read both to restrict, rather than expand, the scope of what may be done. I would be grateful to have that confirmed or, if not, to understand why not. In short, we should not be expanding opportunities for criminal conduct authorisations without, at the very least, understanding exactly what we are doing.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
First, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, well in his campaign against skeleton Bills, as that issue is getting worse, not better.
The Bill provides that the Secretary of State may, by order, prohibit the authorisation of certain conduct and impose extra requirements that must be satisfied before an authorisation can be given. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, Amendments 57 and 74, in his name, would remove those provisions and, as he confirmed, their purpose is to probe the extent to which the operation of criminal conduct authorisations can be amended by regulation.
Earlier in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, stated that the order-making provisions in the Bill
“allow for additional requirements to be imposed before a criminal conduct authorisation may be granted, or for the authorisation of certain conduct to be prohibited.”
He continued:
“I assure the Committee that they can only be used to further strengthen the safeguards that are attached to the use of criminal conduct authorisations. They could not be used to remove any of the existing safeguards ... The requirements that can be imposed under these powers concern matters of practicality and detail, and therefore it is appropriate that they are contained in secondary legislation.”—[Official Report, 1/12/20; col. 676.]
When the noble and learned Lord said that the order-making powers could not be used to remove any of the existing safeguards, did the Government mean that the wording in the Bill would make it contrary to law to do that, or did they mean only that the intention was not to use the order-making powers to remove any of the existing safeguards? That, of course, is a very different thing, as intentions can change.
No doubt in their response the Government will address that point and give specific examples of the purposes or intentions for which these order-making powers to prohibit the authorisation of certain conduct and impose extra requirements that must be satisfied before an authorisation can be given would—and, equally, would not—be used by the Secretary of State.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, these amendments have been tabled to discuss the extent to which the operation of criminal conduct authorisations can be amended by regulation.
As I set out in response to the amendments to the order-making powers tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, there are good reasons why these powers have been included. I do not wish to repeat the detail of what was said on group 7 of the amendments, other than to highlight again that the provisions have been drafted to resemble closely the terms of Section 29 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which provides the underlying authorisation for CHIS use and conduct.
To answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I repeat what I said earlier and provide the Committee with reassurance that these powers could be used only to impose further safeguards and not to remove them. That point was raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts posed the question of whether the Secretary of State can add bodies to, or remove them from, the list of authorising bodies. The addition of bodies can be accomplished only through the affirmative procedure. The changes to the bodies listed will reflect changes over time in investigative functions and the threats that the country faces. The rank of authorising officers is set by secondary legislation and will be dealt with in line with Section 29 authorisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, posed the question of whether the terms of the provision are such as to make it impossible for the powers to be extended rather than removed, or whether that is merely the intention of the Government. He correctly remarked on the fact that the persons occupying posts will change from time to time. As I see it, the legislation will not simply rely on the intention of the Government but will have force beyond that. I think that I also addressed the matter when answering the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She focused on the meaning of the words “conduct” and “requirements”. I am able to confirm that her understanding was correct. Indeed, as a consequence of what I have said, the interpretation of those words restricts, and does not permit addition to, the provisions in the Bill.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]
I am grateful to all who have participated in this short debate and to my noble and learned friend for his answer. I thought that my first question would be a ball of easy length that he would smite over the boundary, saying that nothing could be added to the list of authorised bodies. I discover that actually the situation is worse than I thought, in the sense that apparently, via regulation, bodies can be added. That seems quite a serious point.
I understand the point about secondary legislation, and it is good to hear that the powers are restrictive, not expansionary.
I did not hear anything about forum shopping. Can my noble and learned friend enlighten the Committee about forum shopping between the Scottish system and the systems in the rest of the UK?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I beg the Committee’s pardon for that. I had intended to reply to my noble friend on that point.
The risk of forum shopping must always be considered a live one. It is the inevitable consequence of the existence of separate systems of criminal law in the adjoining jurisdictions. On his real and appropriate concern that this disagreeable practice should not be permitted, given the existence of different systems in the adjoining jurisdictions, there must be constant vigilance to see to it that that does not happen. That constant vigilance will be required of those in each system over time to prevent this practice taking place. I hope that that allays my noble friend’s appropriate concern about this matter.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]
I am grateful for that. We have vigilance, not legislation, as regards forum shopping, and that was certainly an issue that bedevilled our record, and the records of other countries, in extradition proceedings in another era.
I said that these are probing amendments, and they are. I just wanted to test the ground and am grateful to those who have helped me to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 63. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate. I should inform the Committee that if Amendment 63 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 64 to 69.
Clause 2: Authorities to be capable of authorising criminal conduct
Amendment 63
Lord Paddick
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would restrict the authorities that can grant criminal conduct authorisations to police forces, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and the intelligence services.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 63, 65 and 80, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, in this group. They attempt to get to grips with the plethora of organisations that the Bill seeks to authorise to grant criminal conduct authorisations. I remind noble Lords that this is to grant legal immunity to covert human intelligence sources, informants or agents, and authorise them to commit acts that, under any other circumstances, would be a crime, but because these public authorities have said so, they are no longer crimes.
Unlike existing legislation that limits legal immunity to agents of the state engaged in property interference, intrusive surveillance, equipment interference and interception—all exclusively targeted on the most serious criminals and only with prior approval given by an investigative powers commissioner and often a Secretary of State—this Bill seeks to give public authorities the power to grant immunity to anyone, often criminals, for almost any crime that can be imagined with no prior authorisation outside their own organisation. One would hope that the number of public authorities would therefore be extremely limited, and that evidence would be produced to justify their inclusion.
I am taken back to a recent statutory instrument—the Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2020—which added to the list of public authorities that can access communications data; that is, who contacted whom, from where, and when, but not the content of the communication. In the overall scheme of things, it is fairly low-level data. The Home Office had agreed to include more public authorities on the basis of detailed business cases submitted by each authority.
When I asked to see the business cases, I was told that I could, although the Home Office arranged for me to see them only 45 minutes before the statutory instrument was due to be approved on the Floor of the House. Will the Minister allow Members of this House to see the business cases that form the basis of the Home Office deciding which public authorities should be allowed to grant criminal conduct authorities, preferably not 45 minutes before we consider this issue on Report?
Our Amendment 63 would limit those public authorities that can grant CCAs to the police, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and the intelligence services, as it appears to us to be self-evident why these organisations may need to grant authority to agents or informants to commit crime. The other public authorities require justification, hence my request that noble Lords be able to see the business case justifying each of the other public authorities, albeit redacted and viewed in private.
Our Amendment 65 specifically singles out the Home Office, although it might be seen as a typical example—an example of a type of public authority—for further scrutiny. On the face of it, it sounds that, in theory, if not in practice, the Home Secretary could authorise a criminal to commit a crime and give that criminal legal immunity, whether directly or by ordering one of her officials to do so on her behalf. Giving power to politicians to authorise criminals to commit crime and to be able to grant those criminals immunity from prosecution, with no prior independent oversight, raises some worrying spectres.
Our Amendment 80 is consequential. At this stage, I will listen carefully to the concerns of other noble Lords and to the response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has spoken with great clarity and authority on the amendments in this group. I will speak to the human rights perspective of Amendment 63 as set out in the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report on the legislative scrutiny of the Bill. Chapter 6 is concerned with public authorities granted power to authorise crime, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Paragraph 75 of the report states:
“We accept that the authorisation of criminal conduct by the security and intelligence services and the police may on occasion be necessary … However, the Bill proposes granting the power to make CCAs … to a substantially wider range of public authorities”.
That concerns us. It goes on:
“This provision of the Bill, coupled with the ability to authorise criminal conduct in the interests of preventing disorder and preserving economic well-being … extends the power to authorise criminal conduct well beyond the core area of national security and serious crime.”
There are two key questions here from a human rights perspective. As the report states,
“the first key question is whether the exceptional power to authorise crimes to be committed without redress is truly necessary for each and every one of these public authorities. The second key question is whether the benefit of granting that power would be proportionate to the human rights interferences that are likely to result.”
The Government have provided little justification for the authorisation of criminal conduct by such bodies as the Gambling Commission, the Food Standards Agency and others. The Home Office published brief guidance and a series of operational case studies, which provide examples of authorisation by CHIS in the cases of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and other hypothetical examples of where CAAs might be used by the Environment Agency and the Food Standards Agency.
The question must be asked as to why the police or other bodies focused on the prevention of crime should not take full responsibility for authorising criminal conduct that may fall within the purview of these organisations. We are all aware that the police, in carrying out their responsibilities, have vast networks of agencies whom they consult in the course of their duties. They know whom to consult for specific issue as and when such consultation is needed. It is inappropriate and irrelevant to name other specific agencies, whose role is not protecting national security and fighting serious crime.
One of the witnesses to the inquiry carried out by the Joint Committee on Human Rights said:
“If the government believes it is necessary for each of these bodies to have the power to grant authorisations, it should be explicit about whether those bodies already possess non-binding ‘powers’ to authorise the commission of crimes and provide more detail as to how, and how often, those powers are used. In the absence of such an account, there is no reason to accept that all of those bodies require the powers the Bill would give them.”
No such detail is supplied by the Government. It is therefore impossible to assess how agencies whose primary function is not serious crime or national security can, or indeed would want to, be involved formally in granting CCAs. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 63. I very much agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and my noble friend Lady Massey, so I shall be brief.
Like my noble friend, I speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It seems to me that authorisation that goes beyond the police, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and the intelligence services is a step too far. There has to be clear indication by the Government as to why such authorisations are necessary; so far, that indication has not been forthcoming. The list of agencies covered by this provision is so wide—not just Customs and Excise, the Environment Agency, the Food Standards Agency and many other bodies. There is no justification for extending the provisions of the Bill to that extent.
I am very concerned about one other matter. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights noted, under Section 35 of RIPA, the Secretary of State will have the power to make an order adding other public authorities to the list of those permitted to authorise covert criminal conduct. I accept that this power has been used sparingly in the past, but—[Inaudible.]—if additional authorities that have little or no relationship to those permitted to make CCAs—[Inaudible.]—regulatory oversight.
In a previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, indicated that using subordinate legislation to extend powers was going rather too far, and it applies in this instance as well. Surely, it is bad enough having a list of these bodies that—[Inaudible]—but adding to them in the future by a parliamentary process that allows for very limited scrutiny. We all know that subordinate legislation can go through, we cannot amend it and it is—[Inaudible]—because of our relationship with the Commons; therefore, this is potentially an abuse of power. For all those reasons, I support Amendment 63.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to this as a potential abuse of power and, although I am entirely convinced that that is the last thing in Ministers’ minds, I say nevertheless: be careful what you wish for. I am very troubled by this section of the Bill, which is why I put down three amendments—Amendments 64, 66 and 69—to delete from the list of bodies authorised the Department of Health and Social Care, the Competition and Markets Authority, the Environment Agency, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Food Standards Agency and the Gambling Commission. However, putting those down as probing amendments, I became increasingly convinced that I had not gone far enough, so I say unequivocally that I prefer the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which he introduced a few minutes ago.
This is a troubling Bill. I think that there has been a universal acceptance across your Lordships’ House, because it is the paramount duty of any Government to protect the state and those who live in it, of the need for, and the unavoidable necessity of, the Bill. However, it goes too far. We had a very interesting and challenging series of debates a week ago today, when we talked about whether certain crimes should be on a list of prohibited crimes. We also talked about authorising children—those under the age of 18.
Both those aspects of the Bill troubled me, and I have put amendments down, but this also troubles me: giving almost a carte blanche to a whole range of bodies, some of which are not concerned with the most heinous crimes or with the ultimate protection of the state and citizens. I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept that these are very important and valid points. We certainly will need to come back on Report, and I would like to consult the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others on precisely which amendments we go for.
There are two developments in modern legislation that trouble me, as I know they trouble the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, more than anything else: the proliferation of Henry VIII clauses and of the granting of almost unlimited powers to Ministers of the Crown, as well as what I call the “Christmas tree Bill”—of which this Bill has some aspects. Having been persuaded that legislation was necessary, and I understand why that was so, the Government have said, “We’ll give as many people as possible as much permission as possible to do what they like, and we will give a particular power”—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, underlined this graphically—“to the Home Office”. Therefore, power is ultimately given to a party politician whose motives, I am sure, would always be pure in his or her eyes, but it would not necessarily be conducive to enhancing public confidence in the machinery of government. All these issues are touched on in this clause.
We must be very wary of what power we give and to whom we give it. Although we have said before—and I do not for a moment resile from it—that some of the agents, of whom the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, spoke movingly a couple of weeks ago, are among the bravest of the brave, there are others who swim in murky waters and have a criminal background. It is not sufficient for the Food Standards Agency or the Environment Agency to say, “We’ll employ a thief to catch a thief”—because that is what it could come down to.
I urge my noble friend, who is due to reply, to take these points as serious points that require the most careful examination before and during Report stage. I am very grateful for the letter I received this morning from my noble friend, inviting discussions and co-operation; she has a very good track record in that regard and is an exceptionally conscientious Minister. Of course, we are not talking about current Ministers here; we are talking about giving an extended power for an indefinite period, whatever the complexion or orientation of the Government.
I strongly support the improvement on my amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I hope we can, on Report, ensure that this Bill is sufficiently trimmed down and that the right number of baubles are removed from the Christmas tree so that we have something in which we can all have a degree of confidence.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend, and I associate myself with the comments made previously by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who spoke so powerfully, in introducing his Amendment 63. As he said, Clause 2 breaks new ground, giving powers to grant legal immunity and to authorise agents to commit acts that otherwise would be criminal to these other bodies that we have before us this afternoon, which can say that such acts are not to be considered criminal offences.
I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Cormack. I was hugely moved by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who paid such justified tribute to those who work in the services that are largely contained in new Part A1 inserted by Clause 2. No one can take away from the risks that they run and the huge efforts they have made on our behalf to keep us all safe, not least those of us working in Parliament and public life; we are extremely grateful for that.
On reflection, as my noble friend Lord Cormack has said, I prefer Amendment 63 but would like to speak to the amendments I have tabled for the purposes of debate today: Amendments 67 and 68 and to oppose the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. I have absolutely no argument that the bodies listed in categories A1 to E1 of new Part A1—any police force, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, any of the intelligence services and any of Her Majesty’s forces—should not automatically be considered for preferment and allowed to fall under the provisions of this Bill. I assume that that was primarily what was in mind when the Bill was initially drafted.
I thank the Minister for the offer to meet; that would be extremely useful before we get to Report. On a number of occasions I was heavily involved, both as a local MP and as chair of the EFRA Select Committee next door, with rural crime. It grieves me greatly that many of these rural crimes are simply not taken as seriously as crimes that occur in towns, market towns or cities, such as London and other major cities in the UK. I am talking specifically of very serious rural crimes with a very heavy criminal content of organised gangs. I pay tribute to the work the Environment Agency has done in this regard by installing covert cameras and trying to solicit as much information and intelligence as it can. With the cost now of disposing of building waste and other hazardous waste, it is becoming extremely attractive to dispose of it on rural property, often privately owned. It is a public duty to remove this waste if on a highway or byway, but the cost of removing it to a private landowner is never considered and it is very difficult for them to resist this type of activity.
The other activity in which I was involved was taking evidence, particularly from the Food Standards Agency, on the passing off of horsemeat as beef and other meat. This is an ongoing activity. I pay tribute to Professor Elliott and others who have been heavily involved. I also pay tribute to the Food Standards Agency, and others agencies, which continues, as do local authorities—both environmental health officers and trading standards officers—to keep safe the food that we eat and ensure that, whatever we purchase, it is what it says it is on the tin or label. This is potentially a multi-million-pound fraud.
I have a simple question for the Minister: why are we seeking to extend the provisions of the Bill, in the terms set out by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in Amendment 63, to grant immunity from prosecution to bodies such as the Environment Agency and the Food Standards Agency? It would be perfectly proper for this action to be taken by any police force or the Serious Fraud Office. There was a problem with horsegate—the passing off of horsemeat as beef. I think it was the City of London Police fraud office that was asked to intervene, because no other body was deemed fit to have the wherewithal and capability to deal with that fraud.
I share the unease and anxiety of others who have spoken in the debate this afternoon. We are perhaps inviting unintended consequences and being a hostage to fortune by opening up to criminal activity those acting as authorising agents for CHIS to act on their behalf in bodies such as the Environment Agency and the Food Standards Agency. I would like to understand more the grounds for including these bodies and what activities will be covered.
To continue the theme, I am also deeply concerned that, in amending the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to provide the exercise of these new powers to authorise criminal conduct falling within the statutory oversight duties of the investigatory powers provision, the secondary legislation that will be required will contain all the information and detail on the specific rank of officeholders within the bodies I have referred to who would be permitted to grant criminal conduct authorisation for the first time. I am very uneasy that this is not on the face of the Bill and that the detail will be provided in subsequent secondary legislation, albeit coming in very short order. I would much prefer that this is not included in such Henry VIII clauses in regulations; it should be in the Bill.
I support the main thrust of the provisions of the Bill, without a shadow of a doubt. However, I query many of the bodies included in the broader Clause (2) —in particular the Environment Agency and the Foods Standards Agency, which I have mentioned—and the fact that we are leaving so much to be decided at a later date; that concerns me greatly. I look forward to reassurance from my noble friend. These are intended as probing amendments.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is my great honour and pleasure to join the debate. I wish to speak to Amendment 70, which seeks to constrain ministerial discretion to amend the list of relevant authorities.
We all know that, as time goes by, Ministers and Governments are tempted to expand the list of regulators. In this case, they would be tempted to expand the list of relevant authorities contained in the Bill. How would they do that? They could bring about primary legislation and allow Parliament sufficient time to scrutinise it, or they could have a rushed amendment through a statutory instrument. I do not favour the second choice.
I am a relative newcomer to the House, but a little amount of research has shown me that, in the last few years, the Government have made considerable use of statutory instruments to rush through legislation, often with little time or detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Statutory instruments can vary in length and breadth. As my noble friend Lord Cunningham of Felling noted on 10 January 2019 in the official record, one statutory instrument was 636 pages long and weighed 2.54 kilos.
The increased length of secondary legislation has not been accompanied by commensurate increase in the time and resources available to Parliament. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in its report published on 20 February 2019, expressed considerable concern about the extensive use of secondary legislation and argued that it prevents Parliament effectively fulfilling its scrutiny function. The participants in such debates often receive little briefing to help them prepare for the debate beyond the standard explanatory memorandum provided with the draft secondary legislation. This is often at very short notice. The impact assessments which have accompanied some of these statutory instruments have been deficient.
On 22 May 2019, in the other place, the Shadow Chancellor pointed out, at Hansard col. 6, that statutory instruments often contain “deficiencies, ambiguities and errors” which cannot be properly scrutinised by a rushed passage through Parliament. The deficient parliamentary process in turn leads to more statutory instruments to correct previous errors, and thus an overload is created.
The use of statutory instruments diminishes parliamentary powers to scrutinise the Government and their legislation. During the debate on the present CHIS Bill, many noble Lords have indicated their unease at the daunting list of relevant authorities contained in the Bill and their possible scrutiny and public accountability. There have been concerns about the use of children and vulnerable people who may be used and then discarded, left alone with their families to face private nightmares, flashbacks and mental health problems. Noble Lords have raised concerns about the rule of law, the rights of negatively affected individuals, human rights, and much more. Any future amendment to the list of relevant authorities will raise the same issues again. Such matters cannot be dealt with through statutory instruments and minimal parliamentary debates. They require public consultation, primary legislation, full debate and scrutiny by Parliament, which forces Ministers to justify their policies and practices. For these reasons, I urge the House to support my amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow all those who have spoken in this group. The size of the group and the number of speakers are indicative of the seriousness with which the length of the list of agencies is viewed by Members of the House. I thank the Minister for her fortitude and patience on this fourth day in Committee on this important Bill, and for her letter earlier today inviting Members of the House to further briefings.
I repeat that she has made the case for the value of putting this kind of policy on a statutory footing, and I do not think anyone is really disagreeing with that in principle. The problem is that the detail of the Bill, by accident or design, creates a real constitutional over- reach with a grave risk of what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, called unintentional consequences. That is not to impute the Government with bad motives in this respect but it is to be really concerned about the unintended consequences of the overreach contained in various components of the Bill, in part because it grafts a criminal conduct regime on to what was previously just a surveillance regime, with no extra safeguards to speak of in terms of authorisation; in part because it creates no statutory limits on the types of offences that might be authorised; and of course in part because of this very long list of agencies that do very different work.
Ultimately, I say that the real overreach which makes that combination of challenges particularly problematic is that what is at stake is that the status quo, whereby an authorisation leads to a public interest defence—in practice, almost a presumption that the person authorised would not be prosecuted—will be replaced with total landmark immunity, lawful for all purposes, civil and criminal. That is what makes the list of agencies and the ability to amend it by Henry VIII powers so very grave and ripe for abuse well into the future by a Government of any stripe, whether, as I say, by accident or design.
I ask the Minister to reflect on whether Amendment 63, which is my favourite in this group, can be considered for adoption by the Government. I ask the Government to reflect and adopt some constitutional humility rather than overreach, and to accept that we are genuinely trying to help to improve this legislation so that it can do what it needs to, which is to put criminal conduct on an open, accessible, primary legislative footing, but not create the graver dangers of abuse well into the future.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I echo her thanks to the Minister for her offer of a briefing. I support Amendments 67 and 70. On Amendment 67, I have little to add to the clear exposition by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. This is a really intrusive provision, and the criterion of economic well-being, to which it seems to be related, is too loose to be safe as far as the liberty of a citizen goes. The authorising officer is not even a relevant professional; it is the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority.
On Amendment 70, my noble friend Lord Sikka has covered the ground most persuasively. I simply add my voice to the alarm, echoing the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, that such procedures, which are important to democracy and to liberty, should be capable of amendment only by statutory instrument outside the full parliamentary powers of scrutiny.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, although I am afraid I do not take exactly the same approach as she has on this matter; in fact, I oppose the amendments. I understand that for many people they are probing amendments, and many might take a different view when the Minister has explained some of the background to them more fully.
I am reacting slightly to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The noble Lord’s speech introducing this group of amendments might have given some people listening the impression that something very new is being launched, but with his own background and personal experience he knows that we are talking about a well-established practice—the use of covert sources—which, as we know, has been a vital source of information in the prevention of much crime and terrorism in our history. We are not introducing something new here but putting an established practice on a statutory basis and putting in place a much tougher regime for its operation, one that has to be voted on by Parliament, which of course was not the previous situation.
The issue of additional authorised bodies is spoken about as though this is some huge expansion, when it is my understanding—the Minister may be able to confirm this—that it is actually a reduction in the number of bodies that can apply to use the covert-intelligence-source approach. It is not new; each of the bodies listed has previously shown an operational requirement and has been using it in practice to some great benefit for the country. Here I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick said, and which others have echoed, which is an appreciation of the Minister’s email to me—and maybe her letter to others who are more present on the scene—regarding what can be advanced as evidence of where this has been valuable to the organisations concerned.
The suggestion following on from that is that we do not really need all these bodies to be involved and that we should just give it all to the police. As I understand it, in many of these cases the introduction of a covert intelligence source in a particular area of responsibility, whether it be the Environment Agency or the Department of Health and Social Care, may often be to try to find out what is happening in the first place. That is not at a stage where you are producing masses of evidence of something that can be handed straight over to the police; it is about trying to assess whether there is some real threat or danger in these areas.
Many have cited the importance of a code of practice. I think there is general recognition that it is a pretty strong document. It is a huge improvement on what did not exist before, and it has to be voted on by Parliament, so we will have to approve its coming into operation. It will of course be binding on all parties.
The reason why I have taken part in these debates in Committee is that at present we are living in an exceptionally dangerous world. I have previously quoted the evidence from the Minister, James Brokenshire, on the amount of crime of very different sorts that one year’s covert intelligence had helped with. I see that included in that was the fact that no fewer than 27 different terrorist attacks were prevented by covert intelligence in the last three years.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord King, whose experience I respect and whom it is a pleasure to follow, I have no objection in principle to the issue of criminal conduct authorisations by bodies, other than the police and agencies, that are engaged in the investigation of serious crime. That, I would suggest, should, however, be on three conditions: that those bodies have demonstrated a real need for that power; that they are properly trained to use it; and that there are sufficient safeguards against its unnecessary or heavy-handed use.
Before coming to those conditions, may I make two practical points in favour of granting these powers to those whose investigations make them necessary? First, if such bodies are already running CHIS, there is a strong argument for continuity of control. I have made in other contexts the point that the decision to issue a criminal conduct authorisation is very much part and parcel of the CHIS tasking exercise, and best taken in the knowledge that only prolonged contact can bring of the nature of the investigation and the personalities and risks involved. Yes, one could require the police to be brought in to grant the authorisation, but the involvement of a second authorising body risks a dilution of that experience and is no guarantee of better decision-making.
Secondly—this point arises from contact I have had with those whose job it is to inspect the use of the powers on the ground—it might be rash to assume that a request to the police to issue an authorisation on behalf of, let us say, the Food Standards Agency or the Gambling Commission would necessarily be allocated the resources or progressed with the urgency that might be required. That would be regrettable, but questions of priorities do arise when one organisation is asked, effectively, to do a favour for another.
Turning to my conditions, the first is that each of these bodies should have demonstrated a real need. I shall listen with great interest to the Minister, but I do understand the difficulties in explaining that sensitive topic in a public forum. Accordingly, it seems to me that this is one of the questions that might usefully be the subject of an independent classified review by some respected person such as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, whose conclusions could be presented to Parliament.
That is a procedure for which there are precedents in the national security field. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and I have each proposed it in previous debates on this Bill, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has written to Ministers about it in some detail. If, as I assume, this Bill may not reach Report stage until the new year, it may still not be too late for this to happen; perhaps the Minister could comment. Today’s offer of meetings with major users of the power is welcome, but not, I think, a substitute.
The second condition relates to training. There is plainly a need to mitigate any risk that bodies that use these powers only rarely will tend not to use them wisely, or in accordance with accepted current practice. So I assume that those designated as handlers, controllers and authorising officers in the other authorising bodies will be trained alongside their police equivalents. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that this is the case, and confirm also that they will not be excluded from elements of that training that could at least arguably be relevant to the exercise of their functions. This was an issue that I encountered in another context during my investigatory powers review A Question of Trust.
The third condition relates to safeguards. I have been left in no doubt by Ministers that the Government have set themselves firmly against prior independent authorisation, for reasons that I have myself described as understandable. In that context, I am grateful to the Minister for her indication last Tuesday that the Government are open to discussions on the concept of real-time notification of CCAs to judicial commissioners. The real-time element is crucial, because it is clear in this field that prevention of abuse, where possible, is always going to be easier than cure.
I hope that in the Minister’s response today, or at any rate as part of those welcome discussions, we will be assured that less frequent users, in particular, will be required where possible to pre-consult with a judicial commissioner. There is a precedent for this under the Investigatory Powers Act in the power to submit proposed novel or contentious uses of other covert powers to IPCO for guidance. Such a requirement would help ensure that any uncertainties are resolved, and that any authorisation that may subsequently be issued by those bodies is consistent with best practice.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 63, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and other amendments in this group seek to draw attention to the range of organisations that will be given powers to grant criminal conduct authorisations to individuals involved in criminal conduct. There is a list of organisations on page 4 of the Bill, and I found it surprisingly long. Perhaps I just did not know how many organisations were involved in this activity.
Could the Minister tell the House how many organisations are currently involved in intelligence and providing authorisations after the event, and also set out for us why they in particular need those powers? Some colleagues have argued that these should be matters just for the police and the security services—that they should have the powers and other organisations should come to them for approval and authorisation. On the face of it, that could seem quite a sensible way forward.
For example, why do the Gambling Commission and the Environment Agency need these powers? There may well be very obvious and sensible reasons why they do, but it is important that those reasons are set out clearly. Initially, restricting the list could appear attractive, because these are serious powers, and we want to ensure that people are exercising them properly.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, expressed views held across the whole House about the concern here. We need to take on board, whatever the House decides in the end, that there is concern about the use of these powers, and they must only ever be used proportionately and by a minimum number of organisations.
My noble friend Lord Sikka drew the attention of the House to another point, and other noble Lords mentioned it as well. It is not due to this Minister, or to this or any other Government, but the risk that we run when we grant powers is that they are given to Governments of the future as well. Things can change. We might like the Minister who is in position today, or whoever has a particular position, but they will not always be in that position. We are granting powers to a potential range of Governments in future—and why are they necessary?
Then there is the whole question of statutory instruments. I have regularly attended debates on them, and it is quite frustrating the limited amount of power that we have as a Parliament, or as the House of Lords, to deal with them. There are many times when you want to vote them down, but you do not because you recognise that the fatal Motion is not often the way to do things. So you are limited as to what you can do—that is a fair point.
We need a very detailed response from the Minister, explaining why these organisations in particular need these powers, whether there are others, and why the Government need the power to extend that further under the limited provision of a statutory instrument, and not through primary legislation.
I accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, makes: people need to be kept safe in this country and lots of organisations are doing very difficult and dangerous things. No one is against that. Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, made the point about the real need for training and safeguards. That seems sensible to me; if any organisation is to have these powers, you have to be confident that it will use them properly, proportionately and effectively.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. There are a number of areas to cover here for the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. To echo the words of my noble friend Lord King, we live in a very dangerous world. I made the point last time that 27 terrorist attacks have been prevented in the last three years.
I absolutely appreciate that it might not be immediately obvious why some public authorities require this power. Again, I urge noble Lords to read the case studies that have been published to reassure themselves about the contexts in which they might seek to use the power. Alongside law enforcement and the intelligence services, some of our wider public authorities have important responsibilities for investigating and preventing criminal activity and protecting the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. We should not underestimate the important role that these public authorities play in keeping the public safe.
To answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I am happy to share business cases with him and other noble Lords, should they wish me to do so—I promise that I shall not give him only 45 minutes to read them.
I think that noble Lords have fully accepted that there will be occasions where undercover operatives play a critical role in providing the intelligence needed to identify and prevent criminality. As organised crime groups increasingly expand into areas overseen by those public authorities, the need for that robust investigative tool is more important than ever.
My noble friend Lord King made a very important point: the list is not an expansion but in fact a reduction. The information about how many organisations have been taken off the list has not appeared, but I can get that number for noble Lords, if it is to hand, before Report.
To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, the officers in the public authorities are experts in their fields and are best placed to take appropriate and proportionate action to tackle the harms caused by criminal groups operating in the areas that they regulate. To answer his other point, they will have received specific training, which reflects the specialist remit in which they operate. I note that having the capability to carry out their investigative work themselves allows the police to focus on their priorities, as my noble friend Lord King and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, noted.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to conclude the debate on this group of amendments.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her words and I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate.
I do not think that the Minister addressed the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, from the human rights perspective. What justification is there for public authorities to grant CCAs where it is difficult to see such CCAs being proportionate to the crimes that they seek to address? Authorising an undercover operative to commit a crime is very serious and needs to be proportionate to the harm that it seeks to address. Obviously, it will help when we see the business cases; I am very pleased that the Minister has agreed that we can look at them.
Can public authorities be added by statutory instrument? The Minister said that it will be via the affirmative procedure. I have already given the example of where authorities were added to those that could access communications data and the House was not able to properly scrutinise that statutory instrument because we were not given access to the business cases until the last minute. If that repeats itself, we will not be able to scrutinise adequately the addition of public authorities by statutory instrument.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, talked about being very troubled and the Bill going too far, which leads us on to the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater; I look forward to the jousting between the noble Lord and myself on these sorts of issues. The noble Lord said that I gave the impression that there was something very new in what is being discussed here and that it was a well-established practice. If only he were right. The point is that the granting of legal immunity to people who are being authorised to commit crime is a completely new scenario that no public authority in the past has been able to do—except the Crown Prosecution Service, after the event. I accept that this is a very dangerous world, as the Minister started her remarks with, and that 27 terrorist attacks have been prevented as a result of actions—but not, I would humbly suggest, by the actions of the Gambling Commission or the Food Standards Agency.
The Minister talked about the horsemeat scandal and how it had the potential to undermine public confidence in the food supply. How can getting a CHIS to commit a crime be proportionate to addressing an undermining of confidence, in the human rights sense of proportionality? She talked about the Home Office and the power being specifically required for Immigration Enforcement—so why not, on the face of the Bill, authorise Immigration Enforcement within the Home Office, rather than the Home Office in its entirety? In the communications data statutory instrument, which authorises public authorities to access communications data, the Military Police, not the Armed Forces generally, is authorised. Why not authorise just Immigration Enforcement and not the Home Office?
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked: why not call in the police to deal with criminality that these other public authorities have responsibility for? The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, gave some very good reasons why that might be the case, such as that it might not be high on the list of police priorities. But that then comes back again to the question of necessity. He felt that they needed to demonstrate a need—we will look to see whether these agencies have demonstrated the need when we look at the business cases—and that training was essential; he was hoping that it would be alongside police colleagues, but the Minister did not seem to think that that would be the case. He raised this other interesting issue about the fact that, if these agencies do not use this power very much—that is, if they are not exercising it—they will need to be trained more frequently because they are not used to using it. This raises more concerns, in my mind, about these other agencies. The noble Lord also talked about safeguards, as we have discussed in other parts of the Bill.
Clearly we will return to this issue on Report. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we come to the group beginning with Amendment 75A. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
“(4B) Where the Investigatory Powers Commissioner becomes aware of any potentially unlawful or improper conduct undertaken in connection with a criminal conduct authorisation, which is not authorised by the criminal conduct authorisation, the Commissioner must refer the matter to the police for investigation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a requirement for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to refer potentially unlawful or improper conduct undertaken through a criminal conduct authorisation to the police for investigation.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I am afraid I am going to disappoint a lot of noble Lords for whom I have huge respect, but I am afraid I do not think this Bill is necessary. That is not to say that the old system was good, because it clearly was not, but this Bill is worse. It could have been better, but it is not, so I would like to see it scrapped. However, in the meantime, our job in your Lordships’ House is to try to improve it and to get the Government to listen and understand why they are improvements.
In the previous group, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, talked about overreach. That is part of the problem I have with this Bill, but it is not the only part. As some noble Lords have said, it is a dangerous world and we have to do what we can to keep people safe, which is all very true—and all the examples the Minister gave of how to use these powers are very reasonable. However, at some point, we have to ask ourselves, “What are we prepared to lose to keep ourselves completely safe?” In the previous group, the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, talked about liberty and democracy, and those are some of the things we are losing with this Bill. It is an erosion. Your Lordships’ House is very concerned about the erosion of democracy —about more and more powers going into statutory instruments.
The two amendments I have tabled require that unlawful conduct that goes beyond the criminal conduct authorisation, or that should not have been authorised in the first place, be reported to the police or a relevant oversight body—for example, the Independent Office for Police Conduct. My Amendments 75A and 75B reveal a deafening silence in the Bill about what happens when something goes wrong. I hope the Minister can explain that to us. What happens when an authorisation is granted that clearly should not have been? What happens if somebody goes beyond their authorisation and commits additional criminal offences? Amendment 75A would require that the authorising authority refer to the police any criminal conduct that was not authorised. Amendment 75B would require “unlawful or improperly granted” criminal conduct authorisations to be referred to the relevant oversight body—for example, the IOPC.
This is a gaping hole in the Bill: we are talking about state-authorised crime, and the police and other government authorities must not be complicit in criminality that goes beyond the legal authorisation in this Bill. Otherwise, it creates an additional quasi-authorisation where handlers can just sweep things under the carpet when it is dangerous to admit they have done them. They can pretend they did not happen. I hope the Minister will recognise these gaps in the Bill and work to address them on Report.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, once more, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who has brought so much to the scrutiny of this Bill. What I want to say about her amendment is: why not? Why not improve the Bill by providing for greater clarity and specificity about the process that would be employed when things go wrong? In life, in all institutions, whatever the good intentions, sometimes things go wrong. It is our duty as legislators to be clear about what the process would be in those circumstances. Once more, her amendments and the review proposed in Amendment 79 by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are no-brainers. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about why there should not be greater clarity and specificity about safeguards.
It is also a pleasure to precede the noble Lord, Lord King. Since he is about to follow me, I want to address some remarks to him and the Minister. He spoke incredibly eloquently in the last group about the dangerous nature of our world in these times and incredibly passionately, and eloquently, once again, about all the terrible terrorist and serious criminal plots that have been foiled with the use of covert human intelligence sources—by undercover operatives and agents. With respect, however, the noble Lord, Lord King, seemed to conflate three very distinct propositions that we cannot afford to conflate when discussing this precise legislation.
The first is the concept of using covert human intelligence sources, which I think we all agree have to be used; it is the use of such sources that has presumably helped to foil all those terrible plots and keep us as safe as we can be. There is no such thing as a risk-free society but, of course, we want to be as safe as we can be. That is the first concept: using undercover operatives at all. We all agree that sometimes has to happen.
The second concept is authorising those undercover operatives to commit crimes. The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, will have to accept that is a further step and is not to be conflated with authorising an agent to go undercover. To authorise him or her to commit criminal offences is, perhaps, a necessary evil to keep their cover, but it is, none the less, a further evil that is a challenge to the rule of law. I agree with him that that already happens, and the suggestion is that should be put on a statutory footing. I will give him that.
However, the third concept that he completely elided with the previous two is that of granting an undercover agent of the state—who may be from the terrorist community but turned, or from the criminal community but supposedly turned—total immunity from civil liability and criminal prosecution. To send them into those situations with an advance immunity that even uniformed police officers and soldiers do not have is what is new in this legislation. That is why the legislation is causing such grave concern. It is not just the status quo on a statutory footing; it is going further. That is the challenge, not just to the rule of law but to the safety of our communities—that anybody, let alone a civilian who may be from the criminal fraternity, should be given this kind of licence or golden ticket to commit crime with immunity. I would be grateful to hear from the very distinguished noble Lord, Lord King, and the Minister on that. The status quo would just be that they had a public interest defence, which is a very strong presumption against prosecution. That is the current system; why should it not be replicated in this Bill?
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for drawing attention to the points I made, and I am sorry if I sounded too aggressive on some of them. The point I did not make, which I shall make now, is on how much crime is committed. One would expect that, in most cases, it would not be the commission of crime so much as association with people while they committed crimes, with the person in question not necessarily being directly involved but having some complicity, which is one of the problems.
The requirements, as I understand them, if they are in that situation and a criminal conduct authorisation is issued, are that it has to be proportionate, it may not be issued if what is sought to be achieved can be done in another way, and it has to be part of an effort to prevent more serious criminality. Those three conditions are perhaps not mentioned very much but are important.
I have left out some issues that I might have discussed. We have just talked about possibly leaving the Department of Health and Social Care out of the Bill. Think of this moment when organised crime, throughout the world, is seeing how it can get into the vaccines business in one way or another. The challenge that that will pose will feature in our news broadcasts and papers in the days ahead. It will obviously be a big issue. One recalls that the NHS was practically brought to a grinding halt from its systems being hacked and disrupted.
There is this, as well, if it is not too dramatic. At the time of Brexit, when we may be moving towards no deal, there is an idea to take from HMRC its ability to keep every possible assistance. In trying to deal with some of the problems it will have, it will need all the help it can get.
My concern about these amendments, and referral to the police or judges to overview the operations of CCAs, is that a clear structure is set up. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner is a very senior judge and the judicial commissioners are very senior. My concern all the way along is that nobody has challenged how vital covert intelligence sources can be, in a range of different fields. The question is whether we can still keep those covert sources coming. The more we expand the range of people who have access to that information, the bigger the danger of leaks, and then there will be fewer sources available in the future. That is why I think the structure set up of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and his judicial commissioners, with a tribunal and an annual report to Parliament on its operations, has important safeguards. Going much further than that starts to undermine the security of the information and imperil the safety of some brave people, who are giving evidence to help keep our country safe, in a range of different fields.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, with whom I completely agree on maintaining the status quo on the involvement of covert human intelligence sources and the ability of the police and security services to authorise these people to engage in crime. I have no argument with him on those issues. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, the issue for us is the police granting immunity from prosecution or from any legal action at all.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have Amendment 79, but I will take the amendments in this group in order. Amendment 75A from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is intended to require the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to identify unlawful or improper conduct through a CCA to the police for investigation. I have a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve, but I am not sure that her amendment achieves what she sets out to.
The amendment talks about conduct that is not authorised by the criminal conduct authorisation, but we are also concerned with conduct that is unlawful or improper that is authorised by a CCA, by accident, inexperience or corrupt practice. This does not appear to be covered by the amendment. Of course, if it is the result of police malpractice, referring the matter to the police may not be enough to ensure that it is properly dealt with.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Two amendments in this group stipulate the action that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must take on becoming aware of unlawful or inappropriate conduct linked to a criminal conduct authorisation, or on becoming aware of an inappropriately granted or unlawful criminal conduct authorisation. I will listen with interest to the Government’s response to these two amendments.
A third amendment requires a review within six months by a High Court judge that would consider the grant of criminal conduct authorisations in relation to children or vulnerable people, the conduct of covert human intelligence sources, the oversight and monitoring of, and reporting on, such conduct, the oversight of persons allowed to authorise criminal conduct authorisations, and the sanctions available if they misuse those powers.
Under the terms of the Bill, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has the power to conduct investigations, inspections and audits, but would not appear—I will listen to what the Government say in response—to have the capacity to investigate every time a criminal conduct authorisation is used. The Commissioner also covers the use of the power to grant criminal conduct authorisations in the annual report, which must also be laid before Parliament but which may be redacted. Of course, we do not know how much the annual report will reveal in practice. As an annual report, it will be reporting a long time after any particular issues with criminal conduct authorisations may have arisen.
It is surely important to have as much transparency as possible in how, and in what kind of circumstances, covert human intelligence sources and criminal conduct authorisations are used and granted, since the powers and activities provided for in this Bill are considerable and potentially wide ranging. They have to be applied appropriately, and the greater the transparency that is possible, the more likely that is to be the case and the greater the public confidence in how the powers are being deployed, and with what objectives in mind.
The review referred to in Amendment 79, which would be laid before Parliament, would be one way of contributing to that transparency and ensuring public confidence. If the Government are not going to accept the amendment, I hope that in response they will indicate a willingness to look further at the powers, duties and role of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to ensure that transparency in how and in what circumstances the powers given in the Bill are exercised is maximised as far as possible. I await the Government’s response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would not expect me to respond to the case that he brought before the House this afternoon, but I would be happy to sit down and discuss it with him, if he would like. I think what he wants from Amendment 79 is to require a review of all criminal conduct authorisations to be undertaken by a High Court judge, with the review to be commenced six months after the Act has come into force.
The IPC, supported by judicial commissioners, already has oversight of all criminal conduct authorisations. He and his judicial commissioners have all held high judicial office and are entirely independent of the Government. The commissioners are supported by expert inspectors and others, such as technical experts, who are qualified to assist them in their work. They are responsible for inspecting the full range of agencies and departments that will use this power and will ensure that they are complying with the law and following good practice. This includes investigating systems and processes, checking records and paperwork, interviewing key staff and investigating any known errors.
The frequency of these inspections is decided by the Commissioner, and the inspectors must have unfettered access to documents and information to support the Commissioner’s functions. This allows inspectors to undertake thorough and robust investigations of each police authority’s use of the power, covering the entire chain of events and decision-making.
A report is issued after each inspection that sets out IPCO’s conclusions and recommendations and identifies any areas of vulnerability or non-compliance. It also identifies areas of good practice which may be of interest to other similar organisations. The report will enable organisations to take action on the basis of IPCO’s recommendations. This process provides for systemic review of all public authorities’ use of the power and allows for continuous improvement in the authorisation and management of the capability.
Amendments 75A and 75B seek to put obligations on the IPC to report conduct to other bodies. Criminal conduct authorisations will be subject to the existing error-reporting processes for investigatory powers, which require public authorities to report all relevant errors to the IPC. This would include situations where undercover operatives’ conduct has taken place without lawful authorisation or there has been a failure to adhere to the necessary safeguards. Where it amounts to a serious error, the IPC must inform the person of an error relating to them where it is in the public interest.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, used an interesting phrase, “necessary evil”. I wonder how many necessary evils it takes to get an overload of evil, which is not a phrase that I use often. However, particularly in relation to the current “spy cops” inquiry, we know that evil things have taken place under the old system. I therefore have no doubt that it would be better to have a different system, but it is not this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord King, said that if this matter could be dealt with in a different way—that is, by not giving consent for criminal behaviour—then it would be. However, in my experience, that does not necessarily happen because people become tired; they are human and feel fractious. They want to do something in the quickest way, which is not always the best option. For example, the use of tasers in the UK used to be rare but now that they have been rolled out further, their use has increased exponentially. That has nothing to with the greater number of tasers: it is because police officers no longer have to negotiate with people who are wielding knives or going through mental health problems. They can just taser them. It is not always true that if something can be done in a better way, it therefore is.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that authorised action was also a problem and I very much agree. I have only met undercover police spies who were whistleblowers—knowingly, that is. They were incredibly brave and well-motivated in their job. However, they found it overwhelmingly difficult and saw or did things that they felt that they should not have been doing or been involved with. I do not make a blanket criticism of people who act as undercover police spies. However, while we need to protect them, we also need to protect ourselves, the general public and the rule of law.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also asked: who do we believe? That is a problem. It is possible to believe every word that the Minister said in defence of the greater controls already in the Bill. However, I am influenced by the fact that I have seen such controls flouted. I come, therefore, from a different, untrusting point of view. People do not always act honourably and play by the book. My two amendments, or Amendment 79, which I also support, would, therefore, be a good idea.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in his usual calm and collected way, asked for further information. I look forward to him putting pressure on the Government to explain themselves more fully.
I will check Hansard but I am sure that I will still have concerns. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 75C. I remind noble Lords that anybody wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 75C
(i) information on the number and types of criminal conduct authorisations requested and the number granted;(ii) whether these authorisations produced any operational benefits;(iii) any material damage or civilian harm incurred as a result of acts authorised”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the adequacy of information provided to Parliament on criminal conduct authorisations, and to probe how the efficacy of these authorisations will be evaluated.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]
My Lords, with this last group, the horse is heading for the stable. If I talk for too long, I shall probably be talking to myself alone. I shall therefore cut to the chase but would, before my remarks on the amendment, add my thanks to the ministerial team for its tolerance and patience. I am also grateful to it for the email I received today inviting me to engage in further detail about how the Bill will operate.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who has just spoken, imposed duties on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner when he becomes aware of unlawful or improper conduct. My amendment imposes different requirements on him—in this case, what he must include in his published reports, particularly the annual report. The amendment touches on some of the issues that underlie Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but comes at them rather differently.
During earlier stages of Committee, many amendments were discussed that sought to rebalance the powers proposed in the Bill to ensure that the IPC is notified of any CCAs, that victims could bring complaints to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, and that prosecutors are left with discretion to bring cases when it is in the public interest to do so. Despite those debates, there are a couple of gaps in what we have discussed so far.
First, our discussions to date place the onus on the victim to alert the regulatory bodies of any mistakes or wrongdoing. Even within the UK, some victims may not be aware of the avenues open to them for redress. However, when the misconduct takes place overseas—an issue I raised in earlier debates—the chances of a victim being able to bring a case must surely be vanishingly small and unlikely. Apart from anything else, the victim would have no way of knowing that the conduct complained about was authorised under this CHIS Bill. Further, they would not know that they needed to bring their case to one of the CHIS-authorising bodies in the UK and that the victim’s own regulatory system would have no role to play. Secondly, in our discussions so far, there has been little emphasis on the value of post-authorisation evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of the CHIS CCA system.
My amendment therefore imposes a duty on the IPC to include in his or her report an impact assessment on, first, the number of CCAs requested and granted; secondly, the operational benefits that have resulted; and, thirdly and finally, an assessment of the damage or harm, particularly to individuals, that occurred as a result of those CCAs that were granted.
Noble Lords’ email boxes will testify that this Bill is an area of considerable public interest and concern, and perhaps I may give the House a brief personal example. About 10 or so years ago, I had an extremely efficient and competent PA who worked with me at my office in the City. She was the daughter of an Iranian diplomat, and her whole family had been forced to flee that country when the Shah was dethroned. Happily for her, she met a man she fell in love with, got married and had a family. I, sadly, lost a very good PA, but that is not really the point. We have kept in occasional touch, and the CHIS Bill has touched a very raw nerve. She explained to me in some detail that it is very similar to legislation introduced in Iran, with the best of intentions, that was gradually corrupted and perverted. I am not—repeat, not—suggesting that we face an Iran-like situation, but I argue that, to reassure my ex-PA and others like her that the original purposes of the legislation still hold good and that it is proving effective, a degree of public transparency and sunshine would be very helpful.
My noble friend may argue that the Intelligence and Security Committee will provide the necessary reassurance. Well, yes and no. I do not for a moment doubt that the ISC is made up of a fine body of Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place and that they will do their very best, but even they can be warned off and frustrated in their inquiries. For example, in its inquiry into the Belhaj and al-Saadi families—who, your Lordships will recall, were rendered by MI6 agents to the Gaddafi regime—the ISC was refused access to key witnesses, so its investigation was largely stymied.
To conclude, in one of our debates on Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that transparency influences conduct, and I agree. Amendment 75C proposes that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner should be required to provide a measured level of public reassurance available to a wider audience than just the ISC in the reports produced, and I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, not for the first time in consideration of this Bill in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Ashley Abbots, comes to your Lordships’ House with an excellent amendment, a very good idea and an even better speech, which I cannot improve on. Transparency does influence conduct, and the information that he suggests ought to be included in reports speaks to common sense. We ought to know on a regular basis the number and nature of criminal conduct authorisations issued under the new legislation, the operational benefits that have been obtained from those authorisations and, crucially, the kind of damage to property and people—the incidental harm—that has come about as a result of those criminal conduct authorisations.
I do not want to labour the point—it has been a long Committee—but I want to have one final attempt at putting a question to the Minister to which I do not think I have yet heard the answer. This is my last opportunity to put this in Committee before we go forward to Report.
Why is it necessary to go further than the status quo in the scheme for this legislation? Why cannot undercover operatives, whether they are highly trained police or MI5 officers, or whether they are—and perhaps they are in greater number—members of the civilian community, including the criminal community, just be subject to the current law, which is that when they are authorised to do this work, including with criminal conduct, they will know that their conduct will be second-guessed after the fact? They currently have the ultimate incentive —and we have the ultimate safeguard—to behave proportionately and as well as possible, which is that they might, just possibly, if they over-step the mark, be subject to legal sanction after the event. That is the law that applies to uniformed police officers and people driving police cars and ambulances at high speed, with a very strong public interest defence. It is probably a presumption against prosecution, but it is that tiny risk of being judged after the fact that makes most people behave well according to the criminal law. Why should that be replaced with a total, advance and blanket immunity from prosecution and civil liability? Why quite go so far and therefore cause some of the greatest concerns that have been excited by this legislation?
I hope that the Minister will not mind me putting that fundamental, simple question one more time. I look forward to her answer, and indeed to our further work at the next stage of the Bill’s passage.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the horse will be out of the stable again in January: refreshed, I hope. I am sure that the Minister will welcome the pause after the marathon she has had to undergo. I am not for a moment suggesting she is anything like a horse—I am sorry, perhaps I should not have followed that simile.
My noble friend Lord Paddick recently spoke to Amendment 79, and it is clear that several noble Lords have concerns in this area, so we will come back to it. Noble Lords clearly agree on the importance of evaluating what goes on and of transparency, as has already been mentioned. However, I cannot help thinking in the context of the precise formulation of this amendment of what the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, talked about a week or two ago, to which my noble friend referred: the problem of the extent to which one can report in detail without endangering those who are protecting us and whom we, in turn, do not wish to endanger. I cannot help thinking that if a lot of the material listed in Amendment 75C were to be published, an awful lot of it might be redacted. However, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in spirit, and I think that his last point about material damage or civilian harm is an important one that we must not lose sight of. We still need to explore how best and to what extent we can achieve what is obviously troubling a number of us.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The purpose of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, is described as being to probe the adequacy of information provided to Parliament on criminal conduct authorisations and to probe the efficacy of the authorisations.
I think that this comes back to the issue of transparency. To be a little more particular, will we be told in advance, during the passage of the Bill, precisely what kind of information about criminal conduct authorisations will be provided to us and to the public by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner in the annual report or other reports? At the moment, I am not clear about what information will be provided and what it will cover, and whether it will give us a feel for what is happening over criminal conduct authorisations or whether we will be told that the information provided will be limited and that, on grounds of security, it cannot be disclosed.
I hope that, at least in their response either to this amendment or on Report, the Government will be prepared to spell out what information will and will not be provided so that we all know where we stand on this issue.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the points they have made. To take the penultimate point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I hope that I can provide some of that clarity this afternoon.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson is interested in the information that will be included in the IPC’s annual report. The commissioner has a very clear mandate to inform Parliament and the public about the use of investigatory powers. He must provide a report to the Prime Minister, which the Prime Minister must publish and lay before Parliament. The Investigatory Powers Act already sets out, in detail, what should be included in that report, and I refer my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to Section 234(2).
I reassure my noble friend that there is already a requirement for the report to include statistics on the use of the power and information about the results of such use, including its impact. The report is therefore extensive but, as would be expected for such sensitive information, safeguards are in place to ensure that that information is protected where necessary. In consultation with the commissioner, the Prime Minister may exclude from publication information which could, for example, be prejudicial to national security. However, public authorities will receive this information and will respond to recommendations made by the IPC.
Turning to a matter that has nothing to do with the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, asked: why go further than the status quo? The status quo is that there is legal uncertainty around undercover operatives, and this Bill creates that legal certainty.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this short debate and, in particular, I thank my noble friend for her very helpful reply.
Just to deal with a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I was not expecting there to be a detailed crawl through every single CCA. Clearly, that would be inappropriate, but an overview would be appropriate because, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out, we do not want a situation where we have no information or too much information. We come back to the issue that has been at the back of many of our conversations during Committee: how do we find the right balance between ensuring that those who look after our safety are protected and ensuring that there is a sufficiency of transparency so that they feel the pressure to behave properly at all times.
I will read very carefully what my noble friend said about what is already proposed and what is already in legislation. I said that this was a probing amendment and therefore, for the time being at least, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Well, yesterday’s Statement already seems an age away as we now contemplate a no-deal exit with even bigger threats to our economy and to Northern Ireland’s by the introduction of tariffs on our food and consumables, and a big hit to our exports as they face charges and bureaucracy that for some could spell disaster. We know that the border plan still leaves Northern Ireland businesses uneasy, as the temporary measures to ease transition from 1 January only highlight the long-term red tape and costs that will then appear.
Mr Gove’s three-month “grace period” for supermarkets from export health certificates—at £200 a piece—on animal products, and his six-month exemption from meat having to be frozen before export, simply indicate what we will face without a deal, when all goods for Northern Ireland would need import declarations. Northern Ireland trade groups worry that, while Mr Gove focuses on tariffs, it is the bureaucracy created that will change the relationship of Northern Ireland businesses and consumers with those in Britain. Even as Ministers keep repeating the PM’s December mantra:
“We’re a UK government, why would we put checks on goods going from NI to GB or GB to NI?”,
in fact civil servants and business know full well that paperwork and checks are exactly what is coming down the line.
I turn more broadly to the so-called negotiations with the EU, which are sounding more and more like the prelude to a no-deal exit, with the Prime Minister this evening even asking us to prepare for that. We on this side of the House are desperately aware of businesses struggling through the pandemic that do not know whether they will face tariffs in three weeks’ time, or even whether their import/export channels will work.
At the start of Brexit we on this side were worried about workers’ rights and jobs, but today we seem closer to the concerns of businesses—traditionally upheld by the Conservatives—that simply despair at the Government’s disregard for their futures. Again and again over the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, Ministers have said that businesses need certainty—but that is the last thing the Government have provided. It is not simply about tariffs and paperwork; it is about data adequacy, so that information flows can continue, and about driving licences and rules. I have to say that I personally am less than happy about the suspension of drivers’ maximum hours. I do not fancy driving down the M20 alongside lorry drivers who have been driving well beyond their regulated hours.
Nor is the lack of a deal just about the economy. Our security is also at stake. SIS II, Europol and the European arrest warrant are tools that are essential for our safety. And as for waving through changes to customs rules that the Government admit will put the security of the UK border at risk, does the Minister agree that the new customs safety and security procedures regulations sound like a smuggler’s charter, in addition to compromising our border security?
I hope the Minister is not tempted to repeat the nonsense that his colleague in the Commons voiced earlier today, about Labour undermining negotiations by asking these questions. It is the Prime Minister who is undermining negotiations, whether by Part 5 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill or by unrealistic demands that only the EU, and not the UK, must compromise. It takes two to tango. The EU knows where the problem is, and it is not in this Parliament.
Today, Mrs Mordaunt urged
“all colleagues, whatever their political … imperative, to put our nation first over the next few days”.
Hear, hear to that. But please will she also address that to Mr Johnson, so that he puts our nation first, and agrees a departure deal to safeguard our security, our businesses, our consumers and our environment? His words tonight bring no reassurance, as he triggers the preparations for no deal. That is not a good signal to negotiators; it is not a good signal to business.
It is interesting that, after the referendum, Ministers from this Dispatch Box claimed that it was immigration, and the desire to end free movement, that led so many to vote for Brexit. But today we are told it is all about sovereignty—that that is why people voted for Brexit. Sovereignty is a word the Minister uses quite often—but is it a sovereign nation that jeopardises trade, security and well-being by refusing to work alongside our near neighbours and main market?
Ursula von der Leyen speaks of a partnership agreement. Partnership: I like the sound of that. So I ask the Minister, given that there are 27 sovereign member states willing to put their citizens first by supporting trade and engagement, should not the UK be willing to put our citizens first, protecting their security and economic well-being by constructing a future partnership deal that avoids: the food price rises we are warned of; the tariffs on exports; the no entry to EU countries due to Covid, with which we have now been threatened; new driving licences and insurance documents; expensive or unavailable health insurance; customs posts and traffic delays; and threats to our manufacturers who are dependent on imports? Is that really too much to ask from this Government? Will the Minister, even at this late hour, urge the Prime Minister not simply to go the extra mile that he has promised but to go as far as is needed to get a deal that is in the interests of the whole of this country?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip for facilitating a substitution on our Bench, and I am glad that the Minister is keen today. Will the noble Lord allow this House to debate the content of the technical papers as a result of the agreements that have been reached? We know that the Statement in the House of Commons was just one part. The statement from both the Vice-President of the Commission and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was very brief, but it alluded to a series of technical papers that will have far-reaching consequences for the operation of Northern Ireland and GB trade, as well as the other areas that are the responsibility of the joint committee. Will we be able to debate them?
During the passage of the Trade Bill, I have said repeatedly that one of the founding principles of my party was fair, free and open trade. We want to see businesses, large and small, across all countries in the UK, prosper. I do not think anybody could fail to have been moved, listening to “The World at One” on the BBC today, when a businessman in Northern Ireland, representing family businesses, laid bare the reality of the new costs that the Government are imposing on businesses doing their work. He said that, for his business, even with a deal with the European Union, he was looking at extra administrative costs of £150,000 —or, as he put it, four or five people whom he will not be employing.
The totality of these costs was highlighted by the announcement today of a further £400 million, which is going to offset the cost of bureaucracy and business burdens rather than being invested in people and our economy in Northern Ireland.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in the Statement that he wanted to see the border operating model for Northern Ireland
“fully operational on 1 January 2021”.
We know from the euphemisms about a grace period, or, on the border operating model, a phased introduction, that it will not be fully operational. In fact, it will not even be partially operational. It will not be ready. Ministers in this House and the other place have repeatedly blamed businesses for not being ready, when the Government themselves are not. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer specific questions today from across the House.
There was reference during Commons questions on the Statement to new border facilities for Northern Ireland
“in order to ensure that these limited and proportionate SPS checks”—
checks on live animals—
“can be carried out at the port of Foyle, Warrenpoint, Belfast and Larne”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/20; col. 851.]
These are in addition to what we have always had at the port of Belfast, which has typically been checks on live animals coming across from Scotland. When will these four new ports be operational? Why is there the need for this expansion, if the Government’s mantra is that there are no additional checks? What extra checks, other than SPS, will be carried out on goods going from GB to Northern Ireland under this agreement?
The director at the port of Larne, Roger Armson, spoke to the Northern Ireland Assembly in October, raising concerns about the lack of clarity on the new system for IT at the border and the goods vehicle movement system. He said that given that 40% of cargos head south, it is vitally important to secure clarification. There is still no clarification, so can the Minister say when they will be able to have it?
In the Statement, the Minister said that the agreement will
“allow some EU officials to be present at Northern Ireland ports as UK authorities carry out our own procedures.”
This is the first time that foreign entity staff will be supervising UK staff at our ports. Where will they operate from? This Minister—the noble Lord, Lord True —said on 12 May:
“There is no reason why the Commission should require a permanent presence in Belfast to monitor the implementation of the protocol”.—[Official Report, 12/5/20; col. 655.]
We now know that there is, so how will it operate for these foreign inspectors?
The Minister could not answer simple questions with regard to goods that are packaged in Northern Ireland going to GB, and vice versa. He said that there is no clarity in the first phase but he was hoping that there would be some information very early in 2021. He said, “This is what I am advised”. What can he advise the House now as to when businesses will be clear about the information that they need to put on their goods—goods that are either packaged in Northern Ireland or goods that are going to be moved from GB to Northern Ireland? We need answers.
In its paper on Monday this week, the Chamber of Commerce agreed that it needs answers. That paper made grim reading. Of 35 sets of key questions which they had signposted with a traffic-light system, only 11 were marked green—meaning that they have been given satisfactory answers. There were 19 at amber and five at red. One of the red questions was about what food labelling will be in place. We know that there is a grace period but is it purely, as the Statement said, to allow supermarkets to prepare? To prepare for what? Has the decision been made about whether foodstuffs going from GB to Northern Ireland will have to have EU or UK labelling? A grace period is only that if we know what happens at the end of the three months. Where is the clarity?
It is not just businesses that have not had answers. On 12 November, I asked the noble Lord, Lord True, what labelling would be required for goods. I will quote from Hansard:
“My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord on his very specific point about labelling.”—[Official Report, 12/11/20; col. 1141.]
I have not had a response. I reminded the Minister’s office on 30 November and had a courteous reply from his private secretary, saying that the letter had been commissioned and that he would chase it. I still have not received it. It is not only businesses that are not getting answers but parliamentarians.
We knew that there would be no contingency arrangements for Northern Ireland in the event of no deal when the Government made their announcement earlier this year about some of the potential new checks that would be put in place, plus the new infrastructure and new costs on business. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated, we know that there are no contingency arrangements in place for Northern Ireland when the Prime Minister comes to prepare for no deal, so all these questions are valid.
Regarding the rest of the UK and the announcement from the Commission today regarding contingencies, we will potentially have what is often euphemistically referred to as an Australian deal. But even Australia and the EU have an air agreement and a number of agreements that do not require contingencies to be put in place in just a matter of days’ time. The Commission said that the United Kingdom would be subject to these arrangements if they are equivalent. I quote the Commission’s paper:
“These arrangements would be subject to the United Kingdom conferring equivalent rights to air carriers from the Union, as well as providing strong guarantees on fair competition and on the effective enforcement of these rights and guarantees.”
That is the same for air, haulage operators and others.
Will the Government give such equivalent rights, so that if we are to prepare for the worst we can at the very least ensure that there is equivalence for the contingency arrangements that will be in place? That will remove at least one element of confusion on top of other burdens and costs that businesses will have to face in just a few days’ time.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, there was a very large number of questions there, but most appeared to be in the “dissatisfied” column. I know the House finds this not particularly pleasant to hear, but the United Kingdom Government have made it clear for a very long time that we would not accept an agreement that did not recognise the decision of the people of United Kingdom twice to vote for a sovereign separation from the European Union which should involve our right to control our laws, our borders and our waters.
I infer from the noble Baroness’s remarks that the Labour Party would accept a deal that would not provide us with control of our borders, our laws and our fish because the line she put forward was effectively “agreement at any cost”. We are working tirelessly to get a deal. The Prime Minister made that clear. As I said, we have been clear from the outset that we cannot accept a deal at any cost. As has been made clear this week, there are still differences between the two parties. To repeat what I just said, we cannot accept a deal that will compromise control of our money, our laws, our borders and our fish.
I say in response to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that we have been preparing for a long time for all contingencies. We have discussed matters with the devolved Administrations, businesses and affected partners. We have issued advice on a border control operating scheme. We have issued advice to various sectors in Northern Ireland. We are engaged in constant discussions and meetings with those who will potentially be affected. We are also preparing for an Australian-style outcome if necessary. We have invested £705 million in jobs, technology and infrastructure at the border, and provided substantial grants to boost the customs intermediary sector and so on.
The majority of the changes, referring to the impact on businesses, will occur from 1 January 2021 regardless of whether a free trade agreement is made with the EU. Of course, I accept one could always do more to perfect communication, and we are investing an enormous amount of resources to get the case over, to reach businesses and to reach those affected. We are absolutely committed to ensuring businesses have all the information they need to get ready. But I was not sure if the noble Lord was objecting to the idea of phasing the introduction of some arrangements. We believe that that is a sensible and pragmatic approach.
On security, we see no reason why security arrangements should be seriously affected. There is a common interest for all the countries in Europe in relation to security.
On labelling, I may be misremembering, but I believe I wrote to the noble Lord on 30 November with a detailed answer to his question on labelling. If he has not received the letter, I apologise, but I am informed by my office that it was sent.
I was also asked about supermarkets. It is not only supermarkets that we wish to help with the new trader assistance approach; we will reach beyond large operators, but the grace period is offered to supermarkets.
It was implied that EU officials will be issuing directions to United Kingdom staff, but I can assure the House that that is not the case. The House is constantly asking the Government to honour the terms of the protocol, and as the House knows, within the protocol, the EU has the right to ensure and see that matters are being appropriately conducted. But that has never meant, and will never mean, that the EU necessarily has to have an office, embassy or mission building in Belfast. I stand by the comments I and other Ministers have made.
On the announcement today of a new deal for Northern Ireland, the £400 million is on top of other resources announced for assistance with making preparations. So, there is no double counting there; this is new resource.
As far as debates are concerned, both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will understand that that is a matter for usual channels. There will be another Statement on Monday, I believe, but I hear the noble Lord’s comment about a wider debate. However, he will understand that limited time is available.
Looking at the clock, I am not sure whether I am bound by the 20 minute-rule. Last time I went on after 20 minutes, I was told I should not have done. I cannot get used to the rules of the hybrid House. I thought I should answer the noble Baroness first; I in no way meant to belittle the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Of course, I reject absolutely the general comments about the United Kingdom Government’s stance and the accusatory remarks made about the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has been candid, on the one hand, about our position. In a negotiation, each side needs to understand the other’s position. The purported subject of the Statement repeated to the House—the Joint Committee agreement on the Northern Ireland protocol—is a good example of pragmatic co-operation. So, there is evidence that the United Kingdom Government are prepared to seek agreement and negotiate in good faith.
The position, I am afraid to say, does remain, as has been made clear on innumerable occasions—this is not a change or a novelty—that we simply are asking the EU, with the greatest respect, to accept free trade agreement arrangements with us that are similar to those it has agreed with other nations around the world. We do not think that that is an unreasonable request or aspiration. We also ask that they respect and understand the decision of the British people that they wish to have—I make no apology for using the word—sovereign control of their laws, their borders and their waters.
I believe a pragmatic and good outcome is the main burden of this Statement in relation to the agreement on the Northern Ireland protocol. As far as the broader negotiations are concerned, those are continuing, albeit amid the candour on both sides about the difficulties that remain. Let us see how events turn out over the next few days.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. There are 18 speakers listed. I appeal to all noble Lords, out of courtesy to one another and to the House, to be extremely brief. I am sure that the Minister will also be succinct.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Statement and its associated Command Paper are very welcome, particularly as they are evidence that both sides in the UK-EU joint committee are now working together in a pragmatic and friendly way. I congratulate all involved. However, we still have no satisfactory structures in place for parliamentary scrutiny, either of the joint committee itself or of new EU law applying to Northern Ireland under the protocol. What steps is the Minister taking to facilitate such scrutiny?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am a poor and feeble plant, but by standing here I am seeking to assist scrutiny. I understand the broader thrust of the question from the noble Earl, but he will also understand that arrangements for the scrutiny of government across the board by committees in your Lordships’ House is not a matter for the Executive. It is matter for your Lordships’ House and it is not for me to declare. As far as my ministerial responsibility is concerned, I am ready to appear before whatever committee, and this House, at any time that is requested.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, many people will have been very disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, had not a word or hint of criticism of intransigence on the EU side—only of those working to the best of their ability for the interests of the British people. For instance, what about Macron’s stance on fish? By the way, I voted to leave the EU for sovereignty, not for any other reason. This update is welcome. It is not perfect; I am not sure I give it a full three cheers and changes may be required in the future, but at least there was a spirit of compromise on negotiation from both sides. Can my noble friend confirm that the protocol allows for further changes depending on how things work out?
Lord True (Con)
That is certainly true. At the end of the day, the maintenance of the protocol will remain a matter for democratic decision by the people of Northern Ireland. I am grateful for my noble friend’s opening remarks.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Bird, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, all Members of the House are aware that the Isle of Man lies half way between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, yet it has never been a member of the European Union in its own right and is not included in the UK membership of the EU. That relationship is dependent upon protocol 3 of the UK’s Act of accession. That protocol also allows the island to be part of the European Union customs area. Will the Minister double check—or indeed treble check—that the interests of the Isle of Man are covered by and included in this agreement?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will certainly check, as the noble Lord asks. I am not briefed in detail on the Isle of Man but I will make sure that I write to him and that the letter is made available to others present.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My noble friend will be aware of my views on the protocol, which I believe is a dagger pointed at the heart of the union. But I wish to ask him two technical questions. First, the Statement mentions a three-month delay for the implementation of food into supermarkets. What about the majority of goods that travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Are they, the bulk of traffic, getting any help with an implementation period? Secondly, with regard to goods between GB and NI, for normal goods—non-supermarket goods—will there no longer be a requirement to obtain power of attorney, to have a customs-compliant commercial invoice and to make an entry into the TSS system? It is the technicalities and the bureaucracies that are causing business the greatest anxiety.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, on the specific technical points on power of attorney and so on, I will seek very specific responses, and I undertake to write to the noble Lord on that. Obviously, the three-month grace period is to allow authorised traders—such as super- markets, but other organisations will able to partake—and their suppliers to adapt to certification requirements. Alongside that, the Trader Support Service and the movement assistance scheme will provide support across the board.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the limited progress outlined in the Statement on arrangements for the transport of goods, food and drink across the Irish Sea and, in some cases, to or from the Irish border. This was always the job of the joint committee: “pragmatic co-operation”, in my noble friend’s words. However, I would like to know whether some trial shipments by sea and land, and by small and large business—dummy runs, if you like—using the agreed systems, the paperwork, the labelling, the VAT and the tariffs have been attempted across both borders. If so, what were the results?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, so far as individual, specific, in-person dummy runs are concerned, I cannot categorically answer that, but I will find out if I can supply my noble friend with an answer. What I can assure her of is almost daily—literally daily—discussions and consideration at the highest level of the technical and specific impacts of the new regime, or regimes, that come in either on 1 January or in the course of next year. Indeed, the Government have conducted privately a number of specific exercises to test various contingencies.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, today the House of Lords EU Goods Sub-Committee has written to Michael Gove, seeking information on government preparedness which, from the evidence the committee received—and I have the honour to be a member of it—appears to be hopelessly late, ineffective and failing on many fronts. The letter lists multiple concerns: IT, communications, transport, and many others. But can I press the Minister today to answer just one small, but very important, question mentioned in the letter? Will he commit the Government to placing toilets at regular intervals adjacent to the queuing lanes on the M20? Everybody thinks they will be needed—deal or no deal.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not carry ministerial responsibility for public conveniences—
Lord True (Con)
I do not carry ministerial responsibility for public conveniences, if I am allowed to complete the sentence. So far as the planning contingencies for what may or may not happen after 31 December are concerned, I assure the noble Lord that all eventualities are taken into consideration.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, does the Prime Minister now realise that he cannot have his cake and eat it? But I limit myself to the Statement before us, which explicitly asserts that lamb may be sold from Montgomeryshire to Northern Ireland free of any tariff. If that meat is then sold on to the Irish Republic, will it be liable to the 76% tariff for fresh or chilled sheepmeat carcasses applicable in a no-deal scenario? At what point will that charge be levied, and by whom?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the arrangements we are discussing today relate to the protocol and movements between GB and NI and, indeed, NI and GB. Obviously, a future tariff regime between the United Kingdom and the European Union depends on the outcome of free trade negotiations, which are still continuing.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this agreement, which is a significant breakthrough. However, given that Northern Ireland will continue to follow EU customs rules after 31 December, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that in a case where the ECJ seeks to claim jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, Parliament will if necessary be able to assert sovereignty and authority and overrule the ECJ?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, Parliament voted in the withdrawal treaty Act to include a section asserting UK sovereignty. As for the specifics of any course of justice or jurisdiction, it will have to follow the appropriate course, in line with the protocol.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, with the prospect of a deal with the EU fast receding, the Prime Minister’s visit to India next month has the potential for increased trade with the subcontinent. Can the Minister assure the House that any plans to increase food imports from India will respect the human rights of small farmers already reeling from new laws allowing big business to dictate commodity prices?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will not go into the specifics of negotiations with India, although I know the noble Lord has a particular interest and I respect and understand that. The objective of Her Majesty’s Government is to extend free trade agreements as widely as we may, because we believe free trade is one of the greatest sources of the uplifting of poverty and the human condition that has ever been devised. I welcome the recent announcement of a further free trade agreement, with Singapore.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the problems for Northern Ireland business are not solely those relating to the ports. For example, on Tuesday we debated an SI amending the REACH arrangements for the use of chemicals. It is clear that businesses both operating in and supplying Northern Ireland will have to engage in a dual process of registration in both the European and British systems. The arrangements announced today do nothing to ameliorate that. What help will the Government give to users of chemicals in Northern Ireland, and indeed in other regimes that require a duality of approach and therefore administrative costs to Northern Irish businesses?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the movement of chemicals brings particular complexities, as the noble Lord rightly points out, but the Government are committing an enormous amount of resource to the support of Northern Ireland businesses in terms of the movement of goods. That had already been announced. Indeed, I was criticised by the noble Baroness opposite for the scale of support the Government are giving to Northern Ireland and to business generally in confronting the new regime.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
Under Article 8 of the Northern Ireland protocol, Northern Ireland will remain part of the EU VAT regime as well as being subject to the UK VAT rules. In practice, that will increase the amount of debt that businesses in Northern Ireland have to collect, which will in some cases lead to higher payments, with a knock-on effect for the consumer. For those in the second-hand car sales trade, the threat is particularly grave. Cars brought in from GB will now have VAT imposed on the full value rather than on the profits made on the sale. Can the Minister tell us why this disruption to the UK internal market was not prioritised in negotiations and why there is no mention of relief for affected businesses in his Statement? Can he outline what unilateral support the Government will provide to small and medium-sized businesses caught by these damaging rules?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I repeat the very substantial announcements of financial support for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland business that I referred to in earlier responses. On VAT, as part of implementing the VAT elements of the Northern Ireland protocol, the UK and the EU Commission have needed to agree how EU VAT rules will apply in the unique circumstances created in Northern Ireland, where traders will continue to be part of both the UK and the EU system. That agreement has been reached and is laid out in the Statement. Further guidance on these topics is being published for traders.
We have heard a concern raised about the application of EU second-hand margin schemes. Obviously, these changes will not affect stock bought in advance of 1 January, even if it is sold later, but we acknowledge that this is not a long-lasting solution to these issues. We aim to minimise disruption for Northern Ireland traders to the extent possible, and we continue to explore options.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister. To be honest, listening to him, I can hear that he is in an incredibly difficult situation with things moving outside the Chamber. I will confine myself to a single point. Northern Ireland will be treated differently—as it always has been—on the customs union and the single market, while it is out of the common agricultural policy, as the Statement says. My question is simple: what is the position of the rapid alert system for food and feed? Some eight to 10 notifications are issued per day around the European Union. How does Northern Ireland figure in RASFF? Is it out or will it be part of RASFF after 31 December, irrespective of whether there is a deal? Food production per head of population in Northern Ireland is far more significant than in England or, indeed, in Scotland, so it is an absolutely crucial issue for Northern Ireland industries. Will they be part of RASFF or not?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, regrettably, I cannot give a specific answer to that question. I am certain that there is a specific answer and the weakness is in me. I assure the noble Lord that he will get an answer to that question.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am no longer trepidatious about the prospect of leaving the European Union with no deal. If that is the course recommended by the Prime Minister, I will heartily support him.
On this Statement, it is clear that Northern Ireland will remain in some ways subject to the European Union acquis and thus to the European Court of Justice. Will my noble friend agree to set out—no doubt in writing afterwards—a comprehensive and systematic statement of those parts of Northern Irish life that will remain subject to the European Union acquis so that we all have a firm grasp on it?
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I regard this agreement in the joint committee as good progress on a difficult issue and I notice that, in his Statement yesterday, Michael Gove in fact paid tribute to the Vice-President of the European Commission on the pragmatic approach that the Commission had adopted. When it comes to the wider context of our relationship, does the Minister not agree that the Government are making things far worse by insisting on claiming that the European Union is trying to deny us of the sovereignty we have won as a result of Brexit? It is doing nothing of the sort. It is saying that you can have your sovereignty, but if you want to divert from the rules that we presently have, this represents unfair competition. If it represents unfair competition, you have to recognise that the special and privileged access to the single market that this trade deal will give you can be constrained. Why do the Government not simply recognise that fact, rather than harping on about sovereignty? We will have as much sovereignty to diverge as we want, but we cannot have our cake and eat it.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government, as I said at the outset, have asked for nothing more than an agreement similar to the Canada free trade agreement and other agreements that the EU has struck with other nations. It is for the noble Lord to decide, if the EU wishes to refuse that request, whether that is reasonable or unreasonable.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I urge my noble friend and the Prime Minister to push the boat out, so to speak, to get an agreement. If the European Court of Justice is not to be the dispute resolution mechanism for the Northern Ireland protocol, what resolution mechanism does he have in mind?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, on the details of the mechanism proposed under the protocol, as well as the protocol statement that has been made, my noble friend will find that a number of draft decisions are also being laid before Parliament setting out in greater detail the arrangements agreed, which include provision for the settlement of disputes.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we are assured in the Statement that the primacy of sovereignty is now beyond doubt. This sounds very positive to me, but I am not convinced that there are not worrying cracks in the Statement that sovereignty can seep through. I echo noble Lords who asked for more detail on EU intervention, but my main point is that, in debates here and in the other place, it has been suggested that that this agreement was pushed through in order to make a deal possible from the EU’s point of view. Can the noble Lord reassure us that he understands that those “red wall” voters who loaned their votes to the Government did not do so for a trade deal? 2016 was not about a trade deal. If it happens, fine, but it is about sovereignty, and sovereignty is not in trade or in technicalities, as discussed here. Does the noble Lord understand it, as some of us do, to be about democratic control at home and not just about trade? Maybe it is time to walk away in order to retain that democratic, sovereign control.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I find myself between a rock and a hard place, because many of those who have asked questions today have been critical of the Prime Minister for stating what he has said about sovereignty and the need to protect our right to control our borders, to make our own laws and to control our fish. That is a statement that he and the Government have repeatedly made: we ask the EU to recognise and negotiate with us in good faith as an independent sovereign nation, which is what we wish to be. On the other hand, the protocol recognises that we are seeking to be pragmatic, and there are many benefits that your Lordships have not brought out: export declarations have been put in the bin; we have protected supermarkets; and businesses will be able to use VAT returns as they do today, without any burdensome process for splitting some of the issues. So there are pragmatic positives. However, I must tell the noble Baroness that the Prime Minister should be taken at his word on what he is saying.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and, in particular, the straightforward and clear way in which it has been set out. I am conscious that time is limited, so will focus on just the transition period of up to 12 months being granted to industries to ensure the continuity of supply of medicines and veterinary medication. These are vital supplies and I am pleased that they have been addressed at the outset. However, a period of up to 12 months might not be enough. I suggest that a minimum of, ideally, 12 months, with a review after six months, would be better, and I ask for the Minister’s view on this.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will take advice on my noble friend’s suggestions of a six-month review. As my noble friend said, we have sought to secure agreement to a pragmatic approach not only on medicines but on other things in implementing the protocol, but it is particularly important in relation to medicines regulation. It will give industry the time and flexibility that it needs and ensure that medicines, including veterinary medicines, can continue to flow to Northern Ireland. Work is ongoing across government to prepare for the end of the transition period to which my noble friend referred, and we will publish further guidance for industry on moving medicines to Northern Ireland in the forthcoming period.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, first, perhaps I may press the Minister further on where these European officials will be accommodated to do their work at the ports. Secondly, could the trader assistance scheme be extended to independent retailers, many of whom are small supermarket owners? Can further assistance be provided to retailers in respect of the export declarations? Some six months down the road, that could cause major problems for them, to the point where they might be out of business.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Baroness on the question of smaller suppliers. I was trying to look it up quickly, but one has so little time; I think it is paragraph 33 of the protocol statement that refers to the fact that the Government will certainly not discriminate against smaller suppliers. So far as the office is concerned, I responded to that in my first answer. We have always been clear that it would not be acceptable for the EU to establish some kind of mini embassy in Northern Ireland, which is what some in the EU had suggested. The protocol provides for EU officials to be permitted to fulfil the roles allowed under the protocol. Of course, we will not bar the EU from renting office space or accommodation for its staff if it wishes—but there will be no EU flags flying above a brass-plated embassy entrance in Belfast.